Closing Bell - Stocks Give Up Major Gains And Close Lower 04/08/25

Episode Date: April 8, 2025

Stephanie Link of Hightower and Paul Hickey of Bespoke Investment Group kicked off the show with a look at where things stand and what to watch ahead. Jason Furman, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, discussed the economic impact of new tariffs, Fed policy, and recession risks. Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson weighed in on Apple’s outlook given its major exposure to new tariffs. Janus Henderson CEO Ali Dibadj shared his playbook for navigating rising volatility, and Eunice Yoon reported from Beijing on what’s next from China. 

That bell marks the end of regulation. Argan ringing the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange. Continuum Therapeutics doing the honors at the NASDAQ in a massive rebound rally, losing steam midday, really falling off in the last hour with major averages giving up a 4% rally, closing in the red.

The S&P 500 looks like it closed below 5,000, trading at about a 6% range throughout the day. That is the score caught on Wall Street, but winners stay late. Welcome to Closing About Overtime. I am John Fort. Morgan Brennan is on assignment. Coming up this hour, former Council of Economic Advisers President Jason Furman on the impact of tariffs and why he says even a best case outcome some are hoping for isn't that great.

Plus, Apple closing sharply lower again, slammed by China tariff fears. Noted analyst Craig Moffitt downgraded the stock to sell on January 7th, but is now the time to buy after this latest plunge. Moffitt's gonna join me to discuss, but let's get straight to today's wild market action. Joining me now is Stephanie Link,

Hightower Chief Investment Strategist and CNBC contributor, and Paul Hickey, Bespoke Investment Group co-founder, along with CNBC's own Eamon Javers, with the latest on what the White House is saying about these tariffs. Guys, good afternoon. Stephanie, is a 100% plus tariff for China priced into the market at today's close?

I think we're getting close, but there's still just so many unknowns, to be honest with you, John. And I think that the expectations are, though, getting lower and lower every day. And what I'm trying to do is think a little bit longer term and trying to find some really good quality companies that have had huge declines. The market is down 20% from its highs, but there are stocks out there, number one, number two companies in their respective industries, that are down 25%, 35%, 40%.

And so I'm just looking for companies that are, they dominate the industry, they've got good free cash flow, they have pricing power, but I don't know if I'm catching the bottom or not. I've been buying over the last couple of weeks and certainly that has not been the right move, but I do think for the long term, six, 12 months out, I'll be happy at least that I bought into this decline. I mean, fear and greed, John, is at four. During COVID, it was two. During the great financial crisis, it was 12.

So you're getting pretty close, in my opinion, on a sentiment basis. And today's move, that it was up 4%, just tells you that there was, and then it obviously didn't hold it, but just shows that there's a coiled spring out there. A lot of cuts on people's hands, trying to catch that knife though, Steph.

So you're not alone. Paul, there are fundamentals that get priced into stocks and there's the optimism, the emotion also. We were at a very high level on both tariffs and at these levels where the Trump administration is at least setting them, nominally setting them at this point, would have an impact on both. How much of that,

the fundamentals and the draining of optimism is priced in, you think? I mean, I think you've seen a lot of the draining of optimism as Steph just mentioned with the fear and greed index. Yesterday it was actually at two, so it was the same as it was during COVID. So I think there's a real degree of pessimism in the markets. A lot of it is deserved. Fundamentals, you

can't really determine what the fundamentals are at this point because we don't know how long the tariffs will be in place and what impact that will have and what the ultimate outcome of these tariffs will be, the retaliatory nature. So it's really hard. But what you do have to take into account is the market, we've just seen one of the most rapid declines from an all-time high on record. So the market is down for a reason, and those are the reasons.

You've seen the VIX hit some of its highest levels ever within the Russell 3000. As of yesterday, only 15% of the stocks in the index were above their 200-day moving average. So we've seen these stocks react to what the news is. And it's not just a Mag-7 problem, as the Treasury secretary has mentioned. The Russell 2000 is down just as much as the NASDAQ this year. So it's across the market. NFIB small optimism just saw its largest ever Q1 decline in sentiment. So across the economy and across small businesses, large businesses, there's a high degree of

pessimism. So a lot of that is priced into the market. And if we can see some positive news going forward, just like we saw rumors of yesterday, that's what the market will need to get going to the upside. Okay, Paul, Steph, stick with me. For now, let's bring in Eamon Javers, who can maybe give us a sense on what the White House has been saying,

the messaging from the Trump administration with just a few hours until this next round of tariffs takes effect. Eamon? Well, a couple of points, John. One is that the president is speaking right now in the East Room. He's at an event for an executive order signing relating to coal surrounded by coal miners.

And the visual there gives you a sense of what this administration wants to project, right? This is an administration that is focused on the needs of the American worker on Main Street, not necessarily on Wall Street. They're willing to shake off some of these stock market losses. There you see the president live in the East Room with the coal miners signing this event. We'll monitor that to see if he says anything about tariffs. Meanwhile, the media outlet Semaphore has just published a story in which they're saying

that the president told Republican senators last week he's open to the idea of raising the top tax rate on individuals as part of his tax deal uh... this year in order to pay for uh... some of the more populist tax ideas that he has including no taxes on tips for folks like waiters and waitresses so again that populist theme here with this white house of being focused on workers at the bottom of the economic spectrum, not on the needs of taxpayers, at the top of the economic spectrum.

That tax relief is something that a lot of folks on Wall Street have been looking forward to, and the signal here is from the White House. The President's at least open to the idea of raising taxes on the top end, not lowering them. I spoke to the White House about that. They're not confirming that story because they say if it happened it was a private conversation so they can't talk about it, but clearly that's in the air

today, John, because Treasury Secretary Scott Besson ducked a question by Joe Kernan this morning about exactly that, asking him if the administration is open to raising taxes, which is, you know, something that would have been anathema to previous Republican administrations. Not to this one, which is something that would have been anathema to previous Republican administrations. Not to this one, though, again, for those populist reasons that we're talking about. So we'll watch all that. Meanwhile, we haven't seen the paperwork yet for the tariffs for tonight, but the White House says they're full steam ahead for China tariffs at midnight tonight, and they say

the total tomorrow will be 104 percent, John. Okay. Eamon Jabbers, thank you. You bet. Stephanie Link, how are you approaching the idea of buying the dip at this point? Well, I have been buying the dip for the last couple of weeks and I,

just a month ago I had 9% cash and I have about 1% now because I just think that there are opportunities of getting Best in Breed on sale. Back to sentiment for a minute, the RSI on the S&P 500, it's actually at 23. It's the 12th lowest in 10 years. You know, the VIX last week had the best week, the third best week ever last week. So adding all the sentiment and finding big blue chip companies that are down as 25, 30%. I'm willing to actually feel a little bit of pain

in the short term, because I think longer term, eventually you are going to see the best number one, number two companies rally when we do get a rally. As I mentioned, I mean, it was really discouraging having that 4% gain this morning be erased, but it's not gonna take much, John. So I'm adding to Boeing, I'm adding to Wells Fargo I'm adding to Chipotle meta is a new position for me

I'm getting 19 times forward estimates on meta and they're growing revenues 20% and Margins at 40% and they got 3.3 billion users You know the story better than I do John, but I'm just saying that I'm getting this thing and it's down about 33% from its highs, so that's the kind of stuff. I'm just saying that I'm getting this thing and it's down about 33% from its highs. So that's the kind of stuff I'm looking for, quality, and I think it's on sale. All right, you know the story very well, so I won't compare.

Paul Hickey, cash in equivalence still pays about 4%. That doesn't sound bad to a lot of investors out there. What's the argument for keeping a solid, not just cushion of cash, not mattress cash, but hold onto it cash in case things go lower from here? Yeah, I mean, you always want to keep something, some dry powder on the sidelines. We're going to see continued volatility. As today showed, you don't want to chase rallies, but when you do see a market, you can put in bids with this volatile environment, you

can put in bids 5% to 10% below where a stock is trading, and you can see it get hit at some point during the day. You look at the healthcare sector, which is partially insulated to some of the tariffs' more domestic focus. On Friday, it closed at its most oversold reading ever. So it's close to five standard deviations below fifty day moving average when you see most types of extreme oversold readings in the sector

whether it was part of a market move or a specific to the health care sector going forward the sector again over the last over the following six twelve months did very well a year later was never open average of twenty percent who knows what kind of all to leave or to see in the next uh... over the following six, 12 months did very well. A year later, it was up an average of 20%. Who knows what kind of volatility we're gonna see in the next couple of weeks here, but longer term, if you are conservative with your bids and you don't chase things,

you can end up grabbing some good opportunities. Yeah, in modern history, we haven't had double digit tariffs here in America though. We'll see how that affects things. Paul Hickey, Stephanie Link, thank you. Poor Republicans calling for higher taxes. Life comes at you fast. Now let's bring in senior markets commentator Mike Santoli with a look at how major market declines typically play out. Mike? Yeah I'm sure folks are saying what does typically have to do with it right? There's so many unique

circumstances to this shock and this crisis and we're down 15 to 17 percent in a few weeks in the S&P 500 You know, what can history tells well the rhythms sometimes are very similar And so this is looking at all these so-called waterfall declines of a particular kind of steepness like we've seen recently And this is a Dow Jones Industrial Average going back hundred years or so and all of those declines This is blended average of how they've looked. Now we don't know if we've seen the low if yesterday morning was the low for this move lower it's a couple percent below where we closed today but what you might expect is a very strong rally based on very high volume. Yesterday's volume was a record amazing amount of selling

liquidation happened yesterday that's the case usually around the lows and then right afterward. This morning it looked like we had the makings of this. It was like 90% of all volume to the upside. Obviously, totally fizzle. But then what to expect is a lot of chopping and nervousness and maybe no net progress for a while after in fact the low is there.

You're always gonna doubt that that was the low even after the fact. And then a full 12 months on average to regain what were the old highs after the fact. And then a full 12 months on average to regain what were the old highs before the waterfall decline. So, you know, obviously a lot of variation around this average, but this is the way that you should try to set your expectations

for how this might play out eventually. Mike, talking to you not as John the anchor, but as John the retail investor here who doesn't invest in individual stock, except from Codcast, by the way. Here's what concerns me about looking historically and talking about why things probably won't get much worse from here.

It seems like we've gone through a couple years in the market, maybe even several years, xing out one of them where the argument was, here's why things probably won't get better in the market than they've been and then things kept going up. So if there's a reversion to the mean, how much do these historical trends hold up? I would say that the historical trends probably

do have something to tell us, but just mostly about how the market digests and moves forward from a shock. I don't think necessarily it tells you that the low is probably in. Certainly not on a fundamental level to your point. When valuations really readjust, if we do have a recession, if earnings are on the way down from expectations or even from where we got last year, then usually it's reversion beyond the mean. Right? It doesn't just go back to average. It usually means that we have to build in an extra cushion. I don't think we've done that. There's a world

in which this shock somehow resembles the non recessionary sell offs like 1998 with the hedge fund liquidation perhaps of covid where there was a technical recession but it was also an unprecedented forced closure of the economy. And so a

lot of times back then you would have said what does history have to do with it. We never did this before. So I just want to point out the only reason the market goes down this steeply in this shorter period of time is because it seems like we've never been here before. All right. Yeah. That at least sets the table for us. Thanks. We'll see you again in just a little bit. Now up next, former Council of Economic Advisors chair Jason Furman says that when it comes to tariffs, it will be hard to put the evil genie back

in its bottle. He's going to join me next to explain. And later, is Apple's huge pullback a great buying opportunity or just the start of a bigger tariff-fueled downturn? We're going to discuss with analyst Craig Moffitt, who downgraded the stock to sell in January ahead of this 25% decline. Overtime's back at two. Welcome back to Overtime. Stocks reversing sharply lower today after a failed rebound attempt

with the S&P 500 closing below the 5,000 mark. Now, less than eight hours to go until a major round of tariffs takes effect. My next guest is out with a new piece in the Financial Times. He says the hopeful tariff endgame isn't so hopeful. Joining me now is Jason Furman. He is the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Jason, welcome. So the best pro tariff argument I've been able to come up with is this. The U.S. post-COVID is in the best economic position in a generation versus the rest of the world. So if we hike tariffs even to an extreme now

to force a redesign of the world order, we can withstand the pain longer than any other country and the benefits we see in a couple of years will be worth it. Why is that wrong? First of all, we are in the best shape. So I agree with their premise. and the benefits we see in a couple of years will be worth it. Why is that wrong? First of all, we are in the best shape,

so I agree with their premise. That's why, why would you want to mess it up and rock the boat that created that prosperity first? Second of all, in a trade war with the entire world, they're going to keep trading with each other. So the United States is going to be hurt more than other countries are, because we're doing all of our trade is getting hit.

For them, it's only a fraction of their trade getting hit. And then the third thing is the short run pain is in exchange for more long run pain. Because if we reduce our exposure to the rest of the world, it's gonna be long-term, higher prices, and worse jobs, and slower growth. Here's a problem I see. Say we get what we want,

and tariffs kill factory jobs in Vietnam and Indonesia this year. Say we even get those factories moved to the US where five years from now, robots are doing the grunt work. Haven't we created even bigger trade deficits because there's no human middle class in Vietnam and Indonesia to buy the Nike shoes and hoodies the American robots are making? Look, I think you just got a point.

First of all, for the United States, either we have millions and millions of Americans put to work sewing t-shirts as their main job instead of the jobs they're doing now. These aren't new jobs. This is you get fired from your existing job, you have to make t-shirts as their main job instead of the jobs they're doing now. These aren't new jobs. This is you get fired from your existing job. You have to make t-shirts or with the robots make them, in which case we're not getting jobs. And yes, we're impoverishing these other countries. You know, the core thing about trade is it is positive sum. Both sides benefit from it. When

I go to the store and buy something, I like the thing I buy. I don't mind parting with my money for it. Same thing with trade and with imports. I want to play a little sound bite for you. Touch on the Main Street versus Wall Street question. Here's what the US trade rep said to Congress today. Senator, we're not going to be in a situation where we keep allowing Wall Street to run the economy.

And as we're making that transition company, you know, I'm mr. Greer you just Jason my sense is a Wall Street stock prices in a simplified sense represent our expectations of the future profits of large Mostly American businesses stock prices are down because investors fear tariffs are going to crush profits of big business But big business has a lot of cash, really strong credit for borrowing money. They can withstand tariff pressure much better than Main Street can. So if there were a Main Street index, my sense is it would be tanking even more than the S&P has. Am I wrong?

Yeah. I mean, the thing about the market is it's forward-looking. It reacts instantly based on what it thinks is going to happen over the next six months, year or two. Something like the unemployment rate, it moves more slowly, but we're sure it's going to move up. The inflation rate moves more slowly. My question that was about Main Street.

We're sure it's going to move up as well. What? It's about Main Street, though. There's this idea out there that, oh, Wall Street is concerned about this, and that's these big businesses, but small businesses on American Main Street are going to have a whole different experience from these tariffs economically. Is that your sense? Oh, you know, I don't think there's any Fortune 500 companies that are going to go bankrupt

and cease to exist because of these tariffs. There are lots and lots of small businesses that are going to go bankrupt and cease to exist because of these tariffs, there are lots and lots of small businesses that are going to go bankrupt and cease to exist because of these tariffs. Very few American businesses are American only. You're selling coffee. That coffee comes from abroad. You're selling furniture. That furniture comes from abroad. You're making something. Maybe some of the parts of that go from abroad. We are going to lose small businesses because of these tariffs. How long will it take? It depends on how long the tariffs stay in effect.

If they continue to be this high, but some of them are already starting to close. It's starting right away, but it'll just get worse and worse as they can't tough it out if this continues. I guess either way, we'll see it in the data, see what's true. Jason Furman, thank you.

Sure, thank you. Well, Apple failing at a rally attempt today, along with the rest of the market, after its worst three-day stretch in nearly 25 years. Up next, we'll discuss whether this is a buying opportunity with analyst Craig Moffitt and the CEO of Janus Henderson, which has nearly $400 billion under management, opens up his volatility playbook

for equities, fixed income, and more when Overtime comes right back. ["Overtime Theme"] Welcome back to Overtime. Apple closing sharply lower today, failing at an early rally attempt, and this comes after Apple's worst three-day stretch since 2001.

It has lost more than $700 billion in market cap since the tariff announcement. Now we are less than eight hours from new tariff measures going into effect, including a 104% tariff on imports from China. That is a major production hub for Apple. Joining me now is Craig Moffitt, he's founder and chief, senior managing director

at Moffitt Nathan's. He's got a sell rating on the stock, $184 price target. That's higher than the 172 where it closed today. He downgraded Apple in early January, in part because of tariff concerns. Good call, Craig. So tariffs are like a profit-sucking hot potato. Whoever gets stuck holding it gets their profits zapped.

Now between Apple's assembly in Asia, components from around the world, wireless carriers, Apple has the best power to force others to eat tariffs, but it also itself has the greatest capacity to weather this storm. So what should Apple do? Well, so first, good to be here, John. Good to see you.

Look, this is a fortress balance sheet company. It's got a wonderful consumer brand. No one is suggesting that Apple is on the brink of extinction. The challenge is there are no good answers when you're talking about very high tariffs in a country where not only do you do the vast majority of your production in China, but you've got a 15 to 20-year investment in building the capabilities to have that kind of production in China, and that's simply not replicable anywhere else.

All the production, if it were to shift over to India, would provide less than half of the U.S. demand for iPhones alone. That's a start, I suppose, but you simply can't take a company that has, by most estimates, three million people in China working in the Apple value chain and think you're going to move that to the United States in one, two, three, four, even five years. It's just not possible. If you're going to have a significant regime of tariffs and China is going to be targeted, there aren't good answers for Apple.

You touched on something I want to go back to. I covered Apple for a bunch of years. I would argue it is impossible to make an affordable iPhone in the US in the next five years, probably impossible in the next 10. And that's because even if you use robots to replace those millions of people in the iPhone ecosystem in Asia now, you need a million people in the U.S. probably to run the robots and service them. And the people with the skills to do that live in Asia.

If an automated iPhone factory is possible, it'll probably be built in China before it's built in Arizona, right? I think that's exactly right, John. You can easily underestimate just how much capability development is required. This is not a question of can you pour the cement, and even can you requisition the robots. There simply isn't the capability in the workforce.

And the sheer numbers that we're talking about of people and the wage rates make it untenable to think that in any realistic time period, you're going to shift production here. So in a sense, it seems like, and I could be wrong here, the Trump administration is replacing economic development with tariffs. And normally you would fund higher education,

you would fund, incentivize factory development to build up an ecosystem where these skills would be available, expecting that you plant this seed and 10 to 20 years down the line, you have an ecosystem growing there. Is there a possibility of adding those kinds of economic development incentives onto tariffs and getting there?

I suppose. And by the way, it could work in either direction, right? If you more gradually build up the demand, the demand will eventually create the supply. That is, if there is the demand for jobs, eventually universities and vocational schools and that sort of thing will start to fill the demand. So there's different ways to get there, but when you're talking about sociological developments of that magnitude, those are not three and five year projects.

Those are 20 and 30 and 40 year projects. Craig, should we expect that the profit margins of Apple suppliers get crushed in this process either way? If Apple has to take a hit, I mean, they are very good at telling people who supply them, here's how much you can make. It seems like this is an opportunity for them to do that and that ought to be priced in. I think that's right.

I think, John, if you think about the whole value chain, right, you're gonna start with significant, let's assume you're not stacking all the tariffs of the individual suppliers in China with the eventual additional assembly. But right now you're talking about 100% tariffs, even if that comes down to something more reasonable. Ultimately, Apple is going to be squeezing its suppliers

to try to eat some of that margin compression. They're going to take some of that margin compression themselves. They're going to expect their carrier distributors, the Verizon's and T-Mobile's in the United States and carriers elsewhere in the world, even if they're not part of the tariff regime, to eat some additional cost. And then ultimately, they're going to have to raise prices for consumers. And the report that I wrote this morning for our clients was about the pressure that this is going to create for the U.S. carriers, that there is going to be, because we are in this sort of silent price war already

among the carriers of massively subsidizing handsets, the pressure is going to be significantly higher on the AT&Ts and Verizon's and T-Mobiles in order to try to make their subscriber numbers by more aggressively subsidizing phones. All of that's going to happen and it still doesn't get you to anything like the kinds of profits that you're seeing today at Apple. Right. Usually, the carriers will only do that if consumer demand is strong enough that there's a subscriber number that they have a hope of hitting. If not, they don't see the point.

Craig, thank you. That could be, John, or it could be the other way. It could be that if you're falling short of your subscriber numbers, you get more and more desperate and sweeten the pot more and more. And I think we could well see that for the carriers because remember, you've got an exogenous shock coming for the carriers as well,

which is we're dramatically tightening borders and you could be talking about one to two million fewer people coming into the United States. That could be as much as 20% of the growth rate of the wireless market vaporizing because of immigration policies. The response to that typically is you get more aggressive in promotions to try to stimulate the market.

So it creates ripple effects throughout the value chain. Craig Moffat, good call. Thank you. Time now for a CNBC News update with Pippa Stevens. Pippa? Hey John, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said today the U.S. is committed to taking back the Panama Canal from Chinese influence. He also accused China of weaponizing the crucial waterway.

He held talks earlier today with Panama's government as the U.S. confronts concerns about Chinese commercial investments around the canal. Former New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu will not run for Senate in 2026. Sununu telling local news outlets today that spending years in Washington was not a right fit for him or his family. Just last week, Democratic Congressman Chris Papas launched his campaign for the seat to succeed Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who announced she will not seek re-election. And President Trump's pick to lead NASA

says the agency will prioritize a Mars mission. In written testimony for his confirmation hearing tomorrow, billionaire entrepreneur Jerrick Isaacman, said in preparing to send American astronauts to Mars, the U.S. will have the ability to return to the moon and determine the scientific and national security benefits of having a presence there. John, I'll send it back to you.

Pippa, thank you. Still ahead, Janice Henderson's CEO says investing in times of extreme fear has proven to be beneficial in the long run. We're going to get his playbook for how to deploy cash now. And later, we're going to head to Beijing for a look at the next steps China could take to turn up the heat in this trade war. Overtime, we'll be right back. Welcome back to overtime. Mike Santoli is back with a look at how investors are rushing to position themselves ahead of a possible recession.

Mike? Yeah, John. So obviously still a debate and a fair one about whether we're headed for a recession. The equity market in terms of the types of stocks that are leading and lagging, suggests that there is a higher probability of a U.S. recession being priced in. So this is from Barclays. This basket of stocks that are meant to mimic the type of leadership you'd see in the early part of a recession, obviously have taken a leadership position here over the last few

weeks, let's say since about the beginning of February. Mid-expansion, that seems like the least likely option. Obviously, we're sort of at a mature expansion, if nothing else. And there you see the late expansion has kind of held its value over this span of time. So, you know, it's not to say that the stock market has a perfect, clear, prescient view of how this is going to play out, but clearly it is the more defensive parts of this market in the face of the tariffs, in the face of some of the corporate hesitation you're seeing in terms of investment recently that is now the place to hide, John. So as I look at that chart and I think about

the VIX, is fear a feature or a bug? Should we wait to see if these trends in what investors are buying stay relatively stable even as people get used to whatever the market is doing or is the fact that there's fear part of what's driving this move and we should take a signal from that alone? I think it it all does work together in other words the type of environment where you'd see the volatility index spike which really is just the willingness of traders to pay up for downside protection. That's what the VIX measures mostly, or at least the anticipated volatility of the S&P 500 index

over the next 30 days. Usually, if we're headed for a recession, that's gonna mean volatility is higher. So it is sort of working together. The VIX will work more as a tactical signal. If it has a big spike as we've recently had and then kind of comes down hard. Sometimes that means the fever is broken, but you sort of want to make sure it gets back down toward normal levels. We're nowhere near normal levels

right now. And I do want to point out that for lots of the past couple of years, when it seemed like we were having a growth scare and it seemed like the bond market was fixated on it and was the Fed going to cut a bunch of times. You could look at the consumer cyclicals versus the consumer staples and show cyclicals who were maintaining this lead and said the stock market's pretty comfortable with the macro message. That is less the case right now. I'm going to start thinking of the VIX as the parachute price index. Mike, thank you.

There you go. Yes. Up next, the CEO of Janus Henderson Investors, which manages nearly $400 billion, shares his thoughts on what the failed rally attempt signals, and China, vowing to fight to the end on the escalating trade war with the U.S. Coming up, we'll go live to Beijing for the latest details as President Trump's tariffs get set to take effect at midnight. We'll be right back. We've got breaking news from the White House.

Let's get to our Eamon Jabbers with details. Eamon? John, President Trump is just wrapping up an event in the East Room here at the White House, and he talked about tariffs for a couple of moments during the course of the event. One of the things he said is that he realizes that the tariff impact has been what he said is somewhat explosive, but he said that it was an absolutely necessary thing to do. He said it's amazing what's happening. He said sometimes you have to mix it up a bit.

And the president's saying here that the United States government is taking in about $2 billion a day in tariff revenue since those tariffs have been put in place and obviously more tariffs and more significant tariffs going into place tonight at midnight, particularly those tariffs on China, which the White House says the president will sign and that additional 50 percent that they talked about earlier this week, which was retaliating against the Chinese for their retaliation against the initial Trump tariffs. So overall tariffs, they say now, tomorrow on China will be at 104 percent. The president framing that as an absolutely necessary thing to do, even though it's been, as he says, somewhat explosive.

And I also just talked to Stephen Miller, who's one of the chief architects of the president's tariff plan. Miller framed this as a generational project, John, that this is something that has been needed to have been done for generations to protect American workers. It hasn't been done. And this administration, he said, is willing to take some pain to do the job.

So they are full steam ahead here at the White House, even though I'm sure there are folks in the market, John, who are looking for any hint of a change of direction here. No indication of that at all from all the officials, top to bottom here at the White House. You can be quite sure, Eamon, for the way the major indices have been moving. Eamon, thank you.

You bet. Well, stocks tried for a rebound this morning, but finished near the lows with the S&P 500, trading in a 7% range, closing below 5,000. So how should investors navigate this environment? Joining me now is Ali Dabaj. He is Janice Henderson, Investor CEO. Ali, we need your help.

I think we all need some help. So for investors particularly, whose portfolios have been overly weighted toward risk and probably equity risk? We know they're out there because of the surveys that have been out there. With the market already down this much, how do you fix that?

Let's assume you have to sell to buy something else. Do you rebalance now or do you wait and do it on the way up, assuming there is a way up soon? Well, look, I think with all the re-retaliations and the movements that there is just an enormous amount of uncertainty right now for sure. My view is, Janice Henderson's view is, that in every situation, even the situations we are right now, there's an opportunity to rebalance within one's portfolios,

within what stocks one's owns. Looking for very high quality stocks that were perhaps too expensive before, now have come down a little bit. Investing in those for the longterm makes sense. Really separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of that. I think you have to stay quite invested,

but stay active in your investments. And there are real opportunities in tech stocks, for example. Some tech stocks will do better than others. All of them have been pulled down. So reallocating between those, I think, makes a lot of sense. Small and mid-cap stocks in particular, where there's real innovation that you believe in, in biotech stocks, where there's real innovation

that you believe in over the long term, that maybe was a little bit out of reach, I do think there's a rebalancing that can certainly happen along those ways. Geographically too, we were just talking about it. I think geographically over-invested in the U.S. is typically what folks have been doing. Looking at international opportunities,

that diversification, certainly the equity side will bring you benefit as well. Now tell me about fixed income, particularly with the possibility of rates, tax rates rising on wealthier individuals. Fixed income hasn't been that sexy. People have been shifting toward equities, but rates look like they're staying higher for a while.

Munis can lend some protection. How are you treating those? Yeah, I think you're exactly right on fixed income. Hasn't been the flavor of the day for quite some time. I think it is now. It certainly gives you a yield that seems to be there for quite some time, but also looking at within that where the high quality fixed income pieces are. That can be in securitized areas.

So for example, we have a triple A C L O. Triple A C L O's have done extraordinarily well over very, very long periods of time. That's a place to put money in for sure. Even plain old boring corporate investment grade securities might be a place to put extra money. I do think fixed income is quite attractive overseas as well. Emerging market debt, even with all these gyrations, the sovereign debt that's out there gives you better returns and still okay risk spectrum right now.

So I think there's a lot of movement that one could put into play. But again, you have to stay active. You can't just put into a passive index and hope for the best. The tide will not lift all boats. You really have to spend time thinking through wheat from chaff and look candidly at Janice Henderson, that's what 340 people do every single day on investment teams.

Tell me about this Guardian Life Insurance Company deal that you guys just did and the big picture that investors should know about that really tells you that that kind of a deal with an insurance company in this environment makes sense. Well, I'd say a few things. Number one, great deals are still gonna happen. No matter what happens from an uncertainty perspective,

no matter what happens out there in the marketplace, deals that really make a lot of sense, partnerships like Janice Henderson and Guardian will continue to happen. This partnership makes perfect sense because it really supports Guardians, which is a large life insurance company, employee benefit company,

one of the most respected in the whole world and in the US. They're delivering for growth for their policyholders and delivering great returns for their policyholders. Matching up with Janice Henderson that has that expertise makes this deal a match in heaven. What we wanting up with Janice Henderson that has that expertise makes this deal a match in heaven. What we want to do with Janice Henderson is grow our business and grow our business in particular in insurance.

We have plenty of insurance clients. Post this deal, we have north of $100 billion in insurance assets that we manage. We think this allows us to grow that business even further to the benefit of Guardian and to the benefit of our other insurance clients as well. Ali, thank you. Thanks, John. Ali D thank you. Thanks, John.

Ali Dubaaj. Well, President Trump's tariffs kick in at midnight, and more could be on the way if China doesn't back down from its trade war retaliation. Up next, we go live to Beijing for the latest details. And check out one earnings mover this hour, CalMain. We are not comparing estimates because of thin coverage, but the company did say egg prices were up 81% year over year, eggs sold were up 10% year on year. We'll be right back.

It is almost 5 p.m. Eastern, and we are just hours away from President Trump's reciprocal tariffs taking effect. China is showing no signs of backing down from its retaliation. Eunice Yoon is in Beijing where it's almost 5 a.m. with the latest details. Eunice? Thanks, John. Well, China refused to succumb to what it described as President Trump's blackmail by removing the additional 34 percent tariff on American goods by now. Instead, Beijing was focused more on the next steps and messaging about it through two influencers.

One is linked to the state news agency Xinhua and the other one a nationalist blogger. So both of them came up with lists that were identical next steps. So they are to suspend cooperation on fentanyl, ramp up tariffs on farm imports in states friendly to President Trump, ban the import of U.S. poultry, target U.S. services in China, so this is finance, legal services as well as consultancies, cut or ban U.S. film imports, and then investigate U.S. firms' intellectual property gains in China, citing Ford CEOs praise recently of China EV technology. So separate to that, China guided down the yuan to its weakest point in 18 months.

And that was really seen as a signal by many here that we could be seeing a bigger devaluation to come. John? You know, as I was watching CNBC Asia last week, many here that we could be seeing a bigger devaluation to come. John? You know, as I was watching CNBC Asia last week as all of this was starting to unfold and someone shared what I thought was an interesting saying in crisis, the strong do what they can, the weak do what they must. Does that resonate with the way you see China responding here versus some smaller countries? Yeah, well, you know, it's interesting because it seems as though the method of the Trump

administration is to just layer on a lot of pressure to China, assuming that the Chinese government is going to break and then come running. And that is kind of exactly the opposite of the way the Chinese government would work. The Chinese government, especially with President Xi Jinping in power, would not want to be seen as weak, even if they feel like they might be on the back foot. So instead, you know, they do not want to look as though they're weak in the eyes of the Chinese public. So that is one big issue.

I think another big issue is the fact that it's not very clear from the Chinese perspective what President Trump really wants with these tariffs. Is this about the trade deficit? Is it about fentanyl? Is it about bringing back the factories back to America? So it's very unclear as to what the Chinese would want. And so whether or not they would actually get a go to the negotiating table, even if they want something, is still a big question mark.

A new era at noon China time, Beijing time, and midnight Eastern. Eunice Yoon, thank you. Well, stocks are racing a big relief rally ahead of the midnight tariff deadline Eastern here. Up next, what that failed comeback could mean for your portfolio tomorrow. Be right back. big relief rally ahead of the midnight tariff deadline Eastern here up next. What that failed comeback could mean for your portfolio tomorrow. Be right back. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to overtime. So how wild was today's session? Well, it was the first time since October of 2008 that the S&P 500 moved 4% higher and ultimately, it was a big relief rally. And we're gonna be talking about the S&P 500 and the S&P 500, and we're gonna be talking about the S&P 500 So how wild was today's session? Well, it was the first time since October of 2008 that the S&P 500 moved 4% higher and ultimately closed lower on the same day.

It is now the worst four-day sell-off for the index since the heart of the financial crisis. Mike Santoli rejoins me now. Mike, that's today, but I wanna talk about tomorrow. Markets in Asia are going to be trading overnight as these tariffs are scheduled to take effect around 3 a.m. European markets will open. To what degree, do or don't the U.S. markets take some cue

or signal from what happens there? Well, John, conventionally, traditionally, it's the other way around. The U.S. market tends to be the lead market. Overseas, often, is the catch-up. Might be a little bit different. Now, obviously, US overnight equity futures will be trading starting at 6 p.m. and through the night.

But I do think what's interesting, perhaps, to watch tonight is whether we get differentiation among the Asian markets and then, of course, in Europe because of the different approaches that we're hearing about in terms of resettling trade terms if there's negotiations with South Korea and Japan in the US and then of course China it's much more of a standoff situation and escalation. So looking for that also just keeping an eye on the lows from Sunday night into Monday morning in the US equity futures to see if those hold or maybe not or are tested. That was just above like 4830 on the S&P 500 index futures.

US retail investors have had a reflex to buy the dip. You think that's wearing thin? I think you should hope that it wears thin. I honestly think you want to see some give up in that muscle memory for a while to see if we get a real flush out there. You don't necessarily want people to buy into every potential rally and then have them squandered. Tough thing to wish for but okay Mike Santoli thank you that's going to do it for overtime. Fast Money starts now.