BMW profits slump on China woes, US tariffs
Net profit for the April-June period plunged 32 per cent from a year earlier to 1.8 billion euros (S$2.66 billion), the manufacturer said in a statement.
Revenues slipped eight per cent to 34 billion euros as sales fell 14 per cent in China, where German carmakers are facing fierce competition from local rivals, particularly when it comes to electric vehicles.
US import taxes on cars and vehicle parts, introduced by US President Donald Trump in April as part of his tariff blitz, also hit earnings, the group said, without giving a precise figure.
However, BMW said it expects the levies to reduce the profit margins on its car sales this year by 1.25 per cent points.
The group stuck to its 2025 targets, forecasting a profit margin of between five and seven per cent for its vehicle sales, similar to the 6.3 per cent level recorded last year.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
BMW is the latest German auto titan to report poor earnings in recent days, with Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz also hammered by Trump's tariff onslaught and ongoing problems in China.
Despite the poor results, BMW finance chief Walter Mertl insisted that the carmaker's 'business model remains intact'.
'Our footprint in the US is helping us limit the impact of tariffs,' he said.
The Munich-based group has a factory in South Carolina. Nevertheless it continues to export around half of its cars destined for US customers to the United States, mainly from Europe and Mexico.
Car imports into the United States have since April been subject to a 27.5 per cent tariff, although this will be reduced to 15 per cent from August after Trump and the European Union struck a trade deal.
However this is far above the rate seen in the past. AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
8 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Britain asks China to clarify contested embassy plan
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The project comes as the Labour government is looking to reset long-fraught ties with Beijing. LONDON - The British government on Aug 6 asked China to explain partially redacted plans it has submitted for its new London embassy project, which has fanned worries from residents and human rights advocates. China has sought for several years to move its embassy from the chic Marylebone district to a sprawling historic site in the shadow of the Tower of London. It would be the largest embassy complex in Britain, and the project comes as the Labour government is looking to reset long-fraught ties with Beijing. On Aug 6, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner sent a letter to the firm DP9 that represents the Chinese government, requesting details on some documents transmitted during a public inquiry. Ms Rayner sought in particular details on portions of the plans that had been 'greyed-out' or 'redacted for security reasons'. The letter was published online by Luke de Pulford of the Interparliamentary Alliance on China, an international body, one of its copied recipients. The British government gave China until Aug 20 to respond. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Some ageing condos in Singapore struggle with failing infrastructure, inadequate sinking funds World Trump eyes 100% chips tariff, but 0% for US investors like Apple World White House says Trump open to meeting Russia's Putin and Ukraine's Zelensky Singapore MRT track issue causes 5-hour delay; Jeffrey Siow says 'we can and will do better' Singapore ST Explains: What is a track point fault and why does it cause lengthy train disruptions? Singapore ST and Uniqlo launch design contest for Singapore stories T-shirt collection Sport Son Heung-min joins Los Angeles FC in record MLS deal Singapore S'pore and Indonesia have discussed jointly developing military training facilities: Chan Chun Sing The proposed embassy site, which Beijing bought in 2018 for a reported US$327 million (S$421 million), once housed the Royal Mint. It was earlier home to a Cistercian abbey built in 1348 but is currently derelict. In 2022, the local authority, Tower Hamlets Council, unanimously rejected China's plans, which include designs by the renowned firm David Chipperfield Architects. In July 2024, Beijing resubmitted the proposals almost entirely unchanged. AFP
Business Times
8 minutes ago
- Business Times
Oil prices slide to 8-week low as US-Russia talks stir sanction uncertainty
[NEW YORK] Oil prices slid about 1 per cent to an eight-week low on Wednesday after US President Donald Trump's remarks about progress in talks with Moscow created uncertainty on whether the US would impose new sanctions on Russia. Brent crude futures fell 75 cents, or 1.1 per cent, to settle at US$66.89 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude dropped 81 cents, or 1.2 per cent, to settle at US$64.35. Those moves marked a fifth consecutive day of losses for both crude benchmarks, with Brent closing at its lowest since June 10 and WTI closing at its lowest since June 5. Trump said on Wednesday that his special envoy Steve Witkoff made 'great progress' in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as Washington continued its preparations to impose secondary sanctions on Friday. Trump has threatened additional sanctions on Moscow if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. 'Everyone agrees this war must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,' Trump said, without providing further details. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Russia is the world's second-biggest producer of crude after the US, so any potential deal that would reduce sanctions would make it easier for Russia to export more oil. Earlier in the day, oil prices rose after Trump issued an executive order imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff on goods from India, saying it directly or indirectly imported Russian oil. The new import tax will go into effect 21 days after Aug 7. India, along with China, is a major buyer of Russian oil. 'For the time being, the 21-day start to the new Indian tariffs, while Russia tries to put together some kind of cease fire agreement ahead of President Trump's Aug 8 deadline, still leaves too much uncertainty around the situation,' Bob Yawger, director of energy futures at Mizuho, said in a note. In addition to the tariff and sanction uncertainty, analysts said a planned Opec+ supply increase has weighed on the market in recent days. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, meanwhile, will visit China for the first time in over seven years, a government source said on Wednesday, in a further sign of a diplomatic thaw with Beijing as tensions with the US rise. In other news, Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, on Wednesday hiked its September crude oil prices for Asian buyers, the second monthly rise in a row, on tight supply and robust demand. Oil inventories Oil markets found support earlier in the day from a bigger-than-expected decline in US crude inventories last week. The US Energy Information Administration said energy firms pulled 3 million barrels of crude from inventories during the week ended Aug 1. That was much bigger than the 0.6-million-barrel draw analysts forecast in a Reuters poll, but was smaller than the decline of 4.2 million barrels that market sources said the American Petroleum Institute trade group cited in its figures on Tuesday. REUTERS
Business Times
8 minutes ago
- Business Times
Major climate-GDP study under review after facing challenge
[WASHINGTON] A blockbuster study published in top science journal Nature last year warned that unchecked climate change could slash global GDP by a staggering 62 per cent by century's end, setting off alarm bells among financial institutions worldwide. But a re-analysis by Stanford University researchers in California, released on Wednesday, challenges that conclusion - finding the projected hit to be about three times smaller and broadly in line with earlier estimates, after excluding an anomalous result tied to Uzbekistan. The saga may culminate in a rare retraction, with Nature telling AFP it will have 'further information to share soon' - a move that would almost certainly be seized upon by climate-change skeptics. Both the original authors - who have acknowledged errors - and the Stanford team hoped the transparency of the review process would bolster, rather than undermine public confidence in science. Climate scientist Maximilian Kotz and co-authors at the renowned Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), published the original research in April 2024, using datasets from 83 countries to assess how changes in temperature and precipitation affect economic growth. Influential paper A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up It became the second most cited climate paper of the year, according to the UK-based Carbon Brief outlet, and informed policy at the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US federal government and others. AFP was among numerous media outlets to report on it. Yet the eye-popping claim that global GDP would be lowered by 62 per cent by the year 2100 under a high emissions scenario soon drew scrutiny. 'That's why our eyebrows went up because most people think that 20 per cent is a very big number,' scientist and economist Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers behind the re-analysis, also published in Nature, told AFP. When they tried to replicate the results, Hsiang and his Stanford colleagues spotted serious anomalies in the data surrounding Uzbekistan. Specifically, there was a glaring mismatch in the provincial growth figures cited in the Potsdam paper and the national numbers reported for the same periods by the World Bank. 'When we dropped Uzbekistan, suddenly everything changed. And we were like, 'whoa, that's not supposed to happen,'' Hsiang said. 'We felt like we had to document it in this form because it's been used so widely in policy making.' The authors of the 2024 paper acknowledged methodological flaws, including currency exchange issues, and on Wednesday uploaded a corrected version, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. 'We're waiting for Nature to announce their further decision on what will happen next,' Kotz told AFP. He stressed that while 'there can be methodological issues and debate within the scientific community,' the bigger picture was unchanged: climate change will have substantial economic impacts in the decades ahead. Undeniable climate impact Frances Moore, an associate professor in environmental economics at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in either the original paper or the re-analysis, agreed. She told AFP the correction did not alter overall policy implications. Projections of an economic slowdown by the year 2100 are 'extremely bad' regardless of the Kotz-led study, she said, and 'greatly exceed the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize the climate, many times over.' 'Future work to identify specific mechanisms by which variation in climate affects economic output over the medium and long-term is critical to both better understand these findings and prepare society to respond to coming climate disruption,' she also noted. Asked whether Nature would be retracting the Potsdam paper, Karl Ziemelis, the journal's physical sciences editor, did not answer directly but said an editor's note was added to the paper in November 2024 'as soon as we became aware of an issue' with the data and methodology. 'We are in the final stages of this process and will have further information to share soon,' he told AFP. The episode comes at a delicate time for climate science, under heavy fire from the US government under President Donald Trump's second term, as misinformation about the impacts of human-driven greenhouse gases abounds. Yet even in this environment, Hsiang argued, the episode showed the robust nature of the scientific method. 'One team of scientists checking other scientists' work and finding mistakes, the other team acknowledging it, correcting the record, this is the best version of science.' AFP
