Siltronic cuts full-year core profit margin target, but confirms sales outlook despite US tariffs
April 30 (Reuters) - German semiconductor materials supplier Siltronic (WAFGn.DE), opens new tab on Wednesday cut its annual core profit margin forecast on expected negative price effects outside of long-term agreements, but confirmed full-year sales guidance, saying it's not yet possible to estimate the impact of U.S. tariffs.
The company, whose customers include Infineon (IFXGn.DE), opens new tab, Intel (INTC.O), opens new tab, Samsung (005930.KS), opens new tab and TSMC (2330.TW), opens new tab, now expects a margin of 21% to 25% on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), having previously forecast a range of 22%-27%.
"Sales guidance for the full year 2025 remains unchanged, although it is not yet possible to estimate the impact of American tariff policies and the corresponding countermeasures on expected end-market growth and FX rates for the remainder of the year," Siltronic said in a statement.
U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and uncertainty over his trade policies have sent global markets into a tailspin and significantly dampened investors' economic optimism.
The company's quarterly EBITDA came in at 78.3 million euros ($89.07 million), down 12.5% from 90.8 million euros a year earlier, and below analysts' estimate of 85.8 million euros in a poll by LSEG data.
($1 = 0.8790 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: US Export-Import Bank considers $120 million loan for Greenland rare earths project
June 15 (Reuters) - Critical Metals Corp (CRML.O), opens new tab has received a letter of interest from the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM) for a loan worth up to $120 million to fund the company's Tanbreez rare earths mine in Greenland, in what would be the Trump administration's first overseas investment in a mining project. The loan, if approved, would boost U.S. access to minerals increasingly at the center of global economic trade and help offset the country's reliance on market leader China. It also comes after President Donald Trump openly mused earlier this year about acquiring the Danish island territory, an overture that has been repeatedly rejected. In a letter dated June 12 and reviewed by Reuters, New York-based Critical Metals has met initial requirements to apply for the $120 million EXIM loan and, if approved, would have a 15-year repayment term, longer than the company likely would have with private financing. The project would have to be "well-capitalized with sufficient equity from strategic investors" to receive the loan, the letter said. EXIM, which acts as the U.S. government's export credit agency, said in the letter that Critical Metals qualifies for a loan program designed to support companies that compete with China. The Tanbreez project is expected to cost $290 million and the EXIM funds would be used to fund technical work and get the mine to initial production by 2026. Once fully operational, the mine is expected to produce 85,000 metric tons per year of a rare earths concentrate and two minor metals. "This funding package is expected to unlock significant value for our project and our stakeholders," said Tony Sage, the company's CEO. Representatives for EXIM were not immediately available to comment. The move is the latest in a series of supportive actions by Washington toward the Tanbreez deposit and Greenland's mining sector. Reuters reported in January that former President Joe Biden's administration had successfully lobbied privately held Tanbreez Mining not to sell to a Chinese developer and instead sell to Critical Metals. Biden officials were visiting Nuuk as recently as last November trying to woo additional private investment, opens new tab in the island. Trump sent Vice President JD Vance to the island in March. The island's mining sector has developed slowly in recent years, hindered by limited investor interest, bureaucratic challenges and environmental concerns. Currently, only two small mines are in operation. Rare earths have strong magnetic properties that make them critical to high-tech industries ranging from electric vehicles to missile systems. Their necessity has given rise to intense competition as Western countries try to lessen their dependence on China's near-total control of their extraction and processing. Beijing in April put export restrictions on rare earths as part of its trade spat with Trump. The two countries earlier this month reached a truce, although Beijing's control of the sector has exacerbated the West's over-reliance and sparked a global hunt for fresh supplies. Despite the loan potential, Critical Metals would still have to either build a processing facility or find an existing site with spare capacity. The company told Reuters that its goal is to process the material inside the U.S., a goal the EXIM loan would make more achievable. Last year, Critical Metals had applied for funding to develop a processing facility from the U.S. Department of Defense, but the review process stalled ahead of Trump's January inauguration. For the EXIM loan's additional funding requirements, Critical Metals said it is considering offtake agreements, royalty streams and funding from other U.S. governmental agencies. Critical Metals told Reuters earlier this year that it has held supply talks with defense contractor Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab, among others. Critical Metals' 10th-largest investor is brokerage firm Cantor Fitzgerald ( which was formerly led by Howard Lutnick before he joined Trump's cabinet as secretary of the U.S. Commerce Department. Sage told Reuters in January he had never met or talked to Lutnick, but acknowledged Cantor's investment was a positive for his company. EXIM last year extended a letter of interest to Perpetua Resources (PPTA.O), opens new tab for a loan worth up to $1.8 billion for its antimony and gold mine in Idaho.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Winning FIFA's Club World Cup earns more than bragging rights. $1 billion is on the line
The debate that roiled soccer fans for generations was also its most unanswerable: Which clubs, on which continents, played the best soccer? Unlike national teams that played one another in the quadrennial World Cup, there was rarely overlap between the top teams in Europe and South America, or North America, except for summertime 'friendly' competitions. The FIFA Club World Cup, which begins this weekend across the U.S. and runs through the final on July 13, expanded its previously smaller format in an attempt to provide an answer. It now features 32 teams, from six continents, playing for a total prize money pool of $1 billion. 'This is for bragging rights,' said Jill Ellis, the chief football officer of FIFA, soccer's global governing body, and a former World Cup-winning coach of the U.S. women's national team. 'Prize money is a part of it. But most importantly, this is a chance to be the first-ever club world champion.' As the tournament opens, however, the money is more than just a small part of it. Falling ticket prices, and accusations from Major League Soccer players that the league had agreed to participate in a 'cash grab' that unfairly compensates them, have raised the question of just how much buy-in the new tournament has from U.S. audiences and players. When tickets for Saturday's opening game in Florida between Inter Miami, featuring Lionel Messi, and Egyptian side Al Ahly went on sale in December through Ticketmaster, an upper-deck ticket cost $379 at the time. This week, similar ticket were on sale for as low as $116. According to NPR, FIFA has worked with a local Florida college to offer four complimentary tickets for students who pay for a single $20 ticket. Attendance for the opening game was announceed at 60,927, slightly shy of the stadium's capacity of 65,000. Bayern Munich, the perennial German champion, listed lower-bowl tickets for its opener Sunday in Cincinnati for as low as $107 when its tickets went on sale in December; on Saturday, tickets were being resold on Stubhub for half that. For as little as $8, fans can watch a June 25 game between the Japanese Urawa Red Diamonds and Mexican side C.F. Monterrey. "We anticipace great attendances and electric atmospheres at its inaugural edition, with excitement growing with every round of matches and the tournament ultimately standing as the undisputed pinnacle of club world football," FIFA said, in part of a statement sent to NBC News. "The appetite speaks for itself: fans from over 130 countries have already purchased tickets. The top 10 markets are led by the United States, followed by Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Switzerland, Germany and Portugal — a clear sign of global anticipation and reach." As a new tournament, the Club World Cup cannot offer much in the way of prestige or history. Instead, it has offered a historic amount of prize money, with $525 million of the total $1 billion distributed to teams on a sliding scale, guaranteed, just for making the 32-team field. At the top, brand-name European teams such as Real Madrid, Manchester City, Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain will earn between $12.8 and $38 million; at the bottom, New Zealand's Auckland City FC will earn $3.5 million. The remaining $475 million of the billion-dollar pool will then be determined by teams' performances; making the round of 16 earns each club $7.5 million, with quarterfinalists $13.1 million, and increasing up to the final. The winner can ultimately rake in up to $125 million, all of which adds up to much more than bragging rights — which has left Major League Soccer players asking why their cut from the windfall isn't greater. Before a June 1 match players from the Seattle Sounders donned white T-shirts during warmups that read 'Club World Ca$h Grab,' with an image of the Mr. Monopoly character wearing an 'MLS' top hat and holding a pouch reading 'FIFA.' The protest led the team's owner to berate players afterward, according to the Seattle Times. The three teams in the Club World Cup field from Major League Soccer — Seattle, Inter Miami and Los Angeles Football Club — are each guaranteed $9.55 million for participating, before any bonuses are earned for performance. Players' earnings from participation or performance in a 'compulsory tournament or noncompulsory tournament' is capped at $1 million, per the terms of the league's collective bargaining agreement. The players' union has continued to push publicly to increase' players stake from what is currently about a 90/10 split, and has noted that before a major tournament in 2024, the players and MLS renegotiated the prize money distribution before ultimately landing at a 50-50 split. In a statement to NBC News on Thursday, MLS said that it has 'agreed to voluntarily provide additional performance-based compensation to players from the three participating clubs.' That proposal, the league said, would allocate 20% of all prize money earned from the group stage onward to players. 'If an MLS club wins the Club World Cup, its players would collectively receive more than $24 million in performance bonuses,' the statement read. 'MLS club owners believe performance-based incentives are appropriate given the expanded format and increased prize pool for the Club World Cup. The League values the continued dedication and commitment of its players and looks forward to supporting them as they represent their clubs — and Major League Soccer — on the global stage this summer.' On June 8, the players association posted on X that it was 'deeply disappointed' by the league's proposal. 'The timing, substance and retaliatory nature of the proposal sends a clear message: MLS does not respect or value players' efforts with regard to this tournament,' the post read. 'Although not surprised, the players and the MLSPA are deeply disappointed by this message." 'I don't think sitting out is an option,' Seattle midfielder Albert Rusnak told reporters Friday. 'Just because again, that inside what we have as athletes and winners and want to go out there and win and prove the people wrong whether we're talking about the bonuses or the people not believing we can do anything.' Ellis, who works for FIFA, believes the prospect of playing on that global stage will lead to strong competition from players. 'I think the U.S. players, if you were to say to anyone, 'Do you want to play in this tournament?' Sure, do they want to be paid as much as probably — I mean, that's within their own league and within the MLS to determine that, because obviously, unlike a lot of leagues around the world, MLS has a salary cap,' Ellis said. 'So there's certain different structures and CBA, and so that's internal to that. 'But I think in terms of what I and my experience in working with some of the best players in the world, elite players want to play against elite players. They want to test themselves, prove themselves, and they want to compete. ... Listen, at the end of the day it's a choice, but I think players will want to play in this event. '... In American sports when we win, when the Major League Baseball team wins, they're world champions. When the NFL team (wins) — the title is world champions. Well, yes, but they're playing against American teams. This is truly a world championship. This is the best clubs in the world.'
