Trump's movie tariff threat alarms India's film makers
Summary
Companies
U.S. generates 40% of overseas revenue for Indian film industry
Lack of details on Trump's order sparks confusion, fear
Producers fear tariff could double cost of exports to U.S.
India has become hub for production, visual effects
Plan could speed shift to direct-to-digital releases
BENGALURU/NEW DELHI/HYDERABAD, May 7 (Reuters) - India's film industry, which earns roughly 40% of its overseas revenue from the United States, sounded the alarm this week about higher costs after President Donald Trump threatened a tariff of 100% on all movies produced beyond American soil.
Film makers, producers and distributors in one of the world's largest film industries by output struggled to weigh the likely impact of such a tariff as Trump provided scant details, stirring more questions than answers.
"The real question is how the term 'foreign produced' will be defined, and until that's clear, it's hard to say anything," said film maker Anubhav Sinha, known for his Netflix streaming series, "IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack".
"It's not yet clear whether services like post-production will be affected."
India's film industry employs 272,000 people, with overseas box office takings of about 20 billion rupees ($237 million) in fiscal 2024, or a tenth of total earnings, Deloitte and studio grouping the Motion Picture Association said in a report.
Key Hollywood films with India scenes are Oscar-winners such as the rags-to-riches tale "Slumdog Millionaire", and the Osama bin Laden manhunt thriller, "Zero Dark Thirty", along with rom-com "Eat, Pray Love", and Batman outing "The Dark Knight Rises".
In the absence of details on the planned levy, film producers worry it could double the cost of exporting their films to the United States, where people of Indian descent are estimated to number 5.2 million.
"The United States is one of the most important overseas markets for Indian cinema, largely due to the substantial diaspora," said producer Madhu Bhojwani, reponsible for hits such as "Airlift", on workers evacuated from Kuwait during the Gulf War.
"Any increase in ticket prices resulting from these tariffs would directly affect audience turnout, compounding the challenges posed by evolving consumer behaviour and broader industry headwinds."
The cost-effective South Asian nation has also grown in stature as Hollywood's preferred hub for on-ground production and post-production services, especially in visual effects, since it offers a skilled talent pool.
"Almost 10 to 15 (foreign) movies are shot in India every year, and our movie industry will be impacted very badly," said film trade analyst Komal Nahta.
LIKELY HIT TO REVENUE
Prominent Indian actor and producer Prakash Raj called Trump's move "tariff terrorism".
If the tariff covers post-production services, the consequences will be bigger, added Bhojwani, the co-founder of Emmay Entertainment and Motion Pictures.
"We can expect a potential decline in outsourced work from U.S. studios to Indian vendors, which could have notable implications for the Indian media services sector," she said.
"If revenue from the U.S. drops, it could affect budget planning and profitability for Indian production houses," said Pradeep Dwivedi, chief executive of Eros International Media (EROS.NS), opens new tab.
"Big-budget films counting on overseas revenue could be restructured or scaled back."
The move will also hurt smaller releases in the United States.
"Even a 30% drop in revenue for such mid-scale movies would be a significant dent," said Raj Kandukuri, producer of a well-regarded film, "Pelli Choopulu", in India's southern language of Telugu.
"There are a sizeable number of students in the United States who watch movies, they will not spend high on ticket prices."
The planned levy might also drive a broader shift to digital platforms.
"U.S. distributors might be less inclined to pick up Indian titles due to the increased cost," Dwivedi said.
"This could result in fewer screens, smaller releases, and a shift toward digital platforms instead of theatrical. The tariff would likely accelerate a move toward direct-to-digital releases on platforms like ErosNow, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu."
($1=84.2560 rupees)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
-and-Elon-Musk.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Republicans call for an end to Trump-Musk feud: ‘I hope it doesn't distract us'
As the Republican Party anticipates potential fallout from Donald Trump's public dispute with Elon Musk, prominent lawmakers and conservative voices are calling for reconciliation, wary of the repercussions of a sustained conflict. The animosity between the two figures could pose challenges for the Republican agenda, particularly concerning tax and border spending legislation championed by Trump but criticised by Musk. Representative Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington, expressed hope that the disagreement would not impede progress on critical tasks. Speaking on the matter, Newhouse said: "I hope it doesn't distract us from getting the job done that we need to. I think that it will boil over and they'll mend fences." As of Friday afternoon, Musk had refrained from further engagement, focusing instead on promoting his various companies on social media. Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, voiced optimism for a resolution, telling Fox News that, "I hope that both of them come back together because when the two of them are working together, we'll get a lot more done for America than when they're at cross purposes". Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, sounded almost pained on social media as Trump and Musk volleyed insults at each other, sharing a photo composite of the two men and writing, "But … I really like both of them.' 'Who else really wants @elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump to reconcile?' Lee posted, later adding: 'Repost if you agree that the world is a better place with the Trump-Musk bromance fully intact.' So far, the feud between Trump and Musk is probably best described as a moving target, with plenty of opportunities for escalation or detente. One person familiar with the president's thinking said Musk wants to speak with Trump, but that the president doesn't want to do it – or at least do it on Friday. The person requested anonymity to disclose private matters. In a series of conversations with television anchors Friday morning, Trump showed no interest in burying the hatchet. Asked on ABC News about reports of a potential call between him and Musk, the president responded: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind?' Trump added in the ABC interview that he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk at the moment. Still, others remained hopeful that it all would blow over. 'I grew up playing hockey and there wasn't a single day that we played hockey or basketball or football or baseball, whatever we were playing, where we didn't fight. And then we'd fight, then we'd become friends again,' Hannity said on his show Thursday night. Acknowledging that it 'got personal very quick,' Hannity nonetheless added that the rift was 'just a major policy difference.' House Speaker Mike Johnson projected confidence that the dispute would not affect prospects for the tax and border bill. 'Members are not shaken at all,' the Louisiana Republican said. 'We're going to pass this legislation on our deadline.' He added that he hopes Musk and Trump reconcile, saying 'I believe in redemption' and 'it's good for the party and the country if all that's worked out.' But he also had something of a warning for the billionaire entrepreneur. 'I'll tell you what, do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. "He is the leader of the party. He's the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era.'
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Foreign exposure to US assets may be lower than feared
ORLANDO, Florida, June 3 (Reuters) - It is widely believed that investors around the world have a disproportionately high exposure to U.S. assets, particularly stocks, an imbalance that could roil U.S. markets if corrected. But what if these fears are overblown? Several eye-popping statistics suggest that America's weight in world financial markets is even greater than its outsized economic might. Most strikingly, the U.S. net international investment position (NIIP), or foreign investors' holdings of U.S. assets less U.S. investors' holdings of overseas assets, at the end of 2024 was $26 trillion. That's nearly 24% of global GDP, up from 16% only two years earlier, a surge driven by foreigners' insatiable appetite for U.S. equities, mainly "Big Tech". Demand was so hot that, by some measures, the value of U.S.-listed stocks at the turn of the year represented 74% of total global market cap. That share was 60% six years ago, and less than half in 2011. But the attractiveness of dollar-denominated assets is now being questioned, as the often erratic policies of U.S. President Donald Trump have upset longstanding economic and geopolitical norms, making governments and investors question whether Washington is still a reliable partner on the global stage. The concern is that this eroding confidence triggers a reversal of the massive flows into Wall Street seen in recent years that has damaging spillover effects. Such a correction may not require outright selling. Given the scale of the flows involved, just less buying among foreign investors could be enough to cast a shadow over the world's most important stock market. And the running assumption is foreign investors don't have the capacity or willingness to increase their exposure to U.S. assets, creating a significant long-term downside risk for Wall Street, Treasuries and the dollar. "A structural shift is underway: the slow erosion of US economic dominance," analysts at Deutsche Bank wrote on Monday. But looked at another way, foreign exposure to U.S. assets may not be as high as initially meets the eye. That's the view of analysts at JP Morgan, who measure portfolio investment in U.S. bonds and equities as a share of countries' total household sector financial assets. They use a broad definition for a country's "household" sector, covering investments by institutions like insurance companies and pension funds that are ultimately made on behalf of households. Using a broad range of data, from central banks, U.S. Treasury and OECD household financial asset flows, they measure the ratio of U.S. equity and bond holdings relative to household financial assets in each country. They find that "relative to the total financial assets of households in the rest of the world, the allocations to U.S. assets typically stand at around 10-20%." As a result, they are "skeptical of the idea that foreign investors hold too much of U.S. assets." Given that U.S. equities account for more than 70% of the MSCI global market cap and dollar-denominated bonds represent around 50% of global bond indices, according to JP Morgan estimates, the 10-20% exposure of foreign investors to U.S. assets does appear surprisingly low. And the 10-20% figure would be even lower were it not for the outsized U.S. equity holdings at the Swiss National Bank and Norway's sovereign wealth fund. On the bond side, foreigners' footprint in the U.S. Treasury market is shrinking. Data shows that they owned 31% of the $28.55 trillion outstanding Treasury debt at the end of last year. That share has been declining steadily since the Global Financial Crisis. In 2008, the figure was approaching 60%. Overseas investors' share of the T-bill market has shrunk even more. In December, it was under 20%, near its lowest level on record and sharply down from 50% a decade before. Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou and his team at JP Morgan aren't arguing investors will or should ramp up their purchases of U.S. assets. And in cases where allocations are high - such as the Taiwanese exposure to U.S. bonds or Canadians' holdings of U.S. stocks - diversification would hardly be a surprise. But there is "little indication" of broad-based selling of U.S. assets by foreign investors so far this year, they note. And if that selling does materialize, it may be far lighter than many expect. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters)
Daily Mirror
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'If only Macca and Mick Jagger took on the Establishment like Bruce Springsteen'
I went to watch Bruce Springsteen this week and was blown away. Not just by the talent and energy the 75-year-old poured into a three-and-a-half hour set at Anfield. But his unflinching humanity, uncompromising principles, undying passion for the underdog, and unquenchable optimism in his fellow humans. All articulated in his utter despising of Donald Trump. 'The America I love and have sung to you about for so long, a beacon of hope for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. Tonight we ask all of you who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices, stand with us against authoritarianism, and let freedom ring.' That was how he opened the show, and throughout it, to much cheering and applause, he peppered his rousing back catalogue with fierce attacks on 'an unfit President ' and a 'demagogue'. It felt more like a political rally than a pop concert, and, magnificently, it has truly riled the demagogue. After similar rhetoric in Manchester last month, the Great Man-Child called Springsteen 'a pushy, obnoxious JERK' and accused him of treachery, wailing 'this dried-out prune of a rocker ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the country'. Thankfully he won't. And it's a joy to behold. Rather than phoning in his greatest hits and soaking in adulation as his bank account swells, he is channelling raw anger and urging his audience to join in his joyous rage. I only wish some of Britain's musical legends like Sir Mick, Sir Rod, Sir Elton and Sir Macca were equally as bold and used their platform to challenge Establishment injustices, instead of bathing in the reflected glory of knighthoods and not rocking the boat. Springsteen's stance takes real courage, exemplified in the kickback he is facing from sections of his blue-collar fanbase. Last week, in his home state of New Jersey, a Springsteen tribute band called No Surrender was dropped by a venue for fear of a MAGA backlash. His critics say it's cheap posturing. That he's a bad loser who, like the man he attacks, refuses to accept the will of the American people. That he should take a look at all the luvvies who came out for Kamala Harris last year and realise that celebrity endorsements are now dead. But they are wrong. Anyone who hears Bruce express his pain over what is happening to his beloved country knows it's genuine. Besides, he's been sticking up for the underdog all of his career. During the 1985 miners' strike he anonymously handed over a cheque for $20,000 to a support group. As for those questioning his loyalty to America, what can be more patriotic than calling out the fake patriotism of a phoney President who has never cared about anyone but himself? A chancer whose real aim as CEO of the US is to spread his brand to every corner of the world and redistribute wealth further towards his billionaire backers at the expense of the poor. Trump and his people, The Boss told us on Wednesday, 'have no concern or idea what it means to be deeply American. Despite its faults it is a great country. And we will survive this moment'. With true patriots like Springsteen around, America has a chance. Butlin's is offering up to 40% off family breaks in 2025 and 2026.
