The impact of Trump’s announcement – made on Truth Social on Sunday – could be observed in general terms, with Health Care being the worst performing sector on the ASX, down 1.17% on a mixed trading day.

Unsurprisingly, a cluster of companies followed the trend, with Neuren Pharmaceuticals, Telix Pharmaceuticals and Clarity Pharmaceuticals being noted as some of the bourse’s worst-performing stocks early on in the session, dropping 8.05%, 8.04% and 7.20% respectively by 14:25 AEST.

In his social media post, Trump said he wanted to bring prescription drug prices in the United States into line with those in other high-income countries, and promised he would sign an executive order to that effect on Monday.

Although he did not provide much detail about how the pricing would be shifted, the President said his policy would drive towards a ‘most favored nation’ framework, with prices to drop by between 30% and 80%.

“They will rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!” he said.

“I will be instituting a MOST FAVORED NATION’S POLICY whereby the United States will pay the same price as the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World.”

As it is now, customers in the US pay the highest prices in the world for many prescription drugs.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

“Don’t panic. The worst thing you can do now is crystalise a loss,” says Andrew Baxter.

Baxter is an investment advisor, educator, author, and regular HotCopper commentator. In this interview, he discusses what’s been happening in markets this week – and how to handle the volatility as an investor.

We explore whether it might be time to buy the likes of CBA (ASX:CBA), BHP Group (ASX:BHP), Santos (ASX:STO), and Woodside (ASX:WDS).

Baxter also talks about Australia’s underlying inflation issues, the cost of living crisis, and what Trump’s tariffs might mean for interest rates.

For more info about Andrew Baxter’s Money and Investing series you can go to his regular podcast; read The Wealth Playbook: Your Ultimate Guide to Financial Security and The Wealth Playbook on Audible.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

Disclaimer: Wealth Magnet Pty Ltd (ABN 52 618 868 830) trading as Australian Investment Education is a Corporate Authorised Representative (CAR no. 1255231) of Grange Financial Services Pty Ltd (AFSL No. 488609).

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Listen to the HotCopper podcast for in-depth discussions and insights on all the biggest headlines from throughout the week. On Spotify, Apple, and more.

The 36-point questionnaire was sent in mid-March to researchers whose projects – across a range of disciplines, including the medical and physical sciences, foreign aid, and defence – involve collaboration with U.S. scholars and institutions.

Several topics broached in the document refer to Donald Trump’s broad policy of pushing back against what he refers to as ‘woke ideology’ – as manifested in his executive orders recognising only two genders, and banning programs and grants connected to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).

To wit, the questionnaire asked whether the target research related to DEI, if it complied with Trump’s two-gender policy, and whether its participants were receiving funding from Russia, Cuba, China, or Iran.

While scholars were often asked to explain their research, especially in connection with funding, this new line of questioning hasn’t been broached before – and certainly not in this way, University of Sydney international relations expert Dr Stuart Rollo told HotCopper after the questionnaire was sent out.

“The questionnaire is totally unprecedented, as far as I am aware,” he explained.

“As part of the process of applying for grants from American government [and other] institutions, applicants will often be asked to describe how their project advances gender equity, principles of environmental sustainability, and things of that nature.”

“But,” he continued, “I have never seen a retroactive questionnaire with such directly politicised conditions applied broadly across institutions.”

While funding was sometimes restricted for projects involving partners from countries like China, Iran, or Russia, Mr Rollo explained, this questionnaire’s direct reference was quite unusual. “Nothing of such a sweeping and immediate nature” has been seen before.

Given the United States is Australia’s biggest research partner – with our universities receiving $400 million in funding from the U.S. government in 2024 – it is important that we figure out where the Trump administration is going with this, and how Australian institutions should position themselves.

While the President’s culture war rhetoric is not new, nor unexpected, Dr Rollo says it’s important to remember much of the sentiment underpinning it was supported by people both in the States and Australia.

“The reality is many regular people in Australia and the States do see universities and other ‘elite’ institutions as embodying a sort of vanguard progressive politics that they feel is out of step with the values of society more broadly,” he said.

“The Trump administration is using this sentiment to push a much more radical policy.”

More market news

Never-ending: And just like that, Trump’s tariffs are back causing more market chaos

Meet GeoGeorge: The HotCopper poster so accurate he got hired as an analyst

The starting point of all this, he added, was the belief – among Trump and loyalists such as Steve Bannon and Elon Musk – that universities, media, and the public service are parts of a “permanent bureaucracy” (or “deep state”) influencing how societies develop, outside of simple electoral politics.

“DOGE, cuts to foreign aid, countering ‘woke’ education etcetera is not simply about prosecuting a conservative vs progressive culture war it is about the executive branch of the US government waging all-out war on a range of other institutions of power in our society that tend to balance executive power out,” Dr Rollo said.

He added: “This extends to the judiciary and many other fields as well.”

The questionnaire also says something about how Trump and his gov’t are planning to interact with the rest of the world and its institutions: A tendency on display during his tumultuous meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and in the administration’s proposal to secure critical minerals in that country.

“The Trump coalition has a radical view for the future of the United States and the structure of the global order,” Dr Rollo said.

“It’s about moving away from a complex system of institutions and alliances that operate under American leadership – sometimes seen as the ‘American Empire’ a.k.a. the ‘rules-based order’) towards a system of exploitative hegemony, where the U.S. relies much more on military strength, coercion, and other ‘sticks’ rather than ‘carrots’ to ensure the compliance of weaker states and secure as much of the global economic pie for itself as possible.”

When it came to initiatives such as this strange new questionnaire – and the potential threat to research funding which it represents – Dr Rollo said it was unlikely to benefit the United States in the long term.

“As far as funding to Australian institutions goes, the Trump administration seems to have a very unsophisticated understanding of American soft power,” he said.

‘They are doing a great deal of damage in a very short time to a set of arrangements that, whether you agree with them in terms of cultural values, serve to promote American national interests and influence here and elsewhere around the world.”

Depending on the discipline, there were swathes of academic research that would likely be impacted by Trump’s approach. “It is likely to reshape research in the social and political sciences a fair bit, perhaps public health too, but not a great deal in the hard sciences, computing etcetera,” Dr Rollo added.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. – then led by Joe Biden – was one of several countries which provided military, humanitarian, and financial aid to Ukraine in addition to military intelligence.

But much of this hangs in the balance in the wake of the Oval Office meeting, in which President Trump – long noted for his closeness to Russian leader Vladimir Putin – accused Zelensky of not quite being sufficiently grateful for U.S. support, and told him he was “gambling with World War Three.”

Vance followed by asking, “Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting? No.”

Departing the White House, Zelensky went to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London for a summit there on 2 March to discuss how European nations – alongside Canada – could contribute to Ukraine’s defence during the war.

But questions remain: What this support will look like long term, how these countries might configure themselves around the U.S. if it cuts off support to Ukraine – and how that country might avoid such a consequence.

Making things right with Washington certainly seems to be on Zelensky’s agenda: A few days after his confrontation with Trump and Vance, he used social media platform X to express regret about how things had gone, and underline his commitment to diplomatic engagement around the war.

“Our meeting in Washington… did not go the way it was supposed to be,” he wrote. “It is regrettable it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”

Zelensky added Ukraine was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” stating he’s willing to work under Trump to secure this.

Crucially, he said he was still willing to sign a deal with the United States for the proposed development of Ukrainian critical minerals, which had been on the agenda of his meeting at the White House the previous week.

It is not yet clear whether these overtures would be enough to overturn Trump’s suspension of all aid to Ukraine, nor a more recent announcement that claimed the sharing of military intelligence was also on hold.

The latter was announced by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and followed by comments from CIA Director John Radcliffe on what Zelensky needed to do to reverse the policy.

Radcliffe claimed Trump “had a real question about whether President Zelensky was committed to the peace process, and he said, ‘Let’s pause, I want to give you a chance to think about that.'”

One of Trump’s major claims amid these tensions is that the United States has taken on an “unfair burden” – compared to European countries in particular – when it comes to providing support to Ukraine.

And if analysis is confined to military spending alone, this is certainly the case.

According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a Germany-based research body scrutinising global issues, the U.S. contribution to military aid in the past three years is the equivalent of €64 billion, compared to €62 billion from European donors.

However, the trend is reversed when it comes to financial and humanitarian aid, with European sources allocating €70 billion to the US’ €50 billion. This also means the European contribution is higher overall.

Indeed, in a news report published as recently as February 14, the Kiel Institute argued “European donors have been the main source of aid to Ukraine since 2022, especially when it comes to financial and humanitarian aid.”

Altogether, it estimated Ukraine has received €267 billion of aid in the past three years, amounting to €80 billion a year. Of that, 49% was defined as military aid, 44% was financial support, 7% was humanitarian aid.

The Kiel Institute also suggested Trump’s election would be likely to keep U.S. contributions behind those of Europe after being overtaken by the latter in mid-2023, with European governments under pressure to step up their support initiatives.

Also noted was an increasing trend of collaboration between European nations for the provision of military weaponry, including the U.K.-led International Fund for Ukraine which combines contributions from multiple countries to buy military equipment for Ukraine, with a total allocation of €1.6 billion.

The majority of military aid across all donors had been sourced from existing arsenals, but more recently, weapons came to be sourced direct from industry.

While Trump’s decision to cut off military funding and the provision of intelligence to Ukraine present a significant setback for the eastern European country, it appears several of its other allies are intent on formulating a plan for its defense even beyond a peace deal.

At the March 2 summit – called by Starmer – the leaders of 18 countries, mostly in Europe, developed a four-point plan to reassure Ukraine of their support.

These included a pledge to continue providing military aid to the country, alongside economic pressure on Russia; a call for Ukrainian sovereignty to be recognised in any future peace talks; calls to boost the country’s defence capabilities even after peace was reached, to stave off a possible invasion; and agreement to form a ‘coalition of the willing’ to secure long term peace for Ukraine.

After the summit, which had been called just a week earlier, Starmer underlined the significance of this moment, and the decisions needing to be made, saying: “We are at a crossroads in history.”

While stating in the future, Europe might have to do the heavy lifting when it came to support of Ukraine – something which in the British case could involve “boots on the ground and planes in the air,” he acknowledged any agreement would need support from the U.S. – and has to include Russia.

Additional U.K. support was announced after the summit, comprising a £1.6 billion package of export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defence missiles, which would be built in Belfast.

This will add to an already announced loan of £2.2bn loan for more military aid, which has been backed by profits taken from frozen Russian assets.

With French President Emmanuel Macron, Starmer has also been progressing diplomatic efforts to secure peace, with both leaders separately telephoning Zelensky and Trump to finalise a deal in coming weeks.

No matter what happens next though, it will be a busy, and tense, few weeks ahead.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

And while some of the ‘headwind’ trends are likely to continue – notably, questions around the strength of the Chinese economy and closer to home, the drag of domestic inflation – there are new ones to consider, such as a new U.S. presidency led by Trump.

At the same time, the drive towards clean energy, and new technological offerings is also likely to influence equity markets, largely on the upside.

Talking to HotCopper, David Harvie – Country Head of Sales for Saxo Markets Australia – reflected on the equity market’s performance throughout 2024 and shared his predictions and advice heading into 2025.

Generally strong returns were the most obvious overall trend.

“Anytime, anywhere, if an investor could sit down and say they had achieved double-digit returns, including dividends, in a portfolio, that’s a positive from an absolute perspective,” Mr Harvie explained.

He added certain sectors – such as banking – had also enjoyed a positive run, but warned Aus equities had also been burdened by both national and international factors.

“There were some headwinds as well: Domestic inflation, which we’re all acutely aware of, [and] commodity prices struggled,” Mr Harvie said.

“Those iron ore prices that we all watch very closely struggled, China has had its concerns, and oil has really gone nowhere.”

Investors should also be aware that the size of the Australian equity market – and what it “doesn’t have much of,” according to Harvie – will also shape returns.

“While our tech sector did really well, it’s just not big enough to have a material impact on the broader returns,” he said.

“If we flip it and look to the U.S. as a prime example, they were two and a half times that – or 25% – and that’s on price, not including dividends.

“Japan was in the ’20s with its accommodative policies, and European defence stocks are another example I’d point out.”

One trend that was likely to continue into ’25 was the strong performance of gold; supply of this commodity remained tight, Mr Harvie shared, expressing confidence in the possibility of silver outperforming expectations.

“The divergence between the two might be worth clicking on,” he said.

“On the negative side, unfortunately, we still see struggles for the Chinese economy and we see knock-on effects from that.

“We see a supply glut for oil – so those more traditional resources may struggle in the Australian context.”

However, a standout trend for investors to keep an eye on Down Under was the performance of metals associated with the ‘electrification of the globe,’ such as copper, lithium, and other critical minerals.

“I think a lot of investors are just focused on the demand piece, which seems to be very strong when it comes to electrification,” Mr Harvie continued.

“Lithium as an example is probably something that one would – also on the flipside – have a look at the supply equation and how that’s playing out.”

Of course, Australian and global equity markets ended 2024 with a striking influence to consider when it came to economic and political shifts, with Donald Trump becoming U.S. President for a second time.

Mr Harvie noted the moves and positioning seen on markets even before Trump’s second term began were noteworthy in themselves.

“Certainly in my lifetime I cannot recall in general media a more active conversation about an incoming President, so I think that’s instructive, and I think that goes beyond the personality, and more towards the potential policy,” he said.

“The second thing [to note] is arguably the ‘smart money’ – institutional money and retail money – has started to position portfolios ahead of the inauguration.

“So we’ve seen a tremendous run-up in Bitcoin, for example, we’ve seen a tremendous run-up in AI, albeit with some pullback with DeepSeek over the last week or so.”

Regarding the knock-on effects to the Aussie market of potential and already announced policies, tariffs with China were pointed out as a major issue.

“If we think about it from an Australian perspective, if all of a sudden an embargo or trade restriction around one of our largest partners China, what will be the knock-on effect for us,” Mr Harvie said.

“That could be quite a hindrance, again, when it comes to our resource-rich market.

“What will be the impact to labour markets is if there’s a reduction in immigration or indeed deportation… that’s something I would point to as well.”

At the same time, some of Trump’s policy pushes – such as the suggested annexation of Greenland – reflected more fundamental concerns about acquiring and retaining essential materials to facilitate growth in domestic energy resources.

“He’s talking about annexing Greenland. Why? Because of that critical minerals piece there,” Mr Harvie said.

“And when you pull all that back, ‘Make America Great Again’ is another way of saying, let’s bring sovereignty back home, let’s bring resource production back home, and make sure we’re self-sufficient as an economy.

“And that’s happening globally. The struggle for the Australian market is we just don’t have the scale to be able to do that – we are so reliant on our trading partners.

“An investor here should be quite careful and sector-specific for the Aussie market, but also as we say… turn one’s eyes abroad and start to look at those other global thematic, [the] industries and sectors which should probably benefit from Trump 2.0, and those other macro-economic factors.”

Turning to trends among global tech stocks, Mr Harvie highlighted the fascinating (or horrifying, depending on your perspective) story of Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, whose launch wiped out U.S. technology stocks including sector darling and market-leading marker Nvidia only a week ago.

The issue, he said, was that many of the top tech stocks were not prepared.

“Those stocks are almost priced for perfection… they’re priced for solid growth and lack of a player like DeepSeek coming along, and that’s a mini–Black Swan event,” he said.

“That’s why you saw prices take a tumble very quickly. On the flip side, 48 hours later, a reasonable amount of those prices has been made back.”

But the DeepSeek story might also give impetus to other companies wanting to jump into this space, he added.

“It also goes to the fact that where there’s super normal pricing power, we’re probably going to see – in fact, we’ve already started to see with DeepSeek – some of that attention towards [the narrative of] ‘how can other companies, other countries get in on the act?’,” Mr Harvie said.

For investors, such an event could provide guidance when it came to picking stocks.

“It’s back to investor basics 101: Where am I invested? What assets do I have? Where am I invested globally, and what themes do I subscribe to?” he added.

“That’s a top-down approach. The bottom-up approach is then obviously picking the stocks that live within that and ensuring that those stocks that one has picked represent an adequate proportion of one’s portfolio.

“If you’re over-indexing in Nvidia or whatever the case may be, you do run the risk of the next DeepSeek coming along and mucking around with your returns.”

Looking at the equity market as a whole, Mr Harvie said the keyword – even if it was a tad overused – was “diversification.”

“I think that term gets thrown around a lot, and maybe as a trader or investor, we’re a bit blasé when we hear it,” he said.

“But if we think about it, how that translates is really tapping into what’s happening in the real world. What’s happening in the real world is nations are bringing capacity home, they’re bringing chip-making home, energy production home when they can, and that’s very relevant with large economies like the U.S.

“It’s also relevant in Europe: We’ve seen NATO countries leaning into their defence capacity on the back of what’s been happening with Russia, but also Trump coming in and demanding those countries spend an X amount of their GDP on defence, which is why we’ve seen that be such a strong performer globally in 2024.”

Alongside these macro themes would be the likely vibrant performance in precious metals, and the importance of energy sources and the stocks and sectors attached to that.

“My advice would be [to] go back to macroeconomics, look at those global themes and see how you can position your portfolio to best take advantage,” he said.

“Not just geographically on the map, but asking ‘where can I gain access to those underlying themes?’

“Then, look up and pick some individual stocks or ETFs from there.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Trump’s pro-Bitcoin stance—an exciting contrast to the previous administration’s cautious approach—has fuelled optimism across the crypto landscape. Many now see this as a pivotal moment for crypto growth, regulatory reform, and renewed investor confidence in digital assets.

With Bitcoin at record highs and momentum building, one question looms large: Is this the perfect moment to hop on Bitcoin’s ride to $100,000?

Throughout his campaign, Trump actively championed Bitcoin, even proposing a ‘Bitcoin reserve’ to position the US as a global leader in crypto. His commitment to replace SEC Chair Gary Gensler, often seen as a regulatory hurdle, signals a potentially more favourable environment for crypto innovation. This shift could attract traditional investors, allowing more capital to flow into digital assets with fewer barriers. Trump’s focus on strengthening US-based Bitcoin mining also hints at enhanced network stability and reduced dependence on foreign mining hubs.

Analysts see this Bitcoin rally as possibly just the beginning, with some forecasting it could breach $100,000. After consolidating and dipping to $49,202 in August, Bitcoin has since resumed its upward trend, breaking through prior consolidation highs and setting a new all-time high this week. Bitcoin’s next major test will likely be the $80,000 resistance, with a strong breakout above this level potentially pushing it closer to $100,000.

For those interested in crypto exposure without extreme volatility, the CRYP ETF on the ASX offers a diversified entry point. After falling 90 per cent from its IPO listing, the ETF has found support around $1.36 and is trending upward, with the next major resistance around $7. A break above this level could see a rise back up to the all-time high of around $12.

The best-performing sectors include Information Technology, up four per cent, followed by Industrials, up over three per cent and Financials, up over two per cent. The worst-performing sectors include Real Estate, down over two per cent, followed by Materials and Consumer Staples, both down under half a per cent.

The best-performing stocks in the ASX top 100 include Bluescope Steel and Computershare, both up over 11 per cent, followed by Worley Limited, up over nine per cent. The worst-performing stocks include A2 Milk, down over nine per cent, followed by Evolution Mining and Northern Star, both down over six per cent.

This week, buyers returned with renewed energy, pushing the All Ordinaries Index up by over one per cent—a clear signal that the bull market remains strong. Reinforcing this trend, buyers have consistently stepped in since November 2023, limiting selling pressure to no more than two consecutive weeks before the market turns to trade back up.

While this election was primed to trigger wild price swings in price, we didn’t experience this. Instead, the S&P 500 surged by over two and a half per cent in a single day following the election, while the Australian market remained relatively steady. While the upside movement was modest, the positive takeaway is the lack of significant downside volatility, underscoring market confidence in the current uptrend.

The mining sector, in particular, has seen renewed buying interest. Following Donald Trump’s post-election remarks on continuing support for fossil fuels—referring to them as ‘liquid gold’—confidence in this sector has been reignited. This endorsement is welcome news for some of Australia’s largest miners, including BHP, Rio Tinto, South32, and Oz Minerals, all of which have a substantial US presence. This boost in sentiment provides the assurance these companies need to propel growth in the sector.

Moving forward, I expect the All Ordinaries Index to test the current all-time high of 8,654 points. If sellers reassert themselves and push the index below last week’s low of 8,323, it will be necessary to reassess the short-term direction over the coming weeks. Regardless of any short-term movement, with election uncertainties behind us and buyer momentum rising, now is the perfect time to take action and implement your investment plans.

For now, good luck and good trading.

Dale Gillham is the Chief Analyst at Wealth Within and the international bestselling author of How to Beat the Managed Funds by 20%. He is also the author of the bestselling and award-winning book Accelerate Your Wealth—It’s Your Money, Your Choice, which is available in all good bookstores and online at www.wealthwithin.com.au. 

Disclaimer: While Wealth Within holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL:226347) the information featured in this program is general in nature and therefore should not be relied upon.

Before making any investment decisions, you should consult a licensed professional who can advise whether your investment decisions are appropriate for you.

The Nasdaq performed well overnight, picking up 0.9%, driven by Oracle’s 11.5% rise based on better than predicted earnings and a new deal with Amazon.

The S&P500 gained 0.4%, but the Dow Jones lost about a quarter of a per cent (0.23%).

US Vice President Kamala Harris will face Donald Trump in a debate live on America’s ABC. That’ll start at 11am Australian eastern states time, 10.30am Adelaide time or 9am if you’re in Perth.

To ASX company news now: Data centre play NextDC (ASX:NXT) is raising $550 million through a placement and $200 million through a share purchase plan, for its Asian market growth ambitions.  The raise is priced at $17.15.

Telecommunications company Swoop (ASX:SWP) has grabbed a 16.9% stake in Vonex (ASX:VN8) for an average 4 cents per share, or a total $2.45 million.

And Bloomberg reports Australian real estate platform operator REA Group (ASX:REA) has begun takeover talks with UK portal, Rightmove.

To commodities in US dollars now: Gold rallied to $2517 an ounce, iron ore’s at $91 a tonne on the Singapore Exchange.

Natural gas gained 3% to $2.23 a gigajoule and brent crude lost the same to be under $70 a barrel ($69.66).

One Aussie dollar is buying 66.5 US cents.