logo
Rare earth magnet users jolted into paying premium prices for ex-China supply

Rare earth magnet users jolted into paying premium prices for ex-China supply

Time of Indiaa day ago
For years, Rahim
Suleman
had reached out repeatedly to automakers and other potential clients to market the rare earth magnets from the plant his company was building in Estonia, one of just a handful outside dominant producer
China
.
But after April 4, when Beijing imposed new restrictions on the super-strong magnets used in electric vehicles and wind turbines, Suleman retired his sales pitch. He didn't need it any more.
Ever since China's export controls tightened some rare earth exports to a trickle in the midst of a trade war with the U.S., causing chaos in supply chains and some auto plant shutdowns, "the phone is ringing off the hook", said Suleman.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
'Ich hätte nie gedacht, wie viel da rauskommt' – Der Ohrenreiniger ist zurück!
Apotheke Regional
Undo
Companies starting new plants in Europe, the U.S. and Asia had previously reported difficult talks on deals that embedded the higher costs to make magnets outside China, which benefits from cheaper labour costs and economies of scale as well as government support via tax refunds.
But the crisis has led many customers to soften or drop objections about paying those premiums as they scramble to hammer out deals, according to a dozen industry participants including automakers, magnet makers, rare earth producers, consultants and government officials interviewed by Reuters.
Live Events
While rare earths magnets from China are beginning to flow again, customers remain on edge about the threat of future shortages.
Suleman's company,
Neo Performance Materials
, launched output of permanent magnets at its Estonia plant in May. Now, he said, "everybody wants to talk about how (they can) satisfy their demand out of our facility".
He said he has no worries about lining up enough customers who will pay a premium - $10 to $30 per kg, with EVs typically holding 2-4 kg of magnets per vehicle - over the price they usually pay for Chinese magnets.
Output at Neo's factory in Estonia is starting small, providing samples to its first customer, which Suleman declined to identify. German auto parts supplier Schaeffler told Reuters it is a customer of the plant, but declined to comment on how much it is paying.
In Korea, customers of
NovaTech
, which produces magnets in China, are prepared to pay 15% to 20% more for magnets made in Vietnam, a company source told Reuters, adding there was "a growing sense of crisis among customers".
The company, which sells China-made magnets used in
Samsung
's phones and tablets, is investing at least 10 billion won ($7.39 million) in a plant in Vietnam launching early next year to make magnets using locally processed rare earths from a partner, the person and another company official told Reuters.
Britain's Less Common Metals, one of the few firms outside China involved in a key step of rare earths processing - making rare earth metals and alloys - says it is battling to cope with new enquiries.
"Now, post-April 4, it's like someone stuck a cattle prod into the whole industry," said Grant Smith, its majority owner and chairman.
He said LCM has held discussions with numerous companies that use magnets as they seek alternative supply sources, though he declined to name them. The firm now has plans to expand into France and other countries.
A FINE BALANCE
Despite the new willingness to pay a premium, it will take many years or even decades to build up production outside of China, which accounts for 90% of global permanent magnet supply, industry participants said.
And the question of how much more should be paid for rare earths and magnets outside of China is a tricky one.
Too high a premium for mined rare earths could see consumers cutting down their use, while premiums that are too low would not be enough to allow for construction of ex-China projects, analysts and consultants say.
Automakers are willing to pay more to guarantee ex-China supplies, but they are also in the midst of an EV price war that has left them with razor-thin margins, and will still be queasy at what they regard as excessive premiums, according to industry participants.
One executive at a rare earths company said their firm has held discussions with automakers that are prepared to pay $80 per kg for neodymium-praseodymium oxide (NdPr), a rare earth needed for magnets used in motors and generators - a figure Reuters has not independently verified.
That is already a significant - near 30% - premium over the Chinese price of $62 based on data from price reporting agency Fastmarkets.
"The purchasing departments have it in their DNA to save each cent or fraction of a cent, but things are changing," said the executive, who declined to be identified because he is not authorised to speak to the media.
"They're realising they're losing more by having to close a plant for a month than paying a premium to guarantee supplies."
Critical minerals consultancy
Project Blue
says that for NdPr, a price of $75 to $105 per kg is needed to support enough production to meet demand.
Australia's Barrenjoey goes further, saying NdPr prices need to be $120 to $180 per kg to fund a substantial wave of production that would encompass around 20 global mining projects.
One executive at a European automaker said his industry could not afford to pay excessive premiums. His company has agreed deals for other critical minerals at a 5% to 10% premium, based on certification they are produced sustainably, he said.
His company sold cars globally, he said, and could not make a profit if it had to pay a high premium for all the raw materials produced outside of China.
Some automakers, such as
BMW
, have developed EVs that do not use rare earths, while others have reduced the amount of rare earths in their vehicles. However, getting rid of rare earths is not feasible in the medium term, analysts say.
Neo's Suleman said everyone in the industry had to work together to create a supply of rare earths outside China.
"I don't think that we're looking at this and saying the floodgates are open, let's just charge whatever we want, we need to be responsible," he said.
"Customers understand there is a premium that is required, but if that premium gets too big, we're looking at demand destruction."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The High Cost Of 10-Minute Convenience: How E-Commerce Is Squeezing India's Small Entrepreneurs
The High Cost Of 10-Minute Convenience: How E-Commerce Is Squeezing India's Small Entrepreneurs

News18

time5 minutes ago

  • News18

The High Cost Of 10-Minute Convenience: How E-Commerce Is Squeezing India's Small Entrepreneurs

Both new and old players are flouting the laws, and despite policymakers being aware of these illegal activities, they have been slow to act and level the playing field. Across India's cities and towns, e-commerce and 'quick commerce' platforms are revolutionising traditional retail, threatening the livelihoods of millions of small shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, street vendors, and local manufacturers. The unfortunate aspect is that both new and old players are achieving this by flouting the laws, and despite policymakers being aware of these illegal activities, they have been slow to act and level the playing field. Over the past decade, giants like Amazon and Walmart-owned Flipkart have reshaped Indian retail through immense scale, aggressive discounting, and complex seller networks. Consumers have benefited from low prices and a vast selection online, but local producers and shopkeepers have suffered. Walmart, notorious for its impact on the US economy by driving down prices and destroying both manufacturing and small businesses, found a way into Indian retail through e-commerce after its initial entry was blocked. The current homelessness and opioid crisis in the US can be traced back to job losses or jobless growth. Similar destruction of small businesses and entrepreneurship is unfolding rapidly in India, creating the same conditions. Industry estimates suggest that up to 70 per cent of the items sold on Amazon and Flipkart are of Chinese origin, indicating that India's e-commerce boom has favored cheap imports over domestic manufacturing. These imports are routed through companies owned and operated by e-commerce giants in countries like Singapore to exploit FTA and tax rules. Despite the Indian government being aware, there is no action to prevent this, including enforcing rules for disclosing the origin of products on their websites. From toys to electronics, the influx of low-cost Chinese goods has made it tough for Indian MSMEs (micro, small, and medium enterprises) to compete, even in categories where local industry once thrived. A detailed 2024 study by the Global Trade Research Initiative found that Chinese imports have captured over 52% of India's toy market (despite high import tariffs) and majority shares in products like umbrellas, leather goods, and glassware, displacing many local producers. Domestic manufacturers are not benefiting from the e-commerce surge, as consumers often prefer the cheaper, mass-produced imports available online. This challenge is compounded by the way major e-commerce marketplaces operate through 'preferred sellers" and exclusive partnerships, creating roadblocks for smaller sellers. Investigations by India's antitrust regulators have shown that Amazon and Flipkart favor a small group of large sellers on their platforms, granting them better search placement, lower fees, and other advantages. Just 35 sellers out of Amazon India's 400,000+ sellers account for two-thirds of all sales, with Amazon's joint-venture sellers (Cloudtail and Appario) making up 35 per cent of sales alone. Ordinary merchants are 'mere database entries," as described by Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigators. This preferential treatment enables predatory pricing strategies – popular products are sold at or below cost by the favored sellers, supported by the deep pockets of the platforms. An antitrust report in 2024 found that Amazon and Flipkart had indeed violated competition laws by using preferential listings and selling goods below cost (especially mobile phones) to capture market share, which had a 'catastrophic impact on the existing competition in the market." These tactics were noted across many product lines, drawing shoppers away from small shops to online platforms, where independent sellers couldn't match the prices. The 'Amazon effect" – as fearful shopkeepers call it – means local electronics or book stores watch customers browse, then order the same items online at heavy markdowns that small retailers can't afford to offer. A typical Indian kirana (neighbourhood grocery) store offers a wide variety of goods. These family-run shops – numbering in the millions – are the backbone of India's retail economy. They now struggle to compete with the deep discounts and home-delivery convenience offered by e-commerce giants. India has failed to implement its FDI (foreign direct investment) rules, which aim to prevent foreign e-commerce firms from stocking inventory or controlling prices directly. As a result, these platforms use the 'marketplace" model to circumvent the rules. By 2020, the Commerce Ministry was alarmed that Chinese goods dominated online sales and that platforms might be circumventing rules through preferred seller arrangements. 'We have received suggestions… our priority is to cut unnecessary imports and boost local manufacturing," an official said as the government mandated country-of-origin labels on e-commerce products in 2020. The intention was to inform consumers that their online bargains were often imports, encouraging them to consider Indian-made alternatives. However, this has not been enforced, and platforms have avoided compliance, with no action taken by the Consumer Protection Authority. Commerce and Trade Minister Piyush Goyal has publicly criticised the e-commerce giants, noting that the 'massive growth of e-commerce is not a matter of pride but a matter of concern." He highlighted the imbalance where traditional small traders, a pillar of India's economy and the BJP's political base, are struggling against Walmart and Amazon-funded giants. Goyal called out e-commerce platforms' strategy of using large investments to finance sustained losses to wipe out competition. Now, quick commerce players are doing the same, affecting street vendors who supply vegetables and small household items. Flouting Rules, Violating Safety And Quality Norms Crucially, the 'dark store" model of quick commerce, enabling 10-minute delivery, is breaking all the rules. These small warehouses, located in residential neighborhoods to be closer to customers, violate zoning laws for warehouses and commercial establishments. They establish themselves as shops but operate as warehouses, creating traffic problems with swarms of delivery bikes in narrow lanes. Residents in some cities have protested the noise, traffic, and safety hazards from these 24/7 mini-warehouses. Despite this blatant flouting of zoning laws, state governments' urban affairs ministries have not taken any action. While the police and municipal corporations are active in evicting street vendors, they have done nothing against quick commerce entities destroying other entrepreneurs. Regulators have found safety and quality violations behind the scenes. In recent months, Maharashtra's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted surprise inspections of quick-commerce storage facilities and found disturbing lapses. Blinkit's dark store in Pune's Balewadi had its food business license suspended after officials found food safety violations, including expired products and hygiene issues. In Mumbai's Dharavi area, a Zepto dark store had its license suspended due to expired goods, fungal growth on food items, and unsanitary storage conditions. (The license was later reinstated after Zepto claimed to fix the issues.) However, the FSSAI, the national regulatory body for food and licensing, has never questioned how fresh food is being stored and distributed from warehouses masquerading as shops, or how these entities openly flout the laws for shops and warehouses. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) raided Amazon warehouses in March this year and seized hundreds of products (toys, appliances, cables) lacking the required ISI safety certification. Despite finding non-certified products, no action has been taken against the organisation, with the onus conveniently passed on to the vendors by the platforms. There are institutional gaps and complicity that need to be investigated suo motu. Regulatory scrutiny must focus on the larger problem: some of the cost-cutting and hyper-growth tactics by online platforms may bypass quality and safety norms that brick-and-mortar businesses must follow. After five years, and with billions of dollars in trade already done, the Competition Commission of India released its investigation report in September 2024, explicitly stating that by giving preferential treatment and discounts to select sellers, Amazon and Flipkart harmed countless small retailers. It likened their deep discounting to an unfair trade practice foreclosing competition. The report found all allegations of anti-competitive conduct to be true. However, since that report, no action has been taken as all petitions and cases have been transferred to the Karnataka High Court. Now, the platform and regulators play a cat-and-mouse game in court, with the legal fraternity showing little concern for the economy, entrepreneurship, or jobs. How can the playing field be leveled? Policymakers need to recognise the limitations of current laws and act collectively. Raids and investigations might appease the media but do not change the behaviour of these platforms on the ground. It's surprising that a system designed to prevent such issues is being exploited by smart lawyers and public affairs professionals on these platforms to undermine the Indian economy. There is no innovation in these digital shops; delivering something in 10 minutes is convenient but lacks innovation. Significant capital is being invested in solving a problem that isn't worth solving. Burning capital is not innovation; it's the destruction of capital and economic ecosystems, leading to joblessness. Hence, these entities should not be viewed as technology companies or innovators, even by the courts. There is no balance to be achieved in protecting them; instead, there is job destruction. Policymakers and courts should ensure a level playing field for the smallest entrepreneurs. The first step in avoiding further capital dumping is to enforce existing laws, ensuring compliance with foreign investment rules (preventing platforms from secretly controlling inventory via proxies) and consumer protection rules (mandating origin labeling and product safety certification online). Secondly, policymakers should stop delaying the Digital Competition Act (or 'Digital India Act") to address anti-competitive conduct by Big Tech and online marketplaces. Lobbying has delayed this bill for over five years, and it is urgent that it be passed immediately. Thirdly, several government ministries, including Commerce and Consumer Affairs, have formed a panel (as of August 2024) to assess the impact of rapid delivery services on small shopkeepers. The outcomes and proposed actions of this panel must be shared with the public. If the panel has not proposed anything, it should be dismantled. Fourthly, the government must revive and clean up the board and management structure of the Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC). Envisioned to bring millions of kirana stores and small sellers online on a neutral platform, breaking global platforms' dominance, ONDC aims to integrate 30 million sellers and 10 million small merchants. In practical terms, the platform has gaps, especially in attracting buyers. Policy makers have also shied away from using policy to make ONDC attractive to consumers. The failure of ONDC is real and present, and action is needed to prevent its complete shutdown. Fifth, India's policymakers must finalize the long-pending National E-commerce Policy, addressing grey areas like flash sales, data use, seller parity, and more. This policy should explicitly protect domestic manufacturers and traders by mandating transparency in search algorithms and strengthening local sourcing norms. Sixth, state and city administrations must regulate the physical footprint of quick commerce. Requiring dark stores to obtain commercial licenses, adhere to zoning laws, and comply with all safety and food standards, with stringent penalties for violators, is crucial. Quick-commerce players should not externalize the costs of their speed race into residential neighborhoods, creating traffic snarls or compromising safety. City councils and resident welfare associations should engage in dialogues with these companies to designate suitable locations for fulfillment centers and establish guidelines, such as limiting late-night operations in residential areas. Seventh, industry self-regulation and consumer awareness are essential. Companies like Amazon, Flipkart, Blinkit, and Zepto must realize that long-term prosperity comes from coexisting with the ecosystem, not cannibalizing it. Responsible business practices are crucial. A 'winner takes all' and 'kill all the competition' approach will not ensure long-term survival in India, as consumers will eventually reject them. top videos View all Eighth, consumers wield power here. Shoppers should understand the diversity of marketplaces and choose to support local businesses. It might be worth walking to the kirana instead of ordering bread online, or buying Diwali gifts from a local artisan, despite the inconvenience compared to one-click purchases. Each such choice sends a signal. Public opinion can push platforms to change – for example, after outcry over working conditions and reckless delivery promises, some quick-commerce firms dropped the '10-minute" claim to reduce pressure on workers. A similar push could discourage predatory pricing if consumers make it clear they care about the origin of products and who benefits. K Yatish Rajawat is a public policy researcher and works at the Gurugram-based think tank Centre for Innovation in Public Policy (CIPP). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : e-commerce Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 16:37 IST News opinion Opinion | The High Cost Of 10-Minute Convenience: How E-Commerce Is Squeezing India's Small Entrepreneurs

Why Proton says Apple is a "tool of dictatorships" in new lawsuit
Why Proton says Apple is a "tool of dictatorships" in new lawsuit

Time of India

time13 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Why Proton says Apple is a "tool of dictatorships" in new lawsuit

Privacy company Proton has filed a bombshell federal lawsuit accusing Apple of becoming a "tool of dictatorships" through its iron grip on iPhone app distribution, claiming the tech giant systematically removes apps to appease authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Swiss firm's 73-page complaint, filed in California federal court June 30, reveals how Apple's App Store monopoly enables global censorship. According to the lawsuit, 66 of the world's 100 most popular apps are banned from Chinese iPhones, while all 240 tested VPN apps, critical tools for bypassing government censorship, are blocked from Chinese users. Proton claims Apple threatened to remove its own VPN app unless the company stopped advertising its ability to "unblock censored websites," forcing the privacy advocate to self-censor or lose access to millions of iOS users. The lawsuit is the latest challenge to Apple's tight control over the iPhone ecosystem The filing details Apple's pattern of removing apps at dictators' demands, including the 2019 removal of during Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests and dozens of VPN apps from Russia's App Store last year, precisely when Russian citizens needed these tools most to access independent media. "Apple's monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit," Proton argues in court documents. The company serves over 100 million users across 180 countries with privacy-focused alternatives to Apple 's own services. Beyond censorship, Proton alleges Apple's 30% "arbitrary tax" on app payments props up "surveillance capitalism" by penalizing privacy-first subscription services while giving free passes to data-harvesting companies like Meta and Google that don't process App Store payments. The class-action lawsuit seeks to break Apple's stranglehold on iPhone app distribution and payment processing, demanding court orders allowing competing app stores on iOS. Proton pledged to donate any settlement money to democracy and human rights organizations. Apple has not responded to the allegations targeting its role in global digital authoritarianism. AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now

MrBeast Net Worth: Everything famous YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson owns in 2025
MrBeast Net Worth: Everything famous YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson owns in 2025

Time of India

time13 minutes ago

  • Time of India

MrBeast Net Worth: Everything famous YouTuber Jimmy Donaldson owns in 2025

One of the biggest names on the internet, Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, is only 27 and has reached the farthest corners of the globe with his videos. While we enjoy his YouTube challenges and giveaways, people are more interested in one thing i.e how much money does MrBeast make? His earnings in 2025 shocked fans, and the numbers are still rising. MrBeast's monthly YouTube earnings and revenue sources As of June 2025, Forbes has named MrBeast a staggering $85 million earner in just one year, from 2024 to 2025. That's huge! Celebrity Net Worth is claiming his wealth to be close to a billion meaning he is likely one of the youngest near billionaires in the world today. MrBeast is best known for his outrageous challenge videos, such as giving away a private island and opening up a house priced at $1 versus a house priced at $1,000, videos pull in millions of views and huge ad revenue. In an interview with Time in early 2025, he shared that he makes 'a couple million' each month just from ads and sponsorships. His channel manager, Marc Hustvedt, also revealed that brand deals cost up to $3 million for just one mention. With a CPM (cost per thousand views) of about $20, MrBeast's videos easily generate over $2 million per upload in ads alone. His YouTube empire includes MrBeast Gaming, Beast Reacts, and more, all bringing in extra income. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo MrBeast's growing wealth through business ventures beyond YouTube MrBeast runs several big businesses. One is Feastables, a candy brand launched in the U.S., which has been growing fast across supermarkets and online platforms. He also started MrBeast Burger, a fast-food chain operating from ghost kitchens. In May 2025, he launched his competition show 'Beast Games' on Prime Video, which broke viewership records and was renewed for two more seasons. These businesses are doing so well that experts say they make up a big part of his yearly income. 'We're building something bigger than just YouTube,' MrBeast told Forbes in a January 2025 interview. MrBeast tops 2025's creator list with 634 million followers In June 2025, Forbes released its Top Creators list, and MrBeast was at #1. With 634 million followers across platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), he's the most-followed digital creator in the world right now. His average engagement rate is 1.39%, which is very high given the massive audience. MrBeast leads the creator economy boom MrBeast's success is also part of a much larger trend. In 2025, Forbes said that the top 50 digital creators made over $853 million together—18% more than in 2024. Brands are now spending more money than ever on influencer marketing, and experts estimate this industry could hit $50 billion by 2026. 'Creators like MrBeast aren't just influencers,' said Marc Hustvedt to The Verge in March 2025. 'They're running full businesses with real teams, products, and major partnerships.' MrBeast's future looks bigger than ever even with his huge earnings Mr. Beast is still working hard. He posts very often and continues to find new types of content. He gives millions of dollars to charity, and he has helped people all around the world, that's part of the reason he has so many fans. From viral videos in North Carolina to managing global businesses, Jimmy Donaldson is now more than a YouTuber, he has evolved into a one-man media empire. Also Read: YouTuber MrBeast Says That He Is Impressed With His Work Despite Working 15 Hours A Day And Little Sleep; Bryan Johnson Responds: In Time You Will Game On Season 1 continues with Mirabai Chanu's inspiring story. Watch Episode 2 here.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store