Nestle to refocus on core business, says CEO Freixe
:: File
That's according to its boss Laurent Freixe, who took over the company in September.
He told the Financial Times that straying into segments like health supplements meant its core brands in coffee, petcare and food were neglected.
He said he only saw merits in slimming down the group's portfolio in places where Nestle wasn't in a position to win.
In another interview earlier this week, Friexe revealed that Nestle, owner of brands including Nescafe and KitKat, is recovering market share in the U.S.
That's despite concerns of impact from President Donald Trump's trade tariffs...
... and American consumers feeling unsettled by a slowdown in the economy.
Leading with an attitude that 'M&A is not the strategy', Friexe branded Nestle as 'on the right track.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says BRICS nations to get 10% tariff 'pretty soon'
By Andrea Shalal and Ricardo Brito WASHINGTON/BRASILIA (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday the U.S. would "pretty soon" charge a 10% tariff on imports from BRICS countries, drawing another complaint from Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who just hosted the bloc's annual summit. Trump, who raised the tariff threat on Sunday, said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting at the White House that the duty was on the way: "Anybody that's in BRICS is getting a 10% charge pretty soon ... If they're a member of BRICS, they're going to have to pay a 10% tariff ... and they won't be a member long." The BRICS group expanded last year beyond Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to include members such as Iran and Indonesia. Leaders at the summit in Rio de Janeiro voiced indirect criticism of U.S. military and trade policies. Asked about Trump's tariff threat, Lula told journalists at the BRICS summit on Monday that the world does not want an emperor. After a state visit from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Lula on Tuesday expressed further disagreement. "We will not accept any complaints about the BRICS summit. We do not agree with the U.S. president insinuating he's going to put tariffs on BRICS countries," he told journalists in Brasilia. Trump gave no specific date for the BRICS tariff to kick in. On Monday, a source familiar with the matter said the Trump administration would charge the tariff only if countries adopted anti-American policies, differentiating actions from statements like the one adopted by the BRICS leaders on Sunday. Trump claimed without evidence on Tuesday that the group was set up to hurt the United States and he U.S. dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. He said he would not allow that to happen. "BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar and take our dollar ... take it off as the standard," he said. "And that's okay if they want to play that game, but I can play that game too." Trump said losing the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency would be like "losing a war, a major world war. We would not be the same country any longer." Brazil in February nixed plans for a common currency agenda during its presidency year. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump resume plans for mass federal layoffs
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume its plans to carry out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. In Trump's latest victory at the top U.S. judicial body, the justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in several cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies. In addition, Trump last week claimed the biggest legislative win of his second presidential term with congressional passage of a massive package of tax and spending cuts. The court, in a brief unsigned order on Tuesday, said Trump's administration was "likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order" and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston's "temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by his administration. A group of unions, non-profits and local governments that sued to block the administration's mass layoffs said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling "dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the plaintiffs said in a statement, adding that they would "continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent." U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the court's action. "Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel," Bondi wrote on social media. "Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before." Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote. The judge's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce. Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. 'SUPERVISORY POWERS' The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order. "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the Justice Department told the court, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," the plaintiffs told the court, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs." The Supreme Court in recent months has let Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, twice sided with DOGE and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why Elon Musk told Tesla bull Dan Ives to 'shut up'
Wedbush's Dan Ives is known for being bullish on Tesla's (TSLA) stock. But in a post on X, Ives suggested three steps the EV maker's board should take to help rein in CEO Elon Musk, who recently announced plans to launch a new "America Party." Musk did respond to Ives, writing, "Shut up, Dan." Yahoo Finance Senior Autos Reporter Pras Subramanian and Barron's senior market analysis writer Paul La Monica discuss the exchange and what it all means for Tesla shares. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. Pro, so here, Dan Ives of Wedbush, of course, bull of bulls on Tesla. I mean, guy's been on this show many times. He pounds the table for Tesla, goes on X, and here's what he says Tesla's board should do. Pro, he says new pay package getting must to 25% voting control. He says guardrails establishing amount of time Musk spends at Tesla, right? I don't know, I don't think of, when I think of Musk, I don't think of the word guardrails, but okay, Dan. Third, oversight on political endeavors. Okay, it's an ask. Ives posts this on X. Elon Musk himself responds, "Shut up, Dan." Dan says, "What do you make of it?" You know, it's it's first of all for Dan Ives, you know, not the first time he's asked the board to step in and kind of rein in Musk. I think that's been something that a lot of people ask for. He's the second time he's asked for it now. America party was, I guess, too far for him in terms of all the problems of government regulation if you kind of bring that on. But but but all be that as it may, it's just funny the whole back and forth. I know Ives and Musk, Musk is a big fan of Ives and vice versa. To see them kind of actually butting heads is Or maybe, as you were saying off camera, we should construe it as somewhat actually, somewhat must be maybe in his own way polite. I mean, it could have been a lot worse than "Shut up, comma Dan." What's your point? Right, right. Just lay off right now. Right. Right. So, I don't want to see right now. But you know, we we were talking about this, you know, Paul and I are talking about this. You know, it's like the company, it's not just Musk, it's other issues that are going on with the company for for a number of months now. Demand issues, Tesla's EV tax credit trend. You know, RoboTaxi's happening now, but are they going to really sort of push push the kind of the boundaries and kind of take on Waymo? I mean, we'll see, right? Well, it was interesting, Pras, because I think, listen, he goes on X and Musk is now talking all about "I'm going to start this new American political party." And of course, you're if you're a Tesla investor, you're looking at, you're wondering, "Hold on a second, where exactly is this guy's focus? Where is his attention?" Yeah, and this has been a knock on Musk for years because clearly, this is someone who, for better or for worse, is easily distracted. He has SpaceX, he has X, which I still call Twitter, and many other ventures beyond Tesla, and Tesla is at a point now where they arguably need Musk more than ever given the concerns about demand for electric vehicles. And Tesla's electric vehicles, in particular, Musk is now a very polarizing figure. You would think that starting a political party is not the best way to sell more electrical vehicles and eventually wind up with more contracts with NASA and other government agencies as well. So I understand Dan Ives' frustration. One thing that I always found interesting about Ives, who has remained a very unrelenting bull about Tesla, at what point do you just throw up your hands and say, "I can't do this anymore. We need, if not a grown-up in the room, at least someone who's going to take things more seriously." And it doesn't appear that Musk at this point yet feels that there's any crisis at Tesla, and it may not be a crisis, but it does need his, you know, more attention, I think, from him. You know, we've heard in other reporting, I think the Journal, the board was sort of weighing how they can actually rein Musk in, bring him back to work, things like that. Make him sort of absorb some of these political statements, but clearly, it's not working and and this sort of maybe a failure of the board, I'm not sure, but we know that they're they are thinking about it. They're curious how can they control him because seemingly he's got some an ADD type type of personality, and he can just sort of focus on different things. And the bad things are when he focuses on things that are unrelated to his businesses, and that's that's the problem, right? You cut through the headlines, Pras. I mean, the end of the day, isn't this company, it has to, it has to move cars, right? I mean, it it comes down to the EV sales. That's still what's driving the company's P&L. Right, right. You look at the recent deliveries and they were better than at least maybe some feared on the street, and you did see the stock pop there. So now we wait for for the earnings. What's ahead for that EV business? So, two things, right? I think the big thing is, when are we going to see that cheap EV that they've been talking about for over a year now? And what people think will actually be the main driver of potential new sales, right? Because right now, I think Tesla's poised to have a second year in a row of of sales that are they're less than the year before, which is a huge problem for a company with a 70X, you know, pro forward earnings, right? So, that's one thing. And then obviously the RoboTaxi test. What's going on there? The whole bet of the company is on AI and autonomy, and that's happening now. It's sort of slow, some hiccups here and there. Can we hear more about more cars in the road, more users, more, can they open up the test to you and I? That's the big question. Sign in to access your portfolio
