Russia's Severstal blames high rates and low prices for 55% Q2 profit plunge
Last year, the central bank hiked its key interest rate to 21%, the highest level since the early 2000s, as it fights inflation. The regulator started cutting rates last month and is expected to cut further at a rate-setting meeting this week.
The central bank's tight monetary policy led to a sharp economic slowdown in Russia, with the construction industry—one of the main consumers of steel—hit particularly hard.
"The second quarter of 2025 was extremely challenging for both the metals industry and the entire Russian economy," said Severstal's CEO Alexander Shevelev. The company said it will not pay dividends in order to maintain financial stability.
"The high key interest rate is restraining demand for metal products, which decreased by 15% year-on-year in the first half of the year due to reduced consumption in the construction, engineering, and energy sectors," Shevelev added.
Shevelev stressed that the strong rouble, which rallied by 45% against the U.S. dollar this year, was restricting its access to export markets. Shevelev earlier said that some steel factories in Russia could close down to balance the market.
The company welcomed the expected interest rate cut at the meeting on July 25, stressing in its financial results' presentation that the cut will have a positive impact on the demand for steel.
Net profit in the second quarter fell to 15.7 billion roubles ($200.3 million), down 55% year-over-year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump's shift on Ukraine has been dramatic – but will it change the war?
Donald Trump presents himself as a peerless president, an unrivaled negotiator, even a 'genius'. So it's a unique moment when he comes close – I emphasize the qualifier –to conceding that another leader has outfoxed him. Trump suggested as much recently when characterizing Vladimir Putin's modus operandi. 'Putin,' he told reporters on 13 July, 'really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then bombs everybody in the evening.' Melania Trump may have contributed to this reassessment. As Trump recounted recently, when he told her about a 'wonderful conversation' with the Russian leader, she responded, 'Oh, really? Another city was just hit.' Trump's new take on Putin is a break with the past. His esteem for Putin–whose decisions he has described as 'savvy' and 'genius' – has contrasted starkly with his derisive comments about the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he memorably disrespected during a White House meeting and even blamed for starting the war. As recently as February, he declared that Russia's invasion didn't matter to the United States because, unlike Europe, it was separated from Ukraine by 'a big, big beautiful ocean'. He criticized Joe Biden's assistance to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayers' money. Now, Trump has not only changed his view of Putin, stunning many within his 'America First' MagaA movement; he's decided to start arming Ukraine. Well, sort of. Trump has gone beyond effectively conceding that Putin has played him. He has decided to sell military equipment to individual European countries so that they can supply Ukraine and restock their arsenals with purchases from the United States. The president formally announced the change during his 14 July meeting with Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary general. There was more. Trump warned Putin that if he did not accept a ceasefire – which he has steadfastly refused, just as he has ignored Trump's demand to stop bombing Ukraine's cities – within 50 days, Russia would be slammed with tariffs as high as 100%, as would countries that continued to trade with it after the deadline. Two things are clear. First, Trump's perspective on Putin has changed, unexpectedly and dramatically. Second, a war that Trump once said was none of America's business now apparently matters. The president said European countries would buy 'top of the line' American military equipment worth 'billions of dollars' to arm Ukraine. According to one report citing 'a source familiar with the plan', the total will be $10bn. This all sounds like a very big deal. But here's where it becomes important to go beyond the headlines and sound bites and delve into the details. Take the $10bn figure. That's certainly not chump change. Moreover, the main piece of equipment specified so far, the Patriot 'long range, high altitude, all weather' missile defense system, will provide desperately needed relief to Ukrainian city dwellers, who have endured relentless waves of drone attacks – several hundred a night – followed by missiles that slice through overwhelmed defenses. Ukraine has some Patriots but needs more: it's a vast country with a dozen cities whose populations exceed 400,000. However, a Patriot battery (launchers, missiles, a radar system, a control center, antenna masts, and a power generator) costs $1bn, the missiles alone $4m apiece. Ukraine may not need 10 Patriot batteries, but even a smaller number will consume a large proportion of the $10bn package. The other system that has been mentioned is the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm), which combines stealth technology and GPS guidance with a 230-mile range. Ukraine will be able to use its American-made F-16 jets to fire Jassms into Russia from positions beyond the reach of Russian air defense systems. But a single Jassm costs around $1.5m, so the costs will add up quickly. Additional items have been mentioned but only generically; still, their price must also be figured in, bearing in mind that the war could drag on. So, $10bn could be depleted quickly. Moreover, beyond a certain point the US cannot sell equipment from its own stocks without regard to its military readiness requirements. Precisely for that reason, the defense department recently declined to send Ukraine some of the equipment promised under Joe Biden. And Trump has not said that there will be follow-on sales to benefit Ukraine once the $10bn mark is reached. Even if he were to change his mind, individual European countries would be able to buy only so much American weaponry without straining their finances, especially because France and Italy have opted out of the arrangement. Trump has been uninterested in joining the recent move by the UK and the EU to impose a $47.60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil sales, toughening the $60 limit the west enacted in 2022. Finally, Trump isn't going to resume Biden's multi-billion-dollar military assistance packages – 70-plus tranches of equipment, according to the DoD. Trump's 50-day tariff deadline permits Putin to continue his summer offensive, and may even provide an incentive to accelerate it. Russia has already shrugged off Trump's tariff threat. Its exports to the US in 2024 amounted to $526m, a tiny fraction of its global sales. By contrast, Trump's secondary tariffs will hurt Russia, which earned $192bn in 2024 from its global exports of oil and related products, much of that sum from India and China. If the president follows through with his threat, Beijing will surely retaliate, and the consequence will be painful: the United States exports to China totaled $144bn last year. Will Trump proceed anyway, and during his ongoing trade wars, which have already started increasing prices in the US? His track record on tariff threats leaves room for doubt. Ukraine's leaders are understandably elated by Trump's reappraisal of Putin. But it's premature to conclude that it's a turning point that could change the war's trajectory. Washington's new policy may prove far less momentous than Maga critics fear and not quite as transformative as Kyiv and its western supporters hope for. Rajan Menon is a professor emeritus of international relations at the City College of New York and a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Farage: State pension age will have to rise faster
Nigel Farage has warned that the state pension age must rise more quickly after the Government opened the door to increasing it. The Reform UK leader said the state of the economy and public finances meant plans to increase the standard retirement age to 68 had to be accelerated. 'I don't think we can really afford to [wait to the 2040s], to be frank,' Mr Farage said. 'If there is a sudden economic miracle, then it might change that. But it does not look to be happening any time soon.' The state pension age is currently on course to rise to 67 by 2028 and to 68 by 2046. Mr Farage said: 'I don't think the country has any choice. The state pension age will gradually have to be increased, in line with life expectancy. There is little doubt about it.' His comments suggest that Reform UK would raise the retirement age more rapidly if it won power. Mr Farage's party has just four MPs but is currently leading in the opinion polls. Mr Farage was speaking after the Government launched a new pensions review on Monday, raising the prospect that six million Britons could be forced to delay their retirements. Raising the retirement age sooner than planned is politically controversial. Previous plans to do so were abandoned by former chancellor Jeremy Hunt amid concerns he would struggle to justify the change. Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said this week she was 'under no illusions' about the scale of the challenges facing both workers and the public purse as the country ages. Triple lock could cost taxpayers £40bn a year The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) raised concerns about the sustainability of the state pension system earlier this month. It said a 'substantial' increase in the retirement age would be required to maintain the triple lock guarantee, which guarantees payments rise by at least 2.5pc a year. Without changes to the retirement age, the think tank warned that the triple lock will cost taxpayers up to £40bn a year and disproportionately hit poorer households by forcing them to work for longer. The IFS estimated that a year increase in the state pension age would save the Treasury £6bn per year. The strain on public finances was highlighted on Tuesday by official figures that showed the Government borrowed another £20.7bn in June. That was the highest for any June on record outside the pandemic year of 2020. Interest payments on the £2.9tn national debt almost doubled compared with June of last year, while higher public sector pay and spending plans are also adding to borrowing.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Northrop Grumman raises 2025 profit forecast on strong demand for weapons
July 22 (Reuters) - Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab raised its annual profit forecast on Tuesday, betting on sustained demand for its military aircraft and defense systems as geopolitical tensions simmer. A protracted Russia-Ukraine war and conflict in the Middle East have boosted demand for weapons from defense contractors such as Northrop. The company, which makes the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers that were used in U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in June, is also expected to benefit from President Donald Trump's defense budget for next year that seeks more missiles and drones. Northrop had cut its 2025 profit forecast in April to between $24.95 per share and $25.35 per share after manufacturing costs spiraled in an attempt to ramp production of its B-21 stealth bombers, causing a $477 million hit. It now expects annual profit per share of $25.00 to $25.40 Northrop, however, narrowed its revenue forecast for the year to between $42.05 billion and $42.25 billion, compared with $42 billion to $42.5 billion earlier. Despite the strong demand, supply chain issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic linger, affecting production in industries including defense. The defense contractor's second-quarter sales rose to $10.35 billion from $10.22 billion a year ago. It reported a quarterly net income of $1.17 billion, or a per-share profit of $8.15, compared with the $940 million, or $6.36 per share, a year ago.
