Hyundai, Kia's European sales slip 1.8 pc in April
Seoul: Combined vehicle sales of South Korea's leading automaker Hyundai Motor and its affiliate Kia in Europe fell 1.8 per cent from a year earlier in April, industry data showed on Tuesday.
According to the data from the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), Hyundai and Kia sold a combined 89,890 units in Europe last month.
ACEA data showed Hyundai Motor's sales shed 3.3 percent on-year to 45,227 units, while those of Kia dropped 0.2 percent to 44,663 units, reports Yonhap news agency.
The South Korean automakers sold 357,201 units combined in Europe during the January-April period, down 3.4 percent from the same period last year.
The combined market share of Hyundai and Kia in Europe during the first four months of the year was tallied at 8 percent, down 0.3 percentage point from last year.
Meanwhile, Hyundai Motor temporarily suspended production of its Ioniq 5 and Kona electric vehicles (EVs) at its main domestic plant last month for a week, as weakening overseas demand continues to weigh on exports.
The automaker shut down Line 12 at its Plant 1 in Ulsan, 305 kilometers southeast of Seoul, where the two EV models are assembled, citing declines in orders from key export markets, including Europe, Canada and the United States.
The drop followed a shift of government EV policy changes abroad. Canada and several European countries, including Germany, have scrapped or scaled back EV subsidies, while the U.S. is facing renewed uncertainty from steep tariff threats under the Donald Trump administration.
Hyundai Motor has attempted to counter sluggish demand by offering zero-interest financing deals in North America and down payment assistance in markets like Germany and Britain, but with limited success, according to sources.
This marked the second temporary production halt this year, following a similar five-day suspension in February due to a slowdown in global EV demand amid policy shifts and market transitions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Staying the course on trade pacts with the UK and US
The uncertainty unleashed by Donald Trump's tariffs has only been aggravated by a spate of recent court rulings. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade struck down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, saying that the emergency law (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not give the President the power to impose broad tariffs. However, a day later, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the tariffs. The case is now likely to work its way through the US legal system. The uncertainty is likely to linger on as the 90-day pause on the Liberation Day tariffs ends in the second week of July. The Trump administration may have hoped that some trade deals would be quickly negotiated. And while the US and the UK have reached an agreement — the deal was announced on May 8th — progress with other major trading nations/blocks remains a protracted process. Take the case of China. A few days ago, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is reported to have said that trade talks between the US and China 'are a bit stalled'. Last Friday, Trump said that China has 'totally violated' its agreement with the US, a charge that China has rejected. The US President is expected to speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping this week to iron out their differences. In the case of Japan, several rounds of talks have taken place, and another is expected before the G7 summit. But last Friday, the legal challenges to his tariffs notwithstanding, Trump also raised the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 50 per cent, potentially impacting countries such as Canada, Mexico and South Korea, which account for a sizeable share of US steel imports. A day later, the European Union, which had agreed to 'accelerate talks' on a US trade deal, has also responded firmly, saying it is prepared to impose 'countermeasures' against the US. It noted that such moves to increase tariffs 'undermine ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated solution'. The new tariffs are effective from June 4. These latest tariff moves come at a time when India and the US are negotiating a bilateral trade deal. A US team is expected to visit India over the coming few days. On Monday, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, speaking in Washington at the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum's leadership summit, said that a deal between the US and India could happen in the 'not too distant future'. The India-EU trade deal also appears to be on course. As per a report, the two sides have agreed on several chapters, and the pact could be concluded before the end of the year. Coming after the finalisation of the India-UK agreement, the successful culmination of these deals would increase the country's attractiveness as an investment destination.
Economic Times
36 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Asian shares rise at open after US jobs surprise
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Asian stocks rose at the open after data showed the US labor market is holding up despite concerns about risks from President Donald Trump's tariff war.A regional gauge rose 0.3%, its first advance in four days. South Korean stocks led the moves with a 1.6% jump for the Kospi Index after the country elected a new president, capping six months of chaos. The dollar was steady in early Asian trading after gaining in the prior session. The S&P 500 rose 0.6% while the Nasdaq 100 advanced 0.8%.Just days ahead of the US payrolls report, an unexpected increase in job openings buoyed sentiment during the US trading session. That helped offset earlier losses in stocks after the Paris-based OECD said Trump's combative trade policies have tipped the world economy into a downturn, with the US among the hardest hit.'Further signs of resilience in the US economic data are pushing the US stock market higher despite continued downside risks from US trade policy,' Kyle Rodda, a senior market analyst at wrote in a note Wednesday. 'Wall Street defied recent tariff hikes and signs of reinflamed tensions between the US and China to rise once again.'The rise in job openings reinforced the Federal Reserve's assertion that the labor market is in a good place. While some economists fear a more notable weakening in coming months under the weight of tariffs, that hasn't shown up in the data yet, supporting officials' posture to keep rates swaps market continues to price in two Federal Reserve rate reductions this year beginning in October. However, traders are ramping up bets that hedge against dramatic shifts in the path as questions on the economic impact of Trump's administration evolving policies higher-than-expected job openings number 'is a good sign for the economy, as many were worried that the tariff uncertainty was weighing too heavily on businesses,' said Chris Zaccarelli at Northlight Asset the trade front, the US reiterated that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will talk 'very soon.' The administration is actively monitoring China's compliance with the Geneva trade agreement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Office of the US Trade Representative has sent letters to trading partners to remind them of an upcoming deadline in negotiations, according to the White House. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said he's 'very optimistic' about prospects for a deal between the US and Asian corporate news, Toyota Industries Corp . shares slumped 13% after a privatization Trump signed a directive raising steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25% starting Wednesday, following through on a pledge to boost import taxes to help domestic manufacturers. Prices for the metals in the US surged on Monday.
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Trump America needs to understand: A country is not a corporation
Several years ago, Nobel-Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote an insightful article, 'A Country is not a Company', in which he argued that business leaders need to understand the difference between economic policy on the national and international scale and business strategy on the organisational scale. In other words, and to put it bluntly, CEOs who do not understand economic policy are ill-suited for the role. Little did many realise, including perhaps Krugman himself, that an article written in 1996 would command such resonance almost three decades on. After all, CEOs of firms that have enjoyed unbridled monopoly power — especially after the emergence of the modern corporation around the turn of the last century — have shown more than a passing tendency to use that market power to their advantage. Examples abound from Standard Oil, Exxon Corporation, IBM, Microsoft, and, more recently, big-tech companies to name a few. Firms engaged in market-based competition play a 'zero-sum game' — one gains at the expense of the other. Disciplining errant firms has been accomplished by a combination of market creativity and intervention of anti-trust authorities, but it has been a hard task. Do nations jostle for competitive advantage on the global stage the same way that firms do locally? Krugman thinks not. International trade, significantly, is not a zero-sum game. According to him, 'If the European economy does well, it need not be at US expense; indeed, if anything a successful European economy is likely to help the US economy by providing it with larger markets and selling it goods of superior quality at lower prices.' Historically, that has been the case for all economic development, and most recently in East Asia. Global interdependence and the emergence of deeply integrated value chains are proof that trade increases the size of the global economic pie. The whole point of modern trade is not to impoverish either partner(s), it is to enrich both; or else why trade at all? Colonists engaged in coercive trade; today's trade is entirely voluntary. A popular phrase attributed to George Mallory, a British mountaineer of the 1920s, captures the core motivation behind mountaineering. Why do people climb mountains? 'Because they are there,' he is famously believed to have retorted. Monopolies exploit their power because it's there; CEOs have the clout along with the capacity to get away with it. Doing the same as a country — that is, flexing muscles on the global economic stage because you have power — is entirely different. Because modern trade is a matter of choice, no one holds a gun to and forces nations to trade. Blaming 'unfair' foreign competition, therefore, for trade deficits as Donald Trump has been relentlessly doing, is politically expedient but economically disingenuous. Are trade deficits the right measure of a country's competitiveness? Krugman ponders that competitiveness cannot simply be measured by staring at trade balances and their changes. If you do that, the implications are quite dangerous — they lead to harmful steps like trade wars to promote so-called competitiveness. Trade wars often make the situation worse. Evidence of the recent madness emanating from the US in the form of tariff impositions on countries that it runs a deficit with shows that contrary to expectations, the tariffs actually weakened the US dollar. It lost nearly 10 per cent of its value since January, with over half the decline in April. The tariffs also disrupted the bond market by triggering a sell-off in the US treasuries, spiking yields and challenging its safe-haven status. This volatility forced a temporary tariff pause, highlighting the bond market's power. Interestingly, on May 28, the US Court of International Trade struck down Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, ruling that they exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. According to the verdict, these tariffs involved significant economic and political issues, requiring explicit congressional authorisation, which was absent. Poignantly, on the same day, Elon Musk officially quit his advisory role in the US administration, concluding his tenure at the Department of Government Efficiency. Even so, looming on the US horizon are inflation, recession and policy unpredictability. The Trump administration has already appealed the decision (it has been stayed by the appellate court) and the case may progress to the US Supreme Court, by which time data on the impact on the US trade deficit will be available. Economists refer to this lag as 'the J-curve effect', reflecting a nuance where financial markets adjust almost instantaneously to shocks, while goods markets adjust with a lag. In all likelihood, with the tariff retaliations we have witnessed from China, Canada, and Mexico among others, the US trade deficit could become worse. Own goal, anyone? Besides, the Triffin thesis suggests that the US must run trade deficits to provide the necessary dollars for global liquidity. So, if the US wishes to remain the hegemon and continue to enjoy the exorbitant privilege of printing dollars and importing goods and services for a song, it will need to run deficits. In fact, since 1971 when the US dollar was brusquely decoupled from gold by President Richard Nixon (the so-called 'Nixon shock'), effectively ending the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar has continued to meet the bulk of the global demand for liquidity. In only two years since 1973 has the US trade balance been positive. In this half-century, the US has been a most productive nation, innovation-intensive, 'competitive' and creative, enterprising and illustrious, all achieved in the presence of growing trade deficits. Blaming trade deficits for unemployment and low wages is therefore ineffective and, in many cases, unequivocally wrong, especially when they are caused by domestic factors. The US is a services-based economy — education, insurance, healthcare, banking, real estate, information technology, among other sectors contributing almost 80 per cent of GDP. Getting manufacturing back by erecting tariff walls is a futile scheme, destined to fail. The CEO of a country running economic policy must, therefore, distinguish between politically expedient rhetoric and the harms of making policy decisions based on careless arithmetic. The existence of trade deficits (or surpluses) reflects a complex interaction of many factors, especially for a country that provides global liquidity. These need to be understood clearly. Krugman's warning and the embedded advice, therefore, must be taken seriously, above all by the country that nurtured his clarity of thought. (The writer is dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Shiv Nadar University, and professor of Economics. Views are personal)
