HSBC profits slide 26% as tariff uncertainty puts brakes on investment
It reported a pre-tax profit of 15.8 billion US dollars (£11.8 billion) for the first six months of 2025 – about 26% lower than the same period a year ago.
The decline was driven by a 2.1 billion US dollar (£1.6 billion) charge to cover losses related to its stake in the Chinese Bank of Communications, as well as costs linked to exiting its businesses in Canada and Argentina.
HSBC said the impact of higher tariffs would be 'relatively modest' on its revenues – but that the 'broader macroeconomic deterioration' could mean it misses some financial targets.
It also cautioned that demand for lending is expected to remain 'muted' during 2025 amid the more uncertain global trade environment.
Georges Elhedery, HSBC's chief executive, explained that some of its customers had 'paused a lot of their investments during this uncertainty – many of them pause, or are in 'wait and see' mode to see where we will land.
'So there are expectations that some of this pause of investments may resume once the uncertainty clears out.
'It will be ambitious to believe things will move on very immediately in H2 (the second half of 2025), but we continue to believe that in the course of the next few years, that growth will resume.'
He added that the bank was 'encouraged' by recent trade agreements, with the UK striking deals with the US, the EU, and India.
Meanwhile, Mr Elhedery has spearheaded an overhaul of the banking giant's structure, hoping to make it simpler and less costly to run.
On Tuesday, HSBC said it had made 700 million US dollars' (£524 million) worth of cost savings – nearly half the 1.5 billion dollars (£1.1 billion) in annual savings it is targeting by 2027.
Cost-cutting has seen the bank cut senior jobs across the business, focusing on 'de-duplication' – meaning stripping out roles that are deemed to have very similar responsibilities to others.
Mr Elhedery said the savings target includes 'around 8% of our payroll expenses'.
He added that the bank was not specifying how many roles it planned to cut, but said the focus on reducing duplication at senior level meant it expects 'headcount reduction to be less than the 8% overall payroll reduction' it was targeting.
Mr Elhedery added: 'We're making positive progress in becoming a simple, more agile, focused organisation built on our core strengths.
'We continue to navigate this period of economic uncertainty and market volatility from a position of strength, putting the changing needs of our customers at the heart of everything we do.'
HSBC shares fell by more than 4% on Wednesday morning.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fury as Trump punishes America's biggest carmaker in friendly fire disaster
Ford builds more cars in America than any other automaker — but instead of reaping the rewards, it's being hit hardest by new trade rules. Detroit-based Ford assembles 80 percent of its US-sold vehicles domestically. But it still relies on imported parts and aluminum — which now face punishing duties. Under new trade deals with Japan, the EU, and South Korea, many imported goods are subject to a 15 percent tariff. That includes cars from Ford's big rivals Toyota, VW and Kia. That rate is far below the 25 percent tariff applied to auto parts and the 50 percent tariff on aluminum introduced this spring. The result is that Ford's American-first strategy is becoming uncompetitive. Ford expects to pay $2.5 billion in tariffs over the next year alone. 'Ford has more reason to complain,' said Bernstein analyst Daniel Roeska. 'If you're now lowering tariffs and letting more cars and content flow into the U.S., that relatively disadvantages Ford more than others.' Ford, which assembles 80 percent of its vehicles in the US, could be negatively impacted by the new trade agreement with Japan - the company doesn't produce any products in the Asian country, and still faces 25 percent tariffs on necessary parts 'I admire Ford,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a recent CNBC interview. Bessent said he hopes to iron out the 'idiosyncratic' burdens that current tariffs are placing on the company by cutting a deal with Canada to address the cost of importing aluminum. Nonetheless the situation as it currently stands is a direct contradiction of what Trump has said he aims to achieve with tariffs. The Presidents has repeatedly claimed he wants to bring back a golden era of Made-In-America manufacturing with the car industry as a cornerstone. US carmakers have welcomed the support after years of struggling to compete with foreign rivals who can take advantage of lower labor costs and less strict regulations. 'For decades now, it has not been a level playing field for U.S. automakers globally, with either tariffs or trade barriers,' General Motors chief executive Mary Barra said earlier this year. 'So I think tariffs is one tool that the administration can use to level the playing field.' However, the tariffs have now made things more difficult and more expensive. Ford President and CEO Jim Farley Ford has been hit hard by import duties on steel, aluminum and car parts Japanese carmakers like Toyota will face a lower tariff rate than American firms because of Trump's latest deal Automakers have been hit by the steel and aluminum tariffs as well as direct duties on auto parts. Furthermore in the previous era of the North American Free Trade Agreement businesses such as GM, Ford and Stellantis invested heavily in manufacturing in Mexico and Canada. Both countries have been swept up in Trump's roiling trade war with temporary tariffs, threats and U-turns causing chaos for entire industries. The storm does not appear to have passed either with Trump last night unexpectedly raising Canada's tariff rate to 35 percent. Mexico's rate currently remains at 25 percent for the next 90 days. The knock-on effect for consumers has been an increase in sticker prices from both domestically made and imported cars.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
AI is already replacing thousands of jobs per month, report finds
Artificial intelligence is already replacing thousands of jobs each month as the U.S. job market struggles amid global trade uncertainty, a report has found. The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas said in a report filed this week that in July alone the increased adoption of generative AI technologies by private employers led to more than 10,000 lost jobs. The firm stated that AI is one of the top five reasons behind job losses this year, CBS News noted. On Friday, new labor figures revealed that employers only added 73,000 jobs in July, a much worse result than forecasters expected. Companies announced more than 806,000 job cuts in the private sector through July, the highest number for that period since 2020. The technology industry is seeing the fiercest cuts, with private companies announcing more than 89,000 job cuts, an increase of 36 percent compared to a year ago. Challenger, Gray, and Christmas found that more than 27,000 job cuts have been directly linked to artificial intelligence since 2023. "The industry is being reshaped by the advancement of artificial intelligence and ongoing uncertainty surrounding work visas, which have contributed to workforce reductions," the firm said. The impact of artificial intelligence is most severe among younger job seekers, with entry-level corporate roles usually available to recent college graduates declining by 15 percent over the past year, according to the career platform Handshake. The use of 'AI' in job descriptions has also increased by 400 percent during the last two years. There are other reasons for recent job losses, with more than 292,000 roles having been terminated following cuts connected to the Department of Government Efficiency, previously led by Elon Musk, a former close ally of President Donald Trump, Challenger, Gray, and Christmas found. Senior vice president Andrew Challenger said in a statement, 'We are seeing the federal budget cuts implemented by DOGE impact non-profits and health care in addition to the government.' Amid the rising costs associated with tariffs, layoffs are also increasing in the retail sector, according to the firm. Through July, retailers announced more than 80,000 cuts, an increase of close to 250 percent compared to the same period last year. "Retailers are being impacted by tariffs, inflation, and ongoing economic uncertainty, causing layoffs and store closures. Further declines in consumer spending could trigger additional losses," said the firm. White collar workers are among those at highest risk of having their jobs wiped out by AI, executives have warned. But Challenger said early last month, 'There are roles that can be significantly changed by AI right now, but I'm not talking to too many HR leaders who say AI is replacing jobs,' he added, according to NBC News. In June, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said AI would 'reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains.' But he didn't specify a timeframe. Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that Ford CEO Jim Farley would replace 'literally half of all white-collar workers in the U.S.' But experts argue that AI is currently affecting the job market in roundabout ways, such as many companies coming under intense pressure to cut costs because of the uncertain economic climate pushed by Trump's tariff policy and concerns about increasing inflation. As such, some companies are spending money on AI software instead of hiring new staff. The CEO of The Josh Bersin Company workforce consultancy, Josh Bershin, told NBC News, 'There's basically a blank check to go out and buy these AI tools.' 'Then they go out and say, as far as head count: No more hiring. Just, 'stop.' So that immediately freezes the job market,' he added.
