Thyssenkrupp to spin off marine division amid defence boom
Countries have been rearming to face the growing Russian threat and in response to pressure from US President Donald Trump for NATO allies to contribute more to the alliance, giving a boost to the continent's weapons manufacturers.
Thyssenkrupp's establishment of its defence branch as an standalone entity is also the latest move in a restructuring at the storied manufacturer whose other divisions -- notably the traditional steel business -- are facing problems.
"Against the backdrop of the current security situation in Europe and around the world, it is crucial that Germany and its partners can rely on capable, innovative companies such as TKMS (Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems)," said supervisory board chairman Siegfried Russwurm.
Shareholders overwhelmingly backed the spin-off of a 49-percent minority stake of the marine division at a specially convened meeting.
The marine unit will be listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange later this year.
The broader Thyssenkrupp group will retain a controlling stake, which it said ensured "the strategic steering and stability of TKMS".
Thyssenkrupp's shares rose two percent in Frankfurt after the news.
"TKMS gains the freedom to drive innovation more rapidly, invest in a targeted manner, and respond flexibly to customer and market requirements," said Thyssenkrupp CEO Miguel Lopez.
The defence division's orders have grown significantly in recent years and the backlog now exceeds 18 billion euros ($21 billion), according to the group.
TKMS represents just a small part of Thyseenkrupp's revenues but its prospects are far brighter than other divisions, particularly the steel business, which is in the throes of a painful restructuring as it battles fierce Asian competition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Goose-step by goose-step, Republican Party authoritarianism marches into the political arena
Donald Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style are bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. These run from the vindictive firing of a government labour statistician to the promotion of ultra-partisan redistricting of congressional districts to fend off a Democratic majority in the 2026 mid-term election. On the mean-spirited, small-minded side of the ledger, US President Donald Trump abruptly announced he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. This office is one of the government's most important economic data compiling and analysis agencies. Among other things, it tracks the country's unemployment rate and the number of new jobs being created — information crucial for decisions and calculations by the government and business. The ostensible reason for Trump's ire was that the most recently reported number of new jobs created was well below what he had hoped to hear. That came in tandem with significant downward revisions to earlier monthly totals of new jobs. The Trump administration, however, took these mundane, even ordinary statistical calculations and routine revisions as direct slaps at the imaginary triumphs of Trumpian economic policies. The resulting damage from this firing to a heretofore broad trust in the reliability of the government's economic data will be difficult to repair, almost regardless of who is handed the poisoned chalice as the new head of that bureau. For many, any replacement's judgment and independence may well be seen as a politically tainted toady, tweaking (or falsifying) the data to curry favour with the current administration — and maybe the succeeding ones as well. While that position is a high-level yet specialised political appointment, when she was initially nominated and confirmed, McEntarfer had overwhelming support in the Senate. But to Trump, she was just one more agent of the imaginary deep state designed to bring him low. It's another of Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style, bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. Attack on DEI Reaching deeply into the standard ways of academic appointments, the president's team usurped the authority of the commandant and staff of the US Military Academy at West Point to appoint lecturers. The Trumpians forced the withdrawal of the appointment of a highly regarded, academically qualified, experienced former military officer to a prestige professorship, Jen Easterly, a West Point graduate who served as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Biden. The ostensible grounds for this sudden decision remain somewhat murky, but presumably it was something she had said or written in the past, plus the fact that she is, well, quite obviously, female. Academic performance and the enthusiastic support for her by the school's commandant and academic officers were insufficient to secure the appointment. Yes, in the larger picture of a vast defence and security establishment, this personnel action might be seen as pretty small beer, but it is simply one more demonstration of the administration's desire to extirpate every supposed tendril of DEI — diversity, equity, inclusivity — in the Department of Defense. Trump's fury Then, the other day, one of those young comrades who are the hoplites of the so-called Doge — or Department of Government Efficiency — whose online moniker was Big Balls (we're not making this up), was the victim of an assault on the streets of Washington, DC. This single act was sufficient to drive Trump into a fury. He publicly threatened to seize control of the city's government on the grounds that it was an ungoverned, chaotic, crime-ridden shambles. All this fire and brimstone came despite the reality that ultimate control of the city's governmental mechanisms is constitutionally vested in the Congress and that branch of government has delegated some, but not all, of its powers to an elected mayor and city council. The president is not involved. Random tariffs Meanwhile, the Trumpian tariff roulette wheel continues to spin, with the pointer seemingly landing at random at new levels and countries. Okay, there are actually two pointers: one is for the applicable tariff rates, and one for the country. Regardless, it is hard to discern much deeper logic behind many of these choices (ask the gobsmacked folks in Lesotho or Laos), save for the impact of leaders expressing demurs over US policy or their economies' abilities to generate trade surpluses. All of that utopian nonsense about free trade, the World Trade Organization and most favoured nation treatment is going out the window, and the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is now in the saddle and will be riding humankind. That Act is regarded as having provoked massive trade wars, cuts in international trade and contributed to the Great Depression. Oh, and Germany's slide towards dictatorship as a result of the economic collapse there. Most economists believe the costs to US consumers from these new tariff regimens will, soon enough, begin to bite as importers pass along the new tariff charges (even if foreign producers cut prices a bit to hold on to market share). It will take years for most producers to meet the ostensible goal of forcing manufacturers to move their production to the US, if ever. So far, at least, the impact on prices has been modest — if only because importers worked to bring in their import orders before the new tariffs kicked in. Much of what will stock US stores for the holidays has already been manufactured and exported, but not necessarily landed yet. The reported dampening of economic growth is one reason that drove that Trumpian hissy fit about the Bureau of Labor Statistics' head. Russian confusion One example of the lack of any larger strategic thinking for all these tariffs is that after years of Trump lavishing praise on the Indian government of Narendra Modi (and courting support and campaign contributions from the Indian-American community in the US, it must be said), India has just been hit with punitive tariffs on the grounds it is financing the Russian war machine by importing its discounted oil below global market prices. That punishment meted out might seem confusing, given Trump's unrelenting, increasingly desperate effort to make nice-nice with Vladimir Putin so he can be the man who brought an end to Russia's assault on Ukraine. On Friday night, following a White House ceremony that brought together Armenia and Azerbaijan for a handshake to end their decadeslong conflict, it was announced that Trump would host Putin in Alaska this week for a summit designed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. This putative ending of hostilities would be grounded in the harsh reality of a Ukrainian cession of territory to Russia — presumably Crimea and much of the eastern Ukraine already seized by Russia in the years of fighting, although Trump positioned this as 'exchanges of territory'. It does not seem the Ukrainians will get much of a voice in this, nor will Nato's European nations. As the ancient Greek historian Thucydides put it: 'The strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.' But Trump's unrelenting campaign to win a Nobel Peace Prize continues unabated. Gilded ballroom A Trumpian propensity for his grandiosity has been manifested in his plans to add a massive new ballroom onto the eastern side of the White House. It will be decorated in what should be called Trumpian Second Empire Grotesque — with an overabundance of gilt, painted ceilings, massive chandeliers, and oversized gold sconces and wall hangings everywhere possible. The plan to have this construction financed by private donations (and thus free from outside oversight) has led to concerns that it will be another effort at 'pay to play' special dealing, similar to corporate sponsorship of the traditional White House Easter egg roll. If one needed any further clarity about the ghastliness of such plans, the White House's Rose Garden — site of innumerable memorable public events — has now largely been replaced by an unrelenting concrete plaza. Joni Mitchell's 1970 lament in ' Big Yellow Taxi,' that '…they put up a parking lot', seems eerily appropriate. Contorted districts Still more astonishing behaviour by Trump has been his enthusiastic engagement with a gerrymandering initiative in Texas. Gerrymandering is an old habit in US politics, but this newest effort is proceeding down an especially problematic path. The term refers to the early 19th-century Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, who insisted upon shaping legislative districts that were so twisted and contorted in their boundaries that a famous political cartoon about it drew one of those districts in the shape of a winged salamander wiggling its way through the map of the state, hence the portmanteau word 'gerrymander' that has become the common description of problematic legislative constituencies. The number of each state's congressional districts is determined by the country's decennial census. (Yes, slaves were initially counted as 3/5ths of a person, a provision that became null and void after the abolition of slavery in 1865.) A Supreme Court decision subsequently upheld the requirement that congressional districts must be largely equal in population, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act mandated that minority-majority districts should be protected, rather than diminished by slicing up the state's minority populations and squeezing them into surrounding districts, thus effectively nullifying any possibilities of minority group voting power. Common sense has dictated that the districts must be, as much as possible, geographically cohesive, rather than, for example, being a modern manifestation of Governor Gerry's scheme, following a highway and including various bits of cities and towns along the way for many kilometres. One other key factor is that redistricting in accordance with the population figures after a census takes place state by state, rather than being a federal decision. Appalling redistricting plans deliberately squeezing minority populations into just one district, regardless of geography and at the expense of other plans have ended up in the courts. Clinging on The current imbroglio has arisen from the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and that party's majority in the Texas state legislature — under the goad of Trump — to carry out a redistricting effort five years before a census takes place. That would rearrange the congressional districts in the state such that Texas would most likely end up with five additional Republican-leaning districts. The goal here is to build a bulwark that can bolster the razor-thin Republican majority in the House of Representatives in time for the mid-term election next year. The growing Republican fear is that sufficient numbers of voters in some marginal districts will be so significantly annoyed by the actual outcomes of the taxation and spending arrangements coming out of that now-passed 'Big Beautiful Bill' that Republicans may well lose control of the House. If that were to happen, investigations of Trump's governmental actions, public and adversarial hearings, and all manner of other efforts could stymie — and maybe even roll back — some of Trump's more egregious demands and desires. It could make his last two years as president a misery. In response, a significant caucus of Texas' Democratic state legislators fled the state, taking up temporary residence in Illinois (with the blessing of that Democratic Party-governed state's governor), preventing any legislative action in Texas because of the absence of a quorum. Escalating the fight, the Texas governor has threatened to have these malefactors arrested and shanghaied back to Texas, and then drummed out of office, thus allowing the redistricting to go forward without any obstacles by those pesky Democrats. Abbott has asked the FBI to help track down and arrest those dangerous criminals. The FBI, of course, is run by über-Trump loyalist Kash Patel, who is apparently itching to join the action. This is despite the absence of federal laws regarding the absence of state legislators from sittings of state legislatures. The National Review, a stoutly conservative journal, weighed in, with one columnist writing, 'Readers, we are in the midst of a major political Mexican standoff, one that feels surprisingly unremarked upon as we accelerate pell-mell toward the inevitable consequences of the breakdown of a series of electoral norms. 'I cannot help but think about it in cinematic terms. First Sergio Leone, then Quentin Tarantino, and now Democratic and Republican lawmakers across the nation are holding one another at electoral gunpoint, threatening mutually assured construction: the abrupt and hyper-partisan redrawing of congressional boundary lines in every state where it is politically possible.' In response to the Texan shenanigans, governors in Democratic Party-governed states such as Illinois, California, and New York have threatened to engage in the same kind of punitive redistricting, squeezing out Republican majorities in various congressional districts. This move has been labelled the 'nuclear option'. Such redistricting decisions would, of course, be a blow against the equal representation in Congress for the nation's citizens. And the blame for this belongs with a Republican Party desperate to hang onto power, despite changes of heart by voters. A path forward Taken together, the Trumpian onslaught is very real and, at times, startlingly specific and targeted deep in the bureaucracy. It draws on Trump's usual grievances about the government, the elites and the so-called deep state. It also draws on his famously thin skin. Together with Republican allies elsewhere, they seem determined to bring lasting change. But nothing is forever, and one election could overturn much of it. The Democrats may be coming together to draw their own lines in the sand. Going forward, salvaging the situation for the future with positions like the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics will require making such appointments fully independent of presidential choices, or, at the minimum, subject to unbreakable multiyear contracts. The model might be like the heads of the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Accountability Office. Solving the current tariff shambles is harder, but limiting presidential authority to decide on new tariffs in response to 'national emergencies' needs a serious rethink. Setting tariffs is, after all, listed constitutionally as one of Congress's enumerated powers. Finally, somehow, in some way, a new structure arbitrating redistricting for congressional seats must be found before the gerrymandering conflict locks in a deeply unrepresentative landscape that excludes political minorities, state by state. But don't count on any of this happening soon. The US's contemporary political culture is growing increasingly toxic. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: Shoprite still the checkout champion in retail wars
While there are opportunities to make money in the South African economy, you have to be pretty selective about where you look. It's not news to you that South Africa's economic growth has been less than inspiring, leading to South Africans becoming poorer by global standards. Nedbank's recent results are evidence of lacklustre economic activity, with the bank struggling to get enough loans out into the wild to offset the impact of a dip in interest rates. In the retail sector, The Foschini Group put forward some fascinating arguments at their Capital Markets Day about the shocking trend in the average South African's real income (ie adjusted for inflation) over the past decade and why this is forcing the group to see its value offerings as the best local growth engine. These corporate nuggets are a useful reminder that while there are definitely opportunities to make money in the South African economy, you have to be pretty selective about where you look. One of the most interesting ways to see this play out each year is in the retail sector, a competitive bloodbath of companies trying to compete for some of the most price-sensitive consumers in the world. There's no rising tide that lifts all boats here. Instead, there are boats that can get past the challenging waves and there are others that are getting smashed into the harbour. Last week in this column, I covered Boxer vs Woolworths Food as an excellent example of the power of having a focused model in a difficult economy. It's amazing how the clothing retail sector is filled with executives who find themselves drawn to offshore opportunities (traps?), with Woolworths continuing to suffer an Australian hangover. The Foschini Group is unfazed by this, with a clear message to the market that they will continue to pursue an international strategy despite reporting disappointing numbers in their UK and Australian businesses. The grocery sector has also seen some truly ugly offshore expansion stories. Spar is the standout example, with the group still reeling from its European exposure. Closer to home, even a grocery giant like Shoprite has learnt some hard lessons from trying to grow in Africa. For better or worse, the local market is where the best money is to be made by our retailers. This is where they understand their customers and can execute sensible strategies around store formats, supply chains and acquisitions (where those opportunities are still available in the market). The success that Shoprite has seen through focusing on South Africa rather than Africa is lovely to behold, while even Pick n Pay is starting to see the benefits of a turnaround strategy that has simplification at its core. This brings us to this week's corporate updates, with important financial news coming in from market leader Shoprite and laggard Pick n Pay. Before digging into these numbers, it's worth noting that the year-to-date performance is poor for both stocks, with Shoprite down nearly 10% and Pick n Pay down 15%. Before the latest results came out, Pick n Pay was actually 'ahead' this year, ie less negative than Shoprite. The share price performance can tell a different story from the underlying business performance because of the expectations baked into the share price. The market has incredibly high expectations for Shoprite, with Pick n Pay seen as a much more speculative play. We'll start with Pick n Pay, before ending off with Shoprite at the top of the food chain. Positive momentum at Pick n Pay – unless you're a franchisee There's an incredibly odd situation at Pick n Pay that goes against conventional wisdom. The corporate-owned stores are showing a faster turnaround than the franchise stores, despite the latter typically benefiting from being owner managed. Although this sounds great in theory, the problem is that Pick n Pay has a vast base of franchise stores. For the turnaround to be successful, they need both corporate-owned and franchise stores to pull their weight. In the past three reported periods (being the first and second halves of FY25, as well as the first 17 weeks of FY26), corporate-owned stores grew turnover by 3.1%, 3.6% and 4.0% respectively. In stark contrast, franchise supermarkets managed -1.4%, 1.1% and 0.2% respectively. It's not hard to spot the more consistent story with positive momentum. As encouraging as the corporate-owned story is, Pick n Pay's efforts to shrink into profitability have led to a situation where total sales growth is non-existent. Essentially, the store closures are offsetting the growth in other stores. While this is the right decision in terms of the turnaround, it doesn't exactly tell a story of growth. Pick n Pay Clothing remains the gem, with an astonishing 12.5% increase in like-for-like sales in the latest 17-week period. While the timing of winter has played a role here and this isn't indicative of sustainable growth, this store format's consistently strong performance shows that Pick n Pay can still win when they get the model right. Lots of wagging tails at Shoprite Shoprite's latest update covers the 52 weeks to 29 June 2025, so it's not directly comparable to Pick n Pay's release. Still, it tells an incredible story of a group that just doesn't stop winning, with HEPS from continuing operations expected to be 9.4% to 19.4% higher. This was driven by sales growth of 8.9%, with Supermarkets RSA leading the charge with growth of 9.5%. Digging deeper into Supermarkets RSA reveals that Checkers and Checkers Hyper delivered growth of 13.8%, while Shoprite and Usave were far more modest at 5.2%. Boxer is giving Shoprite a proper go when it comes to lower-income shoppers, whereas higher-income shoppers have flocked to Checkers at a time when Pick n Pay has been shedding customers. It's not all good news, though. There's a concerning trend in sales momentum from the first half to the second half of the year, with Supermarkets RSA growing 10.4% in the first half and 8.5% in the second half. There's certainly nothing wrong with 8.5% growth, but Shoprite is trading on a demanding earnings multiple and any slowdown in growth will be a concern for the market. Unlike Pick n Pay, which must shrink into profitability, Shoprite is expanding in key verticals. They love the pet opportunity for example, with Petshop Science opening 60 new stores to take the total footprint to 144 stores. Interestingly, the worrying trend in the birth rate is on full display at Shoprite, with just one new Little Me store opened in this period, taking the total to 11 stores. With the furniture business being sold to Pepkor and with a decision to further reduce the exposure to certain countries in Africa, Shoprite's focused grocery strategy is working beautifully. They are experimenting in other categories, but they understand what the core of the business must be in order to continue being successful. The risk, as always, lies in overpaying for the shares. Based on the guided range for HEPS with a midpoint of R13.57, the price/earnings (P/E) multiple is just below 20x. My observation of retail stocks on the JSE is that they start to run out of puff at a P/E above 20x, so there's not much room for multiple expansion here. If Shoprite can maintain this kind of growth in HEPS though, investors won't need multiple expansion to be rewarded. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Lessons for SA from Brazil in balancing incoming investment with local industrial development
Extracting greater value from the BRICS partnership has been highlighted as a key strategy for South Africa to diversify export markets and attract investment – particularly in the face of the US tariffs now in effect, and warnings of further tariff hikes targeted at BRICS countries. However, we must strike a balance between investment that strengthens local manufacturing, creates jobs and stimulates export value, and investment that weakens local industrialisation and employment. Nelson Mandela Bay's economy is anchored in manufacturing, which is dominated by the assembly of automobile and auto components, as well as other sectors such as pharmaceuticals and beverages. The experience of the Brazilian automotive manufacturing sector, which has attracted more than $4.5-billion in investment from Chinese automakers over the past few years, provides a number of lessons on both sides of the equation that can be learnt by South Africa and other BRICS partners to ensure new investments are mutually beneficial. While Brazil succeeded in attracting substantial foreign investment, domestic production remained dominated by foreign components imports, with little use of locally manufactured components. This highlights a persistent challenge for Brazil and other emerging economies: how to leverage foreign investment for genuine industrial upgrading and localisation of components, rather than merely becoming a minor assembly point. South Africa is already experiencing a rapid influx of Asian-manufactured vehicles into our local market, edging out sales of locally produced vehicles. Incoming manufacturing investments include the assembly of imported vehicles that are already partly assembled with all their components (semi-knockdown, or SKD assembly), which add little value in terms of manufacturing employment or growing local component manufacturing. This production mode is eroding the strength that completely knockdown (CKD) manufacturing, as performed by the long-standing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), brings to the local economy, with its far greater levels of investment, employment and localisation of manufacturing. CKD manufacturing enables deep value chains that develop an interconnected ecosystem of local Tier 1 and Tier 2 component manufacturing, along with a surrounding network of local suppliers of goods and services, that has a ripple effect into all other sectors of the economy. Given the current situation of not only the US tariffs but also the need to strengthen the policy and incentives environment to encourage CKD over SKD manufacturing, prevent dumping of cheap products into the South African market, and support local manufacturers to respond to the global shift to new energy vehicles, the experience of the Brazilian automotive industry warrants attention. Brazil is a key market for the global automotive industry, recognised as the world's sixth-largest car market and holding the dominant position in Latin America. Substantial market size coupled with its strategic role as a gateway to the broader Latin American region, makes Brazil an exceptionally attractive growth opportunity for global automakers. The country's expanding middle class and a growing demand for eco-friendly transport solutions, supported by government policy, further amplify its appeal, positioning it as a key destination for new energy vehicle exports and investment. The massive investments in Brazil by Chinese automakers, with their advanced EV technologies and aggressive expansion strategies, have disrupted the long-standing dominance of traditional Western and Japanese brands and Brazil's CKD auto manufacturing sector. This is similar to the disruption in South African automotive manufacturing, which has grown rapidly in the past five years. Like South Africa, Brazil faces a delicate balancing act between attraction of foreign direct investment with its long-standing objective of fostering a robust and self-sufficient local automotive industry. Tariff exemptions initially led to a rush of fully built-up Chinese vehicles into the Brazilian market, a 'dumping' strategy that undermined local manufacturers. Chinese investors initially pursued SKD assembly, importing most parts, particularly high-value EV batteries where China has substantial capacity. Job creation commitments were much lower than initially promised – due to factors including Brazil's substantial skills gaps, the use of imported labour and the lower job creation of SKD manufacturing and lack of creation of local supporting value chains of any substance. Due to different approaches to labour, Chinese companies also encountered significant friction with Brazil's strong labour union movement, attracting outrage at the treatment of workers. The focus on SKD assembly resulted in limited technology transfer and did not stimulate growth of local supply chains, reducing the industry to an assembly line dependent on China's value chains and imported labour, rather than enabling innovation and the creation of direct and indirect jobs as seen in CKD manufacturing. The influx of Chinese investment created a fundamental tension with Brazil's national industrial development goals, which aim for deep local value creation, job security and genuine technology transfer. Brazil has since reintroduced import tariffs on EVs, commencing in 2024 and projected to reach 35% by July 2026, serving as a significant policy driver compelling automakers to establish local production. It is also now implementing robust policies on investment, to deepen manufacturing supply value chains into component production, with policies also related to technology transfer and adherence to labour laws. Achieving sustainable long-term success in Brazil for automakers requires moving beyond assembly to deeper localisation, investing in local research and development and skills development, and proactively engaging with labour unions to build trust and ensure compliance. For the Brazilian government, a refined industrial policy that actively incentivises technology transfer, supports local supplier development and invests strategically in critical infrastructure and workforce retraining is paramount to truly harness the benefits of the EV transition and foreign investment for national industrial upgrading. In moving to ensure that investment meets local industrialisation and employment goals, Brazil has flexed its considerable muscle – as a top-tier global automotive market and having a significant renewable energy matrix – to ensure that it is not a passive recipient of foreign investment. It actively employs policy tools, such as tariffs and the 'green mobility and innovation programme' (Mover), to assert its national interests. By insisting on local production and job creation, Brazil positions itself as a critical arena for global EV dominance. The willingness of major Chinese automotive players to adapt to local market demands, such as producing ethanol-flex hybrids, underscores Brazil's significant leverage in shaping the terms of engagement for foreign automakers. This adaptation to local needs and policies is a testament to Brazil's ability to influence foreign investment to align with its unique market characteristics. A further consideration as South Africa seeks to strengthen trade and investment relationships with the BRICS countries is that of the nature of the exports. While South Africa's exports to the European Union and to BRICS and related markets are roughly equivalent at about $20-billion per annum, there is a key difference in that exports to BRICS comprise mostly unbeneficiated minerals and other raw materials while those to the EU (and the US) are, in addition to minerals, more focused on a diversified range of added-value manufactured products. In the latter case, innovation is stimulated, intellectual property generated and higher-value employment is created along with integrated value chains. South Africa needs to shift the balance of its trading equation from being a source of low-margin raw materials to a source of high-margin, value-added products, as well as a destination for value-adding investment. Another key factor to ensure the sustainability of CKD vehicle manufacturing is to make it an entry requirement for incoming investors to not only compete in the domestic market, but to also have export markets for vehicles and/or locally produced components. Simply displacing domestic vehicle sales of OEMs who already produce in the country, further exacerbates the risk of factory closures. In the same way that there needs to be rules of entry for manufacturers entering the country, this also needs to be in place to ensure that orderly and responsible exits take place from the market. This should be centred on protecting the surrounding ecosystem of suppliers, and providing a level of mitigation and transition support to enable them to explore alternative options. We can retain local manufacturing by putting mutually beneficial investment and trading relationships at the centre of negotiations, rather than perpetuating extractive relationships. This we believe is essential if we are serious about retaining and attracting investment and employment, especially in the Bay, which is the area in South Africa most adversely affected by the current global trade shifts. DM
