HSBC second-quarter profit plunges 29%, missing expectations
It reported profit before tax for the three months ended in June of $6.3 billion, down 29% from a year ago.
Here are HSBC's second-quarter 2025 results compared with consensus estimates compiled by the bank.
The earnings come against the backdrop of ongoing tariff worries, with U.S. President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" duties set to come into effect on Aug. 1. The bank while reporting its first-quarter earnings had warned of heightened macroeconomic uncertainty, highlighting that protectionist trade policies were adversely affecting consumer and business sentiment.
HSBC is planning to terminate several employees in its equities team in its Germany office, as part of a broader effort to scale back its investment banking operations outside of Asia and the Middle East, Bloomberg reported last week.
The move is said to align with CEO Georges Elhedery's push to revamp the investment bank. Last October, HSBC announced a restructuring plan to split its operations into four divisions, creating separate "Eastern markets" and "Western markets" sectors. HSBC has said the reorganization will cut costs by about $300 million this year.
In January, the lender announced that it will shut down its M&A and parts of its equities operations in Europe and the Americas.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Next Job: Selling Skeptical Americans on His Economy
Six months into his comeback term, Donald Trump has taken full ownership of the US economy. For better or worse, his party must now sell it to voters. The president has hailed the world's 'hottest' economy – and found others to blame for any wobbles. When Friday's jobs report showed a dramatic slowdown in hiring, he fired the head of the agency that published it. He's pinned some frustrations on his predecessor Joe Biden, and continues to berate the Federal Reserve for what he considers too-high interest rates.
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Drugmakers are pouring billions of dollars into new US manufacturing. It still won't achieve all of Trump's tariff goals
Prescription drugs Tariffs Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow Ever since President Donald Trump started promising to slap tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, drugmakers have unveiled a flurry of commitments to build or expand US manufacturing operations in the coming years. AstraZeneca is investing $50 billion to expand its drug manufacturing in the US. Johnson & Johnson is pouring $55 billion into domestic production and research. And Eli Lilly said it will spend $27 billion to build four new manufacturing plants here. In total, the planned investments exceed $250 billion, according to two industry analysts. Trump is wielding the threat of tariffs to get drugmakers to increase their domestic production, which he says will strengthen national security. He's also pushing pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices, one of his longstanding goals. But the pharma companies' moves are not expected to decrease the United States' reliance on foreign sources for key pharmaceutical ingredients and drugs, experts say. Nor are they likely to result in lower costs for American consumers. Still, the White House regularly touts the steady drumbeat of commitments as proof Trump's strategy is working. 'Another win for American manufacturing. @AstraZeneca's $50 billion pledge to expand U.S. manufacturing and R&D shows our tariff strategy at work,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick posted on X in late July. 'The investment will bring high-paying jobs to Virginia, Indiana, Texas, and across the country while hardening our supply chains. Reshoring pharma production is one of our top priorities.' But it's just not that simple. The pharmaceutical industry is a global web, with ingredients and finished drugs being manufactured in a multitude of locations around the world. The economics of brand name and generic drug manufacturing vary widely, and the price that the US consumer ultimately pays is determined by multiple players and factors. Both American and foreign drugmakers already produce many medications in the US and have been investing in their operations here for years. The prospect of tariffs certainly has prompted some brand-name manufacturers to shift more production to the US. However, some of the investments were already in the works before Trump took office, and other commitments may never be fulfilled, analysts say. Johnson & Johnson's $55 billion investment announcement in March, for instance, included the building of a North Carolina facility that was originally unveiled in October. 'They are just reiterating it because they're probably trying to make sure that the president is aware that they have manufacturing here and that they are listening to him,' Evan Seigerman, senior biopharma analyst at BMO Capital Markets, said of pharmaceutical companies. 'They're playing ball. It's all about the deal with President Trump.' Generic drugmakers, however, are not making the same types of commitments – largely because they can't afford to, as their profit margins are much thinner. While certain generic medicines are made in the United States, including sterile injectable drugs, oral liquid medications and controlled substances, the majority of drugs in pill or capsule form are produced abroad, primarily in India. But two generic drug manufacturers have announced domestic investments in recent months, according to the Association for Accessible Medicines, a trade group for the generic and biosimilar drug industries. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA said it would invest $1 billion by 2030 to expand its manufacturing and research and development capabilities in several US locations, while Amphastar Pharmaceuticals said it would quadruple its production in the next three to five years. They both manufacture sterile injectable drugs, among other products. Other companies are more hesitant. 'We're not sure the market will support it if we build it,' said John Murphy III, the industry association's CEO, noting that reimbursements are so low that companies may not get returns on their investments. Much of the national security concerns center on generic drugs, which account for more than 90% of US prescriptions and are also critical to medicine administered in hospitals and doctors' offices. A sizeable share of the supply chain for certain generic medications comes from abroad and could be disrupted during geopolitical crises, a risk that's been repeatedly flagged by a bipartisan group of senators. Blanket tariffs, however, won't spur more domestic manufacturing of these drugs, said Erin Fox, associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah Health. 'It's highly, highly unlikely we will see generic production expand in the US without significant incentives for these companies,' she said. 'If we do move production on some drugs to the US because we want to be sure from a national security standpoint, that's fine, but that's going to cost money.' Just what tariffs the pharmaceutical industry will face – and on which products from which countries – remain to be seen. The Trump administration is in the midst of negotiating various trade deals and has yet to release the findings of its investigation into national security implications of drug imports, which is expected to set the stage for tariffs on the industry. In late July, Trump unveiled the framework of a deal with the European Union, which calls for a 15% tariff on pharmaceutical imports – though some generic drugs could be exempt. Trump had been signaling in recent weeks that he would soon announce drug tariffs of up to 200%, but that he would give drugmakers a year or so to expand their domestic production before the full amount kicks in. That would be enough time for some companies to expand existing operations, though building new facilities could take three to five years, experts said. Even so, it's difficult for the manufacturers to make significant longer-term investment decisions amid the uncertainty of both the tariffs and future presidential administrations. Increasing their domestic manufacturing will help brand name drug companies escape tariffs, though they may have to pay some levies if they import pharmaceutical ingredients from other countries. Still, making more drugs in the US doesn't mean that the products will be any cheaper for patients, experts say. For one thing, the cost of production is typically higher in the US, said Stephen Farrelly, ING's global health care sector lead. Plus, the prices that consumers pay are largely governed by the nation's complex health system, which includes manufacturers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, known as PBMs. So whether Americans get a break on the high cost of their prescriptions will also depend on whether the president can achieve his other initiatives, including bringing US prices more in line with those in Europe and reforming the PBM industry, he said. While brand name manufacturers have more wiggle room to absorb some of the increased expenses, many experts believe they will pass along at least some of the added burden to consumers – who could eventually feel it in their out-of-pocket cost at the pharmacy counter or in their monthly insurance premiums. As for generic medicine, shifting more manufacturing to the US would entail higher production costs, which these companies could not afford to cover. Tariffs would be more likely to prompt these drugmakers to pull out of the US market, exacerbating shortages. 'At a time when the administration is clearly looking to still keep the cost down, we don't see a wholesale redistribution of generic capacity towards the US anytime soon,' Farrelly said.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barclays exits Net-Zero Banking Alliance, follows HSBC
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Barclays is withdrawing from the United Nations-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a sector coalition whose members have committed to aligning their financial activities with the aim of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The British bank announced its exit Friday and pointed to the financial sector's retreat from the climate group in its statement. 'With the departure of most of the global banks, the organization no longer has the membership to support our transition,' Barclays said. Barclays is the latest financial institution to quit NZBA, following in the footsteps of rival bank HSBC, which departed the group last month. The departures trail behind U.S.-based banks' exodus from NZBA and other climate-focused alliances, spurred in part by new federal leadership and ongoing scrutiny from the Republican party. Dive Insight: Barclays said it would remain committed to its sustainability goals, including a target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The bank reiterated that its commitment to allocating $1 trillion in sustainable and transition financing by 2030 remains 'unchanged.' 'We continue to work with our clients on their transition, finance the transition and scale climate tech, while helping to ensure energy security for our customers and clients,' Barclays said. The departure from NZBA comes just a few days after the bank shared it had generated 500 million pounds (over $663 million) in revenue in 2024 from sustainable and low-carbon transition related activities. Earlier in June, Barclays announced that its climate investment arm had enabled 508 million pounds (nearly $687 million) in investments focused on climate technology and innovation since 2020. However, a recent report from a coalition of climate organizations found that Barclays was the biggest financier of fossil fuels in Europe last year, boosting its funding for related operations by over 55% to $35.4 billion. The report backed by the Rainforest Alliance Network, Sierra Club and Reclaim Finance also counted Barclays as one of four banks — alongside JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup — that increased its fossil fuel financing by over $12 billion from 2023 to 2024. The U.K.-based responsible investment NGO ShareAction called Barclay's decision to depart NZBA 'incredibly disappointing,' in an emailed statement sent to ESG Dive. The organization's Co-Director of Corporate Engagement Jeanne Martin said the bank took a 'step in the wrong direction at a time when the dangers of climate change are rapidly mounting.' 'The announcement comes just three days after Barclays published a transition update reiterating its commitment to be a net zero bank by 2050, sending mixed signals to governments and companies around the world,' Martin added. Recommended Reading HSBC departs Net-Zero Banking Alliance, following US banks Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
