We need to view the WH tariffs as a negotiating tool rather than a thoughtful and well planned policy. Exiting now also locking in permanent loss unless one have large gains from previous years. So think carefully and everyone situation may differ.

I don't know much, except what I see; from time to time.
--- The Pimco Enhanced Short Duration, etf; had the first price down days (Last Friday and today) since late 2022.
--- UST issues 2, 5, 10 and 30 year durations had large basis points gains today. The percentage (%) moves ranged from +3% to +4.8%.
--- Many IG bond funds/etf's; after decent YTD price gains recently, have lost about 50% of those gains TODAY.
I'm trying to imagine a progressing action from foreign holders of UST issues selling off UST's. Their mantra being, 'We don't want your junk issues any longer, as you're becoming a failing state'. Of course, if a message was sent to certain folks in D.C. stating that the U.S. might/should consider that 'tariff' thing.

This data is believed to be accurate.

Top Foreign Holders:
Japan: Holds the largest amount of U.S. debt, with over $1 trillion.
China: Is the second-largest foreign holder, with approximately $759 billion.
United Kingdom: Follows China with approximately $723 billion.
Other Notable Holders:
Luxembourg: holds $423.9 billion.
Cayman Islands: holds $418.9 billion.
Foreign Holdings Composition:
Foreigners hold approximately one-third of outstanding U.S. Treasury securities.
The composition of foreign holdings varies by geography, with advanced economies' holdings being predominantly private investors and emerging market economies' holdings dominated by official holdings.
Data Source:
The data on foreign holdings of U.S. securities is based on the Treasury International Capital (TIC) U.S. liabilities survey (SHL).
Types of Treasury Securities:
The U.S. Treasury offers five types of Treasury marketable securities: Treasury Bills, Treasury Notes, Treasury Bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), and Floating Rate Notes (FRNs).
Remain curious,
Catch

Here is a X post from a Shay Boloor, a financial/investment podcaster, that is making the rounds:
MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.
Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.
But that’s not what this is.
That you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.
You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.
Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.
That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.
And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.
I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.
What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.
And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.
You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.
This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.
And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.
You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.
With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.
That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.
Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.
But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.
That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones. So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.
But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.
I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.
It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.
And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate. Because we don’t need more noise.
We need a plan.

@Anna. Woe us and US indeed ... greatest destruction of capital since the airlines.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/06/business/stocks-futures-sunday-tariffs/index.html

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
Futures on the S&P 500, which allow investors to trade the index before regular trading begins on Monday, added to last week’s sell-off.

Financial markets were hit by another wave of selling on Sunday evening, with investors and economists grappling with rising odds of a severe economic downturn caused by President Trump’s significant new tariffs on imports.
Futures on the S&P 500, which allow investors to bet on the index before the official start of trading on Monday, dropped roughly 4 percent on Sunday evening. In oil markets, which also open for trading on Sunday evening, prices fell more than 3 percent — adding to steep losses last week. And the price of copper, considered a broad economic indicator, slid more than 5 percent. The 10.5 percent drop in the S&P 500 on Thursday and Friday was the worst two-day decline for the index since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.
The only other instances of a worse two-day drop came during the 2008 financial crisis and the 1987 stock market crash, according Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices. In dollar terms, the more than $5 trillion that was wiped out in the S&P’s value in the two days last week stands unmatched.
Even more unusual is that last week’s sell-off stemmed directly from presidential policy. Mr. Trump has so far brushed off concerns about the market reaction and potential economic consequences, showing little intention of backing down. “If they’re maintained, the tariff hikes announced April 2 represent a self-inflicted economic catastrophe for the United States,” Preston Caldwell, senior US economist for Morningstar Research Services, said in a blog post on Friday.
Chief executives have begun warning consumers that they should expect prices to increase on some groceries, clothes and other products. Consumers have said they intend to rein in spending on big-ticket items. Some auto companies have already announced production pauses overseas, as well as job losses domestically. Bank economists have raised the odds that a recession will hit the United States over the next 12 months. As countries responded last week with tariffs of their own, the sell-off in financial markets accelerated.
The S&P 500 is now 17.4 percent below its peak reached in February, on course to enter a bear market, defined as a drop of 20 percent or more from a recent peak. The Nasdaq Composite index, which is chock-full of tech stocks that came under pressure as the sell-off accelerated last week, is already in a bear market, down almost 23 percent from its December peak. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies that are more sensitive to the outlook for the economy has fallen over 25 percent from its November peak.
Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, said on Sunday on the NBC program “Meet The Press” that he saw “no reason” to expect a recession.

Comment: "No reason to expect a recession". Ooookayyy...

From James Mackintosh, Senior Markets Columnist of The Wall Street Journal, earlier today.
"The big question for traders going into Monday: How much worse can it get?
The selloff has already been one for the record books."
The 'Trump Thump' will go down alongside 1987’s Black Monday, 1929’s Black Thursday,
the dotcom crash and the pandemic as one of the worst times ever to be in the stock market."
"The two-day fall of 10.5% makes it into fourth place in the worst two-day drops since the S&P 500 was created in 1957. Worse were the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020, the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, and the 1987 crash."

Following are excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
The financial titans who backed Trump are now dealing with the fallout from his tariffs. They spent the weekend surveying the damage of last week’s major sell-off.

There was little rest on Wall Street this weekend. There was plenty of anger, anxiety, frustration, and fear.
Anger at President Trump for a brash and chaotic rollout of tariffs that erased trillions of dollars in value from the stock market in two days. Anxiety about the state of the private equity industry and other colossal funds with global investments. Frustration among Wall Street’s elite at their sudden inability to influence the president and his advisers.
And fear of what may come next. Major banks played out emergency scenarios to guess whether one client or another would fail in the cascading effects of an international trade war.
In conversations with The New York Times over the weekend, bankers, executives and traders said they felt flashbacks to the 2007-8 global financial crisis, one that took down a number of Wall Street’s giants. Leaving out the brutal, but relatively short-lived market panic that erupted at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the velocity of last week’s market decline — stocks fell 10 percent over just two days — was topped only by the waves of selling that came as Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.
Like then, the breadth of the sudden downdraft — with oil, copper, gold, cryptocurrencies and even the dollar caught up in the sell-off — has Wall Street’s biggest players wondering which of their competitors and counterparties was caught off guard. Banks have asked trading clients to post additional funds if they want to continue borrowing money to trade — so-called margin calls that haven’t nearly reached the level of a generation earlier but are nonetheless causing unease.
“It definitely feels similar to 2008,” said Ran Zhou, a New York hedge fund manager at Electron Capital, who canceled weekend plans and put on a button-up shirt to sit in his Manhattan office and read Chinese news sources to get the jump on China’s plans.
There were some bright spots. Several bank and hedge fund executives pointed out that, despite the frenzied selling, trading in the wake of the tariff announcement had so far proceeded without any unexpected glitches, a point that Mr. Bessent also made on Sunday. A senior executive at one major bank also said there was relief after a call on Friday night with the bank’s regional heads and top executives that nobody could point to a specific client in danger of immediate implosion.
The true depth of the impact is yet to be determined. Bank of America estimates that profits for companies in the S&P 500 may fall by one-third if retaliatory levies are enacted by the countries subject to Mr. Trump’s tariffs. But the dire assessments could change, if countries begin to strike agreements with the White House that will lower the tariffs.
Two private equity executives said they expected that market turmoil and souring global relations would make it more difficult for private firms like theirs to raise money, adding to the challenges they are already facing as a dwindling deals market has made it harder to return cash to their investors. Pressures on those firms will only increase as the businesses they invest in begin to feel the impact of tariffs, these executives said. Shares of Apollo and KKR fell more than 20 percent on Thursday and Friday.
One prominent deals lawyer described himself as “flabbergasted” as he grappled with how far the share prices of his clients had fallen. A top Goldman Sachs executive summed up the frustration with Mr. Trump succinctly: Someone has to stop him.
Steve Eisman, the investor made famous in “The Big Short” for having foreseen the 2007-8 housing market collapse, said some humility was in order: “Everybody in the stock market went to college and everyone who went to college took Econ 101 and had it drummed into their heads that trade wars are bad,” Mr. Eisman said on Saturday. He suggested that investors were ignoring the potential that the United States, thanks to its economic strength, may be the best positioned of any nation to prosper in such scenarios.

Financial times “Hedge funds hit with steepest margin calls since 2020 Covid crisis”
Maybe why gold and healthcare dropped on Friday because funds were selling liquid assets to meet margin calls.
https://archive.is/HEuGt

stillers

@linter, thanks for your research and post, providing conclusive evidence of what most of us already knew, Teched1000 is a fraud.
His reply, with two links to nowhere (sic) and his rambling psycho-babble post about general investment BS and references back to 2020 and 2022 (Say what?) are testament to it. You don't have to have 35+ years of audit experience to know that 500+ word responses about everything but the simple question that was posed/issue that was raised indicate, well, in technical accounting terms, bullshit.

First, the 500+ words were my opinion about the markets. If you don't like it move on.
Second, you just crossed the line by saying "fraud, sic, psycho-babble, general investment BS" and should be banned from this site.
Third,I urged people to look at the links that were provided and see the truth.
But wait, stillers, the seeker of truth posted under 4 different names on different sites.
Karen/ Stillers / Arriba / Albie. Any respectable person uses the same one.
The last name was Karen. He claimed that he was married to a financial advisor and then continued to post dozens of opinions that supposedly came from his husband while they were his own.
When I revealed it and posted about it, he disappeared.

A rare look at my account because of what was written about me.
I don't deny or confirm anything more. Too much hassle and time-consuming.
2 attachments (using a snipping tool) from my biggest account directly from Schwab. The other accounts are similar. You can clearly see what I have done; it's the blue line. MM is over 99%.

Since I trade only/mostly bond funds for years, I can hold longer and get out in time.
My 3 best ideas funds in 2025 (HOSIX,NRDCX,CBYYX) were doing OK but nothing much.
I never invested directly in treasury funds; I play it thru HY Munis. Both categories volatility have been too high and why I missed it. That is not a concern because I have enough. My main goals are very low SD, positive yearly performance, and very small losses.
So, what do I see?
First, the big picture. Is it unique? Yes. Global tariffs are unique. Trump was serious all along. Is risk elevated? Yes, for a while already.
The VIX absolute number is important, but the speed is too. Most risky categories are down = another verification.
Bonds: high-rated bonds went up; this is good; it worked this time. Even HY munis did OK. They went up Thur and Fri. The MOVE (bond volatility) also moved very quickly to signal a sell.Another stress sign is RPHIX, it was down on Friday -0.21%.
Second, T/A was verified. We had a small bump in stocks, but it was a short-term one. I mostly use uptrends to verify buys or a switch. After a big meltdown, I use T/A to enter back. IMO, ceilings and floors/support don't make sense because both keep breaking; which is the real true one? Other T/A indicators are useless in predicting the future.
Markets didn't make sense to me for several weeks. When it happens, I sell because very low SD and capital conservation are my primary goals. My biggest "mistake" was that I thought that rates would not go down that much; after all, inflation isn't low enough, and new jobs are still doing OK. The Fed chair, Powell, reiterated it too with no rate cuts yet.
There is no way to know how much more. Selling early or based on an absolute % are my preferred methods because you are late after it starts going down. There is no way to know if it will go 8-10% or 20+%.
Research shows that missing the worst days is better than missing the good days, and most of these good days come after a big dive. See https://fd1000.freeforums.net/thread/14/missing-worse-best-days
BTW, I always sell a huge % early, but I buy back very quickly when my big picture risk + other indicators signal that.
See 2/29/2020
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2
See March 2022
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/thread/1262/make-sense

Barron’s Funds Quarterly+ (2025/Q1–April 7, 2025)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2025/Q1 and YTD to 3/31/25)
(No Supplement – it’s all within the main issue)
(Congratulations to @LewisBraham who seems to be in charge of all features now)
Pg 18: A list of defensive, chaos-resistant funds. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
“Cash”: Money-market and ultra-short-term bond funds
Bonds: BND,CBLDX, FFIAX, FPFIX
Large-Cap-Value: ACMVX, GQHPX, SCHD, TWEIX
International/Global: CIVVX, LVHI, SGENX
Gold-Bullion: GLDM
Alts: BAMBX, PCBAX, QDSNX, QLENX
Pg 20: In 2025/Q1, gold, bonds and foreign stocks were winners. Large-cap-growth and cryptos were losers. SP500 peaked on 2/19/25. There were strong inflows into the money-market, ultra-short-term and intermediate-term bond funds. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
More on Funds & Retirement
Popular dividend-blend etf SCHD has increased its energy exposure to 21% after the recent reconstitution; the next sectors are consumers 19%, healthcare 15%. Alternative ETFs include VIG, VYM, DGRO.
INTERVIEW/Q&A – FUNDS. Sean SUN, Thornburg etf TXUG. The international growth fund has been hurt by its Chinese exposure, but those stocks are now rebounding. He looks for quality and durable growth at reasonable prices (GARP). The Fund includes emerging growth, mature growth and industry leaders. He doesn’t worry about risks to Taiwanese chip industry from China-Taiwan frictions. There are also carveouts for chips in the new US tariffs (25% for S Korea). The obesity drug sector will continue to have strong growth.
RETIREMENT.
GOLD is hot (relatively), but retirees shouldn’t chase it. Gold has had several short-term rallies, but it doesn’t have a good long-term record. For small positions, use gold-bullion IAU, GLDM, SGOL, GLD. In taxable accounts, higher collectibles capital gain rate of 28% applies. Goldminers are catching up in 2025 – GDX, GDXJ. Ignore the ads for Gold IRAs.
Stick to your portfolio allocations and don’t do anything rash during the market turmoil. Keep the money you may need in 1-2 years in “cash” (money-market funds, ultra-short-term bond funds, T-Bills, high-yield savings accounts, short-term CDs).
Barron’s weekend issue has CASH TRACK charts showing 4-wMA of flows.
https://i.ibb.co/4D8Q7Dm/Barrons-Cash-Track-040525.png
Q1 Top 5 Fund Categories (MFOP Quarterly Metrics)

Q1 Bottom 5 Fund Categories (MFOP Quarterly Metrics)

LINK

In March/April 2020, Fed stepped in with monetary policy and Congress with fiscal policy. Helped backstop COVID slide ... and, then massively reverse it. Hard to see either Fed or Congress stepping in March/April 2025.

Note from CrossingBridge on recent market volatility:
Volatility has returned in full force, and while these recent moves may feel surprising, they shouldn’t be unexpected.
The Trump administration has clearly and repeatedly messaged the desire to impose tariffs on trading partners as a source of revenue, justified by their belief in longstanding trading inequality. More importantly, Scott Bessent has focused on the considerable amount of US debt maturities that will need refinancing over the next 12 months. As a result of prior Treasury policy that focused on the shorter end of the curve, approximately $7 trillion of debt needs refinancing in 2025 alone. Bessent is focused on terming out the debt as far as possible and at the lowest rate possible. If weakening the U.S. economy and the dollar is a consequence, he is clearly taking the attitude of ‘so be it.’
As seen over the past few years, investors have been whipsawed in their fixed income portfolios, experiencing drawdowns and volatility typically seen in the equity markets. Should inflation remain sticky (as illustrated by today's payroll numbers), it could put the Fed in a difficult position. Specifically, Danielle DiMartino Booth of QI Research highlighted from Powell’s Special Briefing today that he mentioned “tension” between soft & hard data, and that the word “persistent” replaced “transitory”. Furthermore, we should point out that aggressive U.S. policy may lead to a buyer strike among foreign investors. Alternatively, countries make Trump a phenomenal deal. One might speculate such a deal as tariff-relief in exchange for purchasing 100-year, zero-coupon U.S. Treasuries.
After decades of duration being your friend, we don’t look at duration as a return driver, but rather as an additional risk in the portfolio. We believe it’s essential not to bet on the direction of interest rates, which is completely out of investors' control — but rather focus on what you can analyze. As bottom-up, fixed income value investors, we concentrate on fundamentals such as:
• Cash flow quality and sustainability
• Balance sheet strength
• Liquidity buffers and access to capital
• Sector and issuer-specific risks
• Relative value across the capital structure
For some time, we’ve cautioned that credit spreads were tight and that markets were underpricing both liquidity risk and uncertainty. With corporate profits at historically high levels, and productivity gains increasingly reliant on technological advances, we’ve maintained a defensive posture — overweighting ‘dry powder’ in our portfolios, which aims to serve a dual-purpose: 1) helping protect on the downside and 2) preparing to deploy capital when opportunities emerge.
As spreads have started to widen, we are seeing some buying opportunities, but remaining highly cautious in deploying capital due to the high level of uncertainty.
Please don't hesitate in reaching out to John Conner ([email protected]) if you have any questions/comments.

Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:
Stock-market rout continues as investors rattled by Trump tariffs- S&P 500, Dow and Nasdaq cap dismal day for global indices but US president doubles down on tariff plan

Wall Street suffered its worst week since the onset of the Covid-19 crisis five years ago as investors worldwide balked at Donald Trump’s risky bid to overhaul the global economy with sweeping US tariffs. The US president doubled down on his plan on Friday, insisting he would not back down even as the chairman of the Federal Reserve warned it would likely raise prices and slow down economic growth.
A stock-market rout continued apace, with the benchmark S&P 500 falling 322 points, or 6%, and the Dow Jones industrial average retreating 2,231.07 points, or 5.2%, in New York. The Dow’s two-day slump has wiped out $6.4tn in value, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite, meanwhile, sank 5.8%, and entered bear market territory, having fallen more than 20% since peaking in December.
Over the week, the S&P 500 fell 9.1%, its worst five-day trading stretch since March 2020.
Trump sought to reverse the slide, but an insistence that his policies “will never change” in an all-caps social media post appeared to only reinforce apprehension over his strategy: “ONLY THE WEAK WILL FAIL!” he wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.
China outlined plans to retaliate, setting the stage for an all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies, as other governments worldwide pulled together their response. The sweeping package of tariffs unveiled by Donald Trump on Wednesday includes an exemption for the energy sector, which is a clear sign of the president’s fealty to his big oil donors over the American people, advocates say.
The US market declines capped another dismal day for global indices. The FTSE 100 fell 5% in London. The CAC 40 declined 4.3% in Paris. The Nikkei 225 dropped 2.8% in Tokyo.
“It is now becoming clear that the tariff increases will be significantly larger than expected,” the Fed chair Jerome Powell said. “The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth.”

Comment: SO MUCH WINNING !!!
(Note: Text emphasis added in above report.)

Have not seen this much red in equities since March 2020, when it felt like world was ending. At least IG bonds hanging in there, so far.

The following is from a current report in The Guardian:
Among the biggest losers so far in the massive Wall Street sell-offs are tech stocks, particularly Apple, which relies heavily on China in its supply chain.

Apple is nearly 6% down today, after falling 9% on Thursday – what amounted to over $300bn of its market value, according to the Financial Times. It was the company’s worst day since March 2020, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. The White House went out of its way to confirm that there aren’t any exceptions made for Apple in Trump’s plan.
Projections made by Rosenblatt Securities suggest that the tariffs of China, of which there will be a total of 54% after Trump’s new reciprocal tariffs against the country, could increase the cost of the cheapest iPhone 16 model by 43% – from $799 now to $1,142, depending on how much of the tariff Apple chooses to push onto customers.
The tariffs came despite moves from Apple CEO Tim Cook to try to cozy up to Trump. Cook congratulated Trump on his win in November and was in attendance at Trump inauguration. In February, Apple announced that it would invest over $500bn in US jobs over the next five years, what was largely seen as a play to get Trump to hold back on tariffs.

Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:

BEIJING - China has hit back at new U.S. tariffs with sweeping levies of its own on American products, sharply escalating the trade war between the world's two biggest economies. China's finance ministry said on Friday a 34% tariff will be imposed on all U.S. imports from April 10, mirroring President Trump's levy on Chinese goods that was announced as part of his global tariff blitz on Wednesday.
The research firm Capital Economics said the Chinese retaliation did not bode well for prospects of finding a resolution: "This is an aggressive, escalatory response that makes a near-term deal to end the trade war between the two superpowers highly unlikely," its analysts wrote in a note.
But the new Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods do not bring China's across-the-board levies to the same level as those of the U.S. on Chinese goods. Prior to Wednesday, Trump had already imposed tariffs of 20% on Chinese products, and his latest move took the overall rate to 54%. China had responded to those earlier tariffs with targeted tariffs of its own and other measures.
The latest Chinese countermeasures also included restrictions on U.S. companies and rare earth exports. China's commerce ministry said on Friday it is adding 16 U.S. entities to an export control list, banning them from acquiring Chinese products designated as dual-use, for civilian and military purposes.
"These entities have behaved in a manner that may jeopardize China's national security and interests, and no export operator is allowed to violate the above-mentioned provisions," it said in a statement. The commerce ministry put 11 other U.S. companies on a so-called "unreliable entity" list, effectively blacklisting them. It accused the companies of "carrying out so-called military technology cooperation with Taiwan despite China's strong opposition". Beijing considers self-governed Taiwan a part of China.
The commerce ministry also announced that it is imposing export controls on seven types of rare earth minerals. They include samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. In addition, China's customs administration is suspending some farm product import qualifications for several American companies.
In explaining its retaliatory tariffs, the finance ministry said the imposition of tariffs by the United States is "not in line with international trade rules, seriously undermines China's legitimate rights and interests, and is a typical unilateral bullying practice".
The U.S. action "not only undermines the U.S. self-interest, but also jeopardizes the development of the global economy and the stabilization of production and supply chains," it said.

Closed the remainder of my T/C position for a few hundred bucks gain to preserve (and raise) more capital for buys elsewhere.

https://cnbc.com/2025/04/03/how-did-the-us-arrive-at-its-tariff-figures-.html
From the stable genius..

Lots of posts in social-media are pointing this out - that the figures on what tariffs the other countries charge on the US products aren't supported by the other data available. It looks like the White House just calculated each country's trade deficit with the US as % of its total exports to the US (i.e % trade imbalance).
There is also some humor,
"Manish Singh, CFAManish Singh, CFA
Chief Investment Officer at Crossbridge Capital GroupChief Investment Officer at Crossbridge Capital Group
...
Looks like the penguins just got hit with a 10% tariff—maybe that'll teach them not to rip off the US!
A 10% Trump "reciprocal tariff" on Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI)?
These islands are uninhabited and only accessible by a two-week sea voyage from Australia.
Penguins are the dominant residents.
Looks like the penguins just got hit with a 10% tariff—maybe that'll teach them not to rip off the US!
47% Trump "reciprocal tariffs" on Madagascar? That’s brutal.
Madagascar’s animals won’t be escaping to Africa anymore—looks like their holidays are officially canceled!"
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/manish-singh-cfa-7561092_tariff-reciprocaltariff-trump-ugcPost-7313327434261508096-LgkR?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAAFjCY6wBccxAhzfDGLCwSkfGL97DN413bHU

The following comments regarding Trump's tariffs were excerpted from an AP article published on Oct. 27, 2020.
Although the situation is different this time, historical information is useful in providing some context.
Please limit comments to how tariffs may impact the economy or investing.
This thread is not intended for political diatribes - please use Off Topic for that.
"Trump set his sights on shrinking America’s vast trade deficits, portraying them as evidence
of economic weakness, misbegotten deals and abusive practices committed by other countries.
He pledged to boost exports and to curb imports by imposing tariffs — import taxes — on many foreign goods."
"America’s deficit in goods and services now exceeds what it was under President Barack Obama.
Steel and aluminum makers have cut jobs despite Trump’s protectionist policies on their behalf.
His deals made scarcely a ripple in a $20 trillion economy.
For most Americans, Trump’s drastic trade policy ultimately meant little, good or bad, for their financial health."
"Yet the belligerent approach has made scant difference in the number he cares about most:
The overall trade deficit in goods and services.
It barely dipped last year — by 0.5% to $577 billion, still higher than in any year of the Obama administration.
This year, the gap has widened nearly 6%, with the coronavirus pandemic having crushed tourism, education
and other service 'exports.'”
"Contrary to his assertions, too, Trump’s tariffs have been paid by American importers, not foreign countries.
And their cost is typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Princeton and Columbia universities
have estimated that the president’s tariffs cost $831 per U.S. household annually."
“His administration’s approach has delivered few tangible benefits to the U.S. economy while undercutting
the multilateral trading system, disrupting long-standing alliances with U.S. trading partners
and fomenting uncertainty, said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist who formerly
led the International Monetary Fund’s China division."
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-virus-outbreak-global-trade-trade-policy-mexico-39aadae9a6d18de2b91889f1e552b605