US tariffs, laws push Jeep owner Stellantis into €2. 3bn first-half net loss
Image: File
Jeep owner Stellantis said on Monday it suffered a massive loss in the first half of the year, when it felt the first impact of new US tariffs and took a massive charge following a change in US laws.
The €2.3 billion (R48bn) net loss in the first half of the year came as sales in North America continued to slump, down 25% by volume in the second quarter year-on-year.
The carmaker, whose stable of brands also includes Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, said first-half net revenues dropped 12.6% to €74.3bn, according to the preliminary and unaudited results.
Sales of vehicles fell by 6% in the second quarter year-on-year, after having dropped 9% in the first three months of 2025.
Stellantis said "the early effects of US tariffs" had a €300 million negative impact and disrupted its plans to respond to its struggling performance in North America.
Automakers have struggled to respond to a new US tariff of 25% on imported cars that are not largely made within North America.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Stellantis fell into a net loss when it took a €3.3bn charge, which it said was "primarily related to programme cancellation costs and platform impairments, net impact of the recent legislation eliminating the CAFE penalty rate and restructuring".
US President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending legislation, approved earlier this month, removed the penalties for not respecting the so-called CAFE fuel economy targets, meaning automakers can produce and sell more higher polluting cars in the United States.
Stellantis suspended its financial guidance in April due to the heightened uncertainty generated by US tariffs.
The company said it was in the early stage of taking action to improve performance and profitability, with new products expected to deliver a larger impact in the second half of 2025.
Shares in Stellantis fell more than 2% as trading got underway on the Paris stock exchange.
Stellantis said it would release audited first half results on July 29 as scheduled.
AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Oil giant BP surprises with better than expected earnings
Oil giant BP, which recently pivoted away from green energy, posted Tuesday better-than-expected quarterly earnings and announced a fresh review of costs. The British group's return to profit in the second quarter contrasted with weaker results from energy rivals, as lower exceptional charges offset falling oil prices. Profit after tax came in at $1.63 billion in the April-June period, compared with a net loss of $129 million in the second quarter of 2024, BP said in an earnings statement. Stripping out exceptional items, underlying net profit was down nearly 15 percent. "This has been another strong quarter for BP operationally and strategically," chief executive Murray Auchincloss said in the earnings statement. BP on Monday said it made its biggest oil and gas discovery in 25 years off the coast of Brazil. In February, BP launched a major pivot back to its more profitable oil and gas business, shelving its once industry-leading targets on reducing carbon emissions and slashing clean energy investment. However, energy prices have come under pressure in recent months on concerns that US President Donald Trump's tariffs will hurt economic growth, while OPEC+ nations have produced more oil. BP managed to post a profit for the second quarter thanks to impairments which were lower than one year earlier, along with a revaluation of assets -- notably in relation to liquefied natural gas (LNG) -- and divestments. - Sector woes - By contrast, US rivals ExxonMobil and Chevron, along with French group TotalEnergies, posted heavy falls to their net profits in the second quarter. As did oil giant Saudi Aramco, which on Tuesday announced its 10th straight drop in quarterly profits as a slump in prices hit revenues. The average price for Brent North Sea crude, the international benchmark, stood at $67.9 per barrel in the second quarter, down from $85 one year earlier. British rival Shell still managed to post a slight increase to its profit after tax for the latest reporting period. As for BP, Auchincloss said the company was launching "a further cost review and, whilst we will not compromise on safety, we are doing this with a view to being best in class in our industry". Shares in BP gained 2.2 percent in London morning deals following its results and news of a fresh dividend and share buyback. "A slick turnaround plan pumped up BP's second-quarter results," noted Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown. "Despite lower oil and gas prices, it's managed to push underlying profits up by nearly $1 billion from the first quarter to $2.4 billion, well ahead of analyst forecasts." Nathan added that "shareholders will be glad to see this matched with financial discipline". BP already announced plans this year to cut cleaner energy investment by more than $5 billion annually and offload assets worth a total of $20 billion by 2027. It recently agreed to sell its onshore wind energy business in the United States, while Shell has also scaled back its climate objectives. BP last month named Albert Manifold as its new chairman, replacing Helge Lund, whose departure was announced amid the strategy reset. The group's net profit plunged 70 percent in its first quarter, hit by weaker oil prices. By Ben Perry
Mail & Guardian
5 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
How Trump's tariffs exposed South Africa's strategic trade failures
The Trump' administration's trade tariffs have shaken the rand. Photo: File The United States' 30% tariff on South Africa — set to take effect on 1 August 2025 but pushed back seven days — is a grave blow for those diligently modelling costs, yet a distant abstraction for many South Africans who are yet to grasp its economic gravity. Regrettably, in South Africa global economic shocks typically register as background noise, their causes unexamined, their consequences only recognised when unavoidable. Before dissecting our strategic missteps, let's make these abstract forces tangible. Consider first how US President Donald Trump's threats of tariffs shook the rand's foundations in July alone. The currency exhibited heightened volatility, opening at R17.59 before plunging 2.6% to R18.04 by month-end, as markets priced in the impending tariffs. Three distinct phases can be identified: the initial 7 July drop to R17.74 (-1%) on Trump's Brics surcharge threat, a mid-month slump to R17.89 as exemption hopes faded and the final 1.5% 24 to 31 July drop when tariff implementation became certain. Let's also appreciate trade and industry in this context. The South African Revenue Service's Cumulative Trade Report for January to June 2025 revealed that SA exported R68.8 billion worth of goods to the US. Trump's tariffs will probably disproportionately target critical sectors like vehicles and transport equipment (R11.4 billion); machinery (R3.8 billion); iron and steel products (R10.9 billion); chemicals (R4.8 billion) and plastics (R644 million). Despite exempt categories, such as precious metals and iron ores, several mineral categories will suffer, including processed steel, machinery components and industrial chemicals, risking R31.5 billion in vulnerable exports. If these impacts remain abstract, consider the tangible consequences — currency depreciation and trade disruptions will send prices of basic goods soaring, devastate jobs in the auto and mining industries, deepen inequality, shutter factories at an alarming rate, fuel inflationary fires and ignite political instability as economic hardship erodes public trust. Clearly, these repercussions span economic, political and social spheres, raising pressing questions about whether the state could have taken stronger measures to mitigate the coming storm. The evidence suggests decisive action was both possible and necessary. While competent trade negotiation reflects able governance, truly strategic trade diplomacy remains an elusive art — one whose absence we feel acutely in these turbulent economic waters. A few months back, while Washington's theatrics over South Africa's land reform policies dominated headlines, the real tragedy unfolded quietly – that is, the country's mineral baiting approach to trade talks which ultimately ought to have been seen by our government as doomed from inception. Why so? Because Trump's global trade warfare primarily stems from geopolitical anxiety over dwindling US hegemony, not sound economic logic. In such a context, no mineral concessions could sway Washington. Rather than this futile approach, we should have been aggressively pursuing market diversification, accelerating regional industrial partnerships and building shock-absorbent trade architectures. Far from wishful thinking, this has been a deliberate strategic pivot by pragmatic emerging economies. For example, shortly after Trump announced reciprocal tariffs, Southeast Asian states like Cambodia aggressively diversified trade partners through South-South cooperation and the 'China+1' strategy, transforming tariff threats into opportunities. These nations retain their edge as export manufacturing hubs, where labour cost advantages outweigh protectionist headwinds. Regrettably, this was a storm we might have weathered — had we possessed the strategic foresight to act early. Instead, we'll spend the coming quarters, perhaps years, paying for missed opportunities, while our trade and diplomatic machinery scrambles merely to recover lost ground. Siseko Maposa is the director of Surgetower Associates Management Consultancy. The views expressed are his own.
The Herald
5 hours ago
- The Herald
Lesotho textiles to struggle even with lower 15% Trump tariff, says minister
Lesotho's modified tariff rate of 15% may still not be enough to save its textiles industry, its trade minister Mokhethi Shelile said on Friday, a day after US President Donald Trump lowered it from a devastating 50% rate he had threatened to implement earlier. In an executive order, Trump modified reciprocal tariff rates for dozens of countries, including Lesotho, which had been under threat of a 50% rate since April, the highest of any US trading partner. "It's a mixed feeling," Shelile told Reuters by telephone. "The sad part is that it is still not good enough ... this will lead to job losses." Lesotho's textiles sector is its leading export industry, and it was heavily dependent upon the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (Agoa), a US trade initiative that offers qualifying African nations duty-free access to the US market. On the back of that preferential tariff, textiles were the tiny mountain kingdom's biggest private employer, with some 40,000 jobs and accounted for roughly 90% of manufacturing exports, according to Oxford Economics.
