Europe's carmakers still nervous despite EU-US trade deal
After months of tariff turbulence that threatened to escalate into a trade war, US President Donald Trump and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen struck the agreement Sunday that will see EU exports taxed at 15 percent.
This across-the-board rate also applies to exports from Europe's critical auto sector to America, and is far below a previous rate of 27.5 percent for cars and vehicle parts that came into force in April.
European auto industry group ACEA welcomed the "de-escalation" as the United States is a major destination for the continent's vehicle shipments, accounting for 22 percent of the EU export market in 2024.
It is an "important step towards easing the intense uncertainty surrounding transatlantic trade relations in recent months," the group said.
French automotive supplier Forvia echoed the message, saying the accord "helps reduce volatility and uncertainty... for all economic players".
There was still a great deal of concern -- the tariffs remain far higher than a 2.5 percent rate that European manufacturers exporting to the United States faced before Trump returned as president.
The 15-percent levy "will continue to have a negative impact not just for industry in the EU but also in the US," said ACEA director general Sigrid de Vries.
- German industry woes -
The German auto sector stands to be hit particularly hard, with the United States the top market for German vehicle exports last year, receiving about 13 percent of the total.
The 15-percent tariff "will cost German automotive companies billions annually and burdens them", said Hildegard Mueller, president of Germany's main auto industry group, the VDA.
This comes at a time when top German carmakers Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes-Benz were already struggling with falling sales in China, weak demand in Europe and a slower than expected transition to electric vehicles.
The impacts of the higher rates introduced earlier this year are already being felt.
Volkswagen, Europe's biggest automaker, reported a 1.3 billion euro hit for the first half of the year due to the tariffs.
Stellantis, whose brands include Jeep, Citroen and Fiat, has seen North American vehicles sales plummet, and Swedish automaker Volvo's earnings were hit by tariffs.
Some industry leaders have proposed solutions.
BMW's chief Oliver Zipse suggested in June that Europe should drop its import tariffs on cars imported from the United States.
Volkswagen boss Oliver Blume has said the group could forge its own agreement with Washington that took into account the investments the group plans in the United States, the world's biggest economy.
But for now there is little relief on the horizon, and carmakers will have to adapt.
In the long term, higher tariffs in the United States than in Europe could create "big losers" in Germany's automotive industry, said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, director of the Center Automotive Research institute.
If BMW and Mercedes boost production in the United States to skirt tariffs, they could start shipping a growing number of vehicles to Europe that are subject to lower import levies, Dudenhoeffer said.
Struggling auto plants in Europe "will reduce their production", he warned, which could lead to up to 70,000 jobs being cut in Germany and shifted to America.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
4 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
India aghast at Trump's ‘dead' economy jibe, 25pc tariffs
New Delhi | Shock, dismay and angst swept across India as businesses, policymakers and citizens digested US President Donald Trump's sharp remarks and a surprise 25 per cent tariff rate last week. While Indian government officials weighed a response and business groups tallied the cost of the trade barrier, social media was alive with users protesting Trump's comments and criticising Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for not speaking up. Bloomberg
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's crypto mania poses a risk for our super
This distinct lack of guardrails, and the well-known volatility of crypto – data shows that over the past decade the cryptocurrency market has been almost five times as volatile as the US sharemarket – is one thing when it's young investors who are eager to take high risk for possible high reward. But it's another when people's retirements are involved. One of the most likely reasons for this loosening of regulations (gold and private investments are also set to be added to what US funds can invest in) is that the industry is under increasing pressure globally to find new investment options and maximise returns because of our ageing population. The pension system in the UK, for example, is expected to reach a crisis point within the next two decades, with many people predicted to retire with less than they may have expected. Loading You can see, then, why cryptocurrency suddenly looks promising. But here is where another likely reason for this shift also arises and, depending on your politics, is either a problem so glaring it might as well be an entire herd of elephants in the room, or is simply shrewd business ingenuity. The US government is currently led by a man who, along with his family, has a bitcoin mining farm and reserve. They have launched their own crypto coins, stablecoin and crypto trading app. It's estimated that $US2.9 billion ($4.5 billion) of the Trump family's wealth – roughly 40 per cent – is tied to their digital investments. And on Wednesday, the White House launched a 160-page document outlining how the government will bring to life the president's promise to bolster digital assets. Trump isn't just pro-crypto, he's driving the pro-crypto bus. Again, investing and being hungry for risk is one thing. But when the money being invested is retirement funds, it's a different ball game. Considering cryptocurrencies are still such a new asset class, there's no long-term performance data to assess their suitability for super investments. But already, there is a cautionary tale to look to. In 2022, a Canadian pension plan for teachers that invested in crypto lost $147 million in invested funds following the collapse of digital currency exchange FTX. While retirement funds are worth billions and $147 million might not sound like all that much in the grand scheme of things, try telling that to the hardworking teacher who was a year away from retirement and suddenly faced working longer due to bad investments. Currently in Australia, the only way to invest in crypto using superannuation is through a self-managed fund. But two things are worth noting here. The first is that there are more than 600,000 self-managed funds, and that with more than $750 billion in assets, they represent roughly a third of our national super sector. The second is that in February, soon after Trump's return to the White House, Australia's industry leaders and Treasurer Jim Chalmers travelled to the US for a 'super summit', in an attempt to try to win over American financial executives and the US government. Loading Currently, about $US400 billion of our super is invested in US assets, which translates to roughly 14 per cent of all Australian investments. However, that's expected to grow to more than $US1 trillion over the next decade. Whether these assets will one day include crypto remains to be seen. But the fact that American funds – which have the biggest pool of money in the world – now can more freely look to crypto than ever before, and that Australia is so hungry to remain economically close to the US, is something that should make us sit up and pay attention. Victoria Devine is an award-winning retired financial adviser, bestselling author and host of Australia's No.1 finance podcast, She's on the Money. She is also founder and director of Zella Money.
ABC News
16 hours ago
- ABC News
Did Donald Trump just give China a major advantage on AI?
Last month, the Trump administration quietly reversed one of its own policies by lifting a ban on US tech giant Nvidia's H20 microchip exports to China. For anyone who has followed Donald Trump's erratic record on trade, another U-turn might not sound like a notable development. But this time, the stakes are much higher because these microchips are critical to powering the next generation of artificial intelligence. Whichever country dominates microchip production will likely lead the global AI race, with massive implications for military strategy and economic output. For nearly three years, the US has tried to keep these powerful chips out of China's hands. Now, by reopening the door, has Mr Trump handed Beijing a major advantage on AI? We spoke to three experts to explain how we got here. Back in April, the Trump administration banned H20 microchip exports to China, toughening restrictions put in place by the Biden administration. It has since reversed that decision. According to Jason Van Der Schyff, a fellow at Australian Strategic Policy Institute's technology and security program, this backflip may be in response to the booming black market demand for high-powered US chips in China. "Over a billion dollars worth of restricted chips were smuggled into China in just a few months," he said. "The reversal may be a pivot by the administration, recognising if you don't offer a legal channel for the slightly degraded chips, buyers will simply go around you." Professor Shahriar Akter, who specialises in the study of advanced analytics and AI at the University of Wollongong said this move seems to follow "a philosophy in Silicon Valley that if you sell more" it will pour more back into "your research and development". Associate Professor in Information Systems at Curtin University, Mohammad Hossain, suggested the Trump administration is trying to kill two birds with one stone. The US is trying to maintain leverage in a broader geopolitical trade-off involving China's critical exports, rare earth elements, while "keeping China dependent on US technology", he said. Nvidia is the tech giant behind these highly sought after microchips and it is led by CEO Jensen Huang who is the ninth-richest man in the world. The H20 is a step-down from Nvidia's top-tier chips (H100 and B200) and was specifically designed to comply with US export restrictions while catering to the Chinese market. "Basically, [H100 and B200 chips] can do things much faster than the H20," Mr Van Der Schyff said. "If we consider how quickly AI is moving any impediment that could be brought to time more than anything is going to maintain that US strategic advantage." While the H20 is less powerful, Mr Van Der Schyff warns that "these aren't toys … even slightly downgraded chips still enable model training at scale". "If you're concerned about national security, letting an adversary access chips that are only one rung down the ladder still poses a strategic risk." While the US hopes to stall China's progress in artificial intelligence, experts warn this strategy may have the opposite effect. China's push to dominate AI is already underway and restricting exports to only H20 chips incentivises them to accelerate domestic developments. "At present in the world, 50 per cent of AI researchers are being produced by China alone," Dr Akter said. Chinese tech giants like Huawei and Biren Technology have been ramping up their own AI accelerators. "Huawei's chips are already being deployed in major training clusters," Mr Van Der Schyff said. Still, China's domestic developments trail behind industry leaders like Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung when it comes to cutting-edge manufacturing. "There isn't necessarily a danger that China catches up overnight but these restrictions do however give Beijing a clear incentive to sort of go all in on industrial policy for their own semiconductors to accelerate domestic progress," Mr Van Der Schyff said. "We've seen this play out previously with 5G and also with aviation." All three experts cautioned that it's difficult to gauge China's true AI capabilities. "Given the closed nature of China's systems and their propensity to not always tell us the truth", it's unclear how much China's artificial intelligence has developed, Mr Van Der Schyff said. Dr Akter used an analogy to explain the uncertainty: "There are two types of AI technologies", one is called glass box and the other is called black box. "Glass box technology is basically explainable AI, which is open source and we can explain where data is coming from and how it is being used to develop AI models and what would be the outcome." Whereas, black box technology is the opposite, we cannot trace back to the source of the data and we cannot tell what models have been used. That opacity makes it difficult for the rest of the world to assess whether Beijing is playing catch-up or quietly pulling ahead. The country that has the upper hand in microchip production will likely lead the global AI race and that has significant repercussions, experts said. "The country that dominates compute will dominate AI, and AI will shape everything from military planning to economic productivity."
