logo
Q&A with BMI's Santiago Arieu on the magnet crisis disrupting global auto production

Q&A with BMI's Santiago Arieu on the magnet crisis disrupting global auto production

Yahoo11-06-2025
The introduction of a new licensing system by China, now slowing the export of rare earth elements, has sent a ripple of disruption across global vehicle production lines, raising the spectre of stalled factories and delayed deliveries.
Rare earth magnets, often invisible yet indispensable, are the backbone of modern automotive technology. From the motors powering electric vehicles (EVs) to the sensors, steering systems, and regenerative brakes that define the modern driving experience, these small but mighty components are everywhere. But as China tightens its grip on these critical exports, amid a backdrop of rising geopolitical tension and new US tariffs, the industry is facing a reckoning.
Europe, which sources 98% of its rare earth magnets from China, finds itself particularly exposed. Efforts to bolster domestic supply through initiatives like the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act have thus far failed to match China's scale or competitiveness. Meanwhile, automakers are issuing warnings: stockpiles are dwindling, and the clock is ticking. Ford has already paused operations at a major plant, Suzuki has pulled back production on key models, and Germany's influential automotive industry group VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie) has raised red flags about looming shutdowns.
Behind the headlines, the implications are even more serious for the EV sector, which depends on rare earth materials far more than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. As electrification accelerates globally, the threat to supply chains grows more acute, and more costly.
In this Q&A, Santiago Arieu (SA), Senior Autos Analyst at BMI, a Fitch Solutions company, sheds light on how the rare earth bottleneck could shape the next chapter for automakers and auto financiers. In conversation with Alejandro Gonzalez (AG), editor of Motor Finance Online.
SA: If the supply constraints for these critical minerals do not improve, we believe it is highly likely that we will need to implement downward revisions to our 2025 vehicle forecasts (involving both production and sales projections). Regarding regional exposure, whilst rare earth magnets are utilised across all vehicle types, we highlight that markets and regions producing more technologically advanced vehicles with a greater number of features requiring these components face disproportionate risk.
SA: Whilst we believe some automakers may consider reverting to older EV motor technologies or reducing premium features that significantly rely on rare earth magnets, we believe that carmakers are likely to exhaust all other options before implementing such measures. It is worth noting that these components are strategically crucial as they enable carmakers to differentiate their products in increasingly competitive markets. Moreover, many of these magnet-dependent features form a central part of the value proposition for modern vehicles. Removing such features would risk compromising brand positioning and consumer appeal, particularly in premium segments where these differentiators justify higher price points.
SA: We believe the disruptions we are beginning to observe stemming from rare earth supply constraints will drive regions such as North America and Europe to accelerate and facilitate the onshore production of these minerals and components. That said, we forecast a substantial dependency on Mainland China for these critical materials and components will persist in the short term (at least 6 to 12 months). This is because the development of alternative supply chains represents a significant industrial challenge that cannot be resolved quickly, particularly given China's dominant position in processing capacity and technical expertise built over several years.
SA: We believe the EU needs to significantly enhance economic incentives and simplify regulatory procedures to accelerate the development of new rare earth processing facilities within its borders. Currently, European operations struggle to compete with Chinese producers on cost efficiency and scale, creating a critical vulnerability in the automotive supply chain. To achieve genuine supply chain resilience, the EU could introduce more robust financial support measures and cut red tape, enabling European processors to achieve commercially viable economies of scale.
SA: We believe that if industry production volumes are negatively affected by rare earth supply issues, similar to the semiconductor shortage in 2020-2021, vehicle prices are very likely to rise due to rapidly shifting supply-demand dynamics. These price increases could have a substantial impact on vehicle sales volumes, as higher costs would further strain affordability at a time when vehicle pricing is already elevated. We also see the potential for this situation to lead to tighter auto financing terms across Europe, as ongoing rare earth mineral supply constraints could create additional challenges for EV pricing.
China's rare earth clampdown strains global auto production
"Q&A with BMI's Santiago Arieu on the magnet crisis disrupting global auto production" was originally created and published by Motor Finance Online, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EV fast chargers have a surprising health downside
EV fast chargers have a surprising health downside

Los Angeles Times

timean hour ago

  • Los Angeles Times

EV fast chargers have a surprising health downside

Hundreds of public fast chargers are popping up across the U.S. to serve electric vehicle drivers seeking a cleaner alternative to gas-powered cars. But they come with a surprising risk: Charging stations create air pollution. While EVs contribute vastly less to air pollution than combustion-powered vehicles, fast-charging stations are what a recent study called an 'overlooked source of air pollution.' The U.S. added 703 high-speed charging stations in the second quarter, bringing the total across the country to 11,400, according to Energy Department data. Charging firms are planning to install hundreds more before year-end, making it important to address health risks now before the infrastructure becomes entrenched. The problem 'can be solved,' said Yuan Yao, a co-author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. 'We want to make sure that EV adoption is clean.' The emissions are likely tied to the fans used in direct current fast chargers' power cabinets. While they help keep equipment cool, the recent study indicates they likely have the unintended side effect of kicking up particles from tires, brakes and dust into the air. Researchers took air quality measurements at 50 direct current fast charging stations in Los Angeles County, the majority of which were Tesla Inc. Supercharger locations. The company didn't respond to a request for comment. The average concentration of fine particulate matter in the air at the charging sites was 15.2 micrograms per cubic meter, slightly higher than what researchers found at gas stations and significantly higher than in other urban locations such as parks. Nearly half of the charging sites had daily fine particulate matter emissions that exceeded the World Health Organization's air quality guidelines. (The study focused on non-exhaust emissions and therefore didn't measure many types of pollution related to gas-powered cars.) EV charging companies can include filtration in charging cabinets to mitigate pollution, the study's authors said. They can also avoid putting the chargers near places like schools and residential areas. Some companies say they've already taken measures to reduce the risks of particulate matter. 'On all of our current DC fast chargers, ChargePoint enforces a minimum height for the air intake and exhaust to limit the ingress of dust, debris and water,' said a spokesperson for ChargePoint Holdings Inc., which operates the largest charging network in the US. The company plans to add air filters to its 'DC chargers to further reduce the risk of dust or water entering the system, or particulates being expelled.' Gas-powered cars are still a much more potent health risk, both because of their emissions and gas stations' environmental impact, said Joe Allen, an air quality expert and professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who was not involved in the study. Research shows fueling stations are major sources of volatile organic compounds, a category of chemicals that includes the carcinogen benzene, while internal combustion vehicles produce smog-forming pollutants. Greenhouse gas emissions also adversely affect health due to their influence on climate change. 'I'd much rather be charging my EV than filling my gas-powered car at the gas station,' Allen said. 'As we expand EV charging — especially fast-charging stations — we should also pay attention to potential emissions from the charging equipment itself,' Yao said. Alake and Court write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg's Kyle Stock contributed to this report.

EU AI Office Issues Next Guidance on Foundation Models, Downstream Compliance Strategies
EU AI Office Issues Next Guidance on Foundation Models, Downstream Compliance Strategies

Time Business News

time3 hours ago

  • Time Business News

EU AI Office Issues Next Guidance on Foundation Models, Downstream Compliance Strategies

Vancouver, Canada — The European Union's AI Office has published its most detailed guidance yet on the regulatory expectations for foundation models under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), marking a pivotal moment in the staged rollout of the bloc's sweeping AI framework. The guidance, aimed at both upstream developers and downstream deployers, clarifies that compliance responsibilities extend through the entire AI value chain, with an emphasis on high-risk applications such as identity verification, Know Your Customer (KYC) processes, fraud detection, and biometric authentication. While foundation models have been widely celebrated for their adaptability and efficiency, the EU AI Office has made it clear that their general-purpose nature is no excuse for regulatory gaps. Whether these models are developed by a major U.S. tech firm, an EU-based AI lab, or an open-source consortium, any deployment in high-risk contexts within the EU will be subject to strict performance, transparency, and governance obligations. The AI Office's latest guidance is particularly significant for regulated industries, where downstream services integrate foundation models into decision-making processes that affect individuals' legal rights, financial access, or physical security. In these scenarios, compliance is not just a matter of upstream assurances; it requires active oversight and testing by downstream deployers. Understanding the EU's Regulatory Position on Foundation Models Foundation models are large-scale, pre-trained AI systems that can be adapted for a wide range of applications. They form the backbone of many downstream services, from automated loan assessments to biometric border controls. Under the AI Act, the developers of these models must meet transparency and documentation requirements. Still, the deployers who adapt them for specific purposes, particularly in high-risk sectors, must conduct their risk assessments, conformity checks, and monitoring. The EU AI Office has now formally stated that compliance is a shared responsibility: upstream developers cannot 'wash their hands' of downstream risks, and downstream deployers cannot rely solely on vendor claims of compliance. This shared responsibility framework is intended to close loopholes where responsibility could otherwise be passed between parties, leading to gaps in oversight. It mirrors principles in other EU regulatory frameworks, such as GDPR's joint controller obligations. It is expected to fundamentally change how AI model procurement, integration, and lifecycle management are approached in the EU market. Key Elements of the New Guidance 1. Mandatory Technical Documentation Transfer Developers must provide downstream deployers with detailed information about a foundation model's architecture, training methodology, dataset sources, risk profiles, and performance metrics across relevant demographic groups. Downstream deployers must keep these records, adapt them to their operational context, and include them in their conformity assessment filings. 2. No Liability Laundering Through Contracts While contracts may allocate operational responsibilities, they cannot eliminate legal obligations under the AI Act. Both parties remain directly accountable to regulators. 3. Context-Specific Testing Requirements Even if a foundation model has been tested by its developer, downstream deployers must test it under real-world conditions relevant to their application. For example, a model used for verifying ID documents must be tested with authentic local document types, lighting conditions, and demographic variations. 4. Continuous Monitoring and Drift Detection Deployers must monitor for model drift (changes in performance over time), especially when models are updated or retrained by the upstream developer. 5. Public AI Database Registration High-risk deployments of foundation models must be listed in the EU's public AI database, including details on both upstream and downstream entities. Sector-Specific Compliance Implications Financial Services Banks using AI-driven fraud detection or credit scoring models must integrate AI governance checks into their vendor risk management processes. Procurement teams will need to request complete compliance documentation and ensure that models are tested for fairness, explainability, and reliability under operational conditions. Identity and KYC Providers These providers are in the direct path of enforcement, as identity verification is a designated high-risk use case. A KYC platform adapting a foundation model for biometric face matching will need to run localized accuracy tests, integrate human-in-the-loop reviews for borderline cases, and ensure that demographic bias is eliminated or mitigated. E-Commerce Platforms using AI to verify seller identities, detect counterfeit goods, or flag fraudulent transactions must confirm that the models they use meet the AI Act's transparency and testing requirements. Border and Travel Security Government agencies and airlines using foundation models for passenger verification must confirm that systems work reliably across all demographic groups, avoid over-reliance on a single vendor's performance claims, and maintain independent audit logs. Case Study 1: Cross-Border Banking and Shared Liability A large EU-based bank uses a biometric verification service that incorporates a U.S.-developed foundation model. The bank's vendor provides a compliance statement. Still, under the new guidance, the bank must independently validate the model's accuracy and fairness in its operational environment, including for customers in rural EU regions whose identity documents may be older or less machine-readable. Case Study 2: E-Commerce Fraud Detection A central e-commerce platform integrates a foundation language model to scan communications between buyers and sellers for scam patterns. While the upstream developer provides a list of known biases and error rates, the platform must conduct its testing to ensure that cultural and linguistic differences across EU member states do not lead to false positives that unfairly penalize legitimate sellers. Strategic Recommendations from Amicus International Consulting For Downstream Deployers Maintain a Model Registry — Track all foundation models in use, their origins, versions, and compliance documentation. Integrate AI Governance into Procurement — Require AI Act compliance proof as part of vendor onboarding. Test Locally, Not Just Globally — Conduct independent testing tailored to your operational jurisdiction and demographic profile. Create Feedback Loops — Develop processes that enable customers and end users to challenge or appeal AI-driven decisions. For Upstream Developers Standardize Documentation — Provide a compliance packet for downstream partners containing all required technical and risk information. Support Downstream Testing — Offer tools and datasets to help deployers run localized performance checks. Communicate Updates Proactively — Notify downstream clients when retraining or model updates could alter compliance status. Geopolitical and Competitive Context The EU's foundation model guidance is part of a broader trend in global AI regulation. The U.S. and UK are focusing on voluntary frameworks, while Singapore and Canada have begun shaping mandatory compliance rules. However, none currently match the AI Act's enforceable obligations for foundation models. This creates a competitive advantage for companies that meet EU standards early, as they will be prepared for similar frameworks elsewhere. Conversely, vendors who cannot meet the EU's documentation and testing requirements risk losing access to one of the world's largest markets. Long-Term Outlook Foundation models are likely to remain at the center of both innovation and regulatory scrutiny. As the AI Act moves toward full enforcement in 2026, the EU AI Office is expected to issue additional guidance refining the shared responsibility model and possibly expanding obligations for models with systemic impact. For identity verification, KYC, and financial services, the guidance means compliance work must start now, not in 2026. The ability to demonstrate early adoption of AI Act principles could serve as both a regulatory shield and a market differentiator. Amicus International Consulting advises all affected businesses to treat the AI Office's guidance as a baseline for global AI governance strategy. The most resilient organizations will integrate upstream and downstream compliance into a single operational framework, ensuring that no part of the AI lifecycle is left without oversight. Contact Information Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402 Email: info@ Website: TIME BUSINESS NEWS

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store