U.S. tariffs will also ‘sink important American companies': auto parts association president
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
12 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
American visitors to Canada outnumber Canadians heading south, data suggests
U.S. President Donald Trump is obsessed with trade deficits. But he may have just wiped out one of the United States' biggest trade surpluses with Canada, in travel services. In June and July, more American residents crossed into this country than Canadian residents who were returning from travel to the U.S. – a sharp reversal after years where the flow of travellers heading south was larger, according to preliminary international arrivals data released by Statistics Canada. The recent shift is the first time that American visitors to Canada outnumbered Canadian visitors to the U.S. since tourism began to normalize from pandemic lockdowns. Prior to 2020, other cross-border travel data published by Statscan shows more Canadians headed south each month since at least 2010. The about-face is the result of Canadians' seven-month long travel boycott of the U.S., which Mr. Trump sparked with his 51st-state rhetoric and tariffs. Some Canadians are also fearful of being detained at the border, following news reports of tourists being arrested. The boycott is leaving its mark. In July, the number of Canadian residents returning from the U.S. via automobile fell by 36.9 per cent compared to the same month last year, with the travel protest picking up speed again after easing in June, according to Statscan. The number of Canadian residents returning by air travel was also down by 25.8 per cent. The Trump slump, as the decline in foreign travel to the U.S. has come to be known, is on full display in tourist-dependent cities like Las Vegas. In June, Air Canada and WestJet carried a combined 32 per cent fewer passengers from Canada to Las Vegas, compared to the same month last year, according to the city's Harry Reid International airport. Canadians have long travelled to the U.S. in much larger numbers than American visits to Canada, so the change in habits could help offset some of the damage caused by Mr. Trump's tariffs on Canadian goods, said Julian Karaguesian, a former adviser to the Department of Finance and a visiting economics lecturer at McGill University. 'Not in a sense that it's boosting our prosperity greatly, but we're keeping more of our national income at home,' he said. 'If that trend continues it should be a positive impulse to our GDP.' Mr. Trump has repeatedly railed against the U.S. trade deficit with Canada when it comes to the flow of goods. However, the U.S. has run an annual trade surplus with Canada in services since at least 1990, according to Statscan, driven mostly by travel. The travel services surplus was a reflection of the larger number of Canadians going to the U.S. and spending more than Americans do during their visits to Canada. The travel boycotts by Canadians and those from other countries are quickly eroding the U.S. travel services surplus, said Dean Baker, senior economist at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research. 'I don't know if Trump doesn't understand services or doesn't care, but it is a very big and rapidly growing part of our trade and it's likely to go into reverse with these current policies,' he said. The number of U.S. residents entering Canada by vehicle in July also declined, but by a much smaller 7.4 per cent from the year before, while air travel by northbound Americans was mostly unchanged from last year. If the boycotts continue and the U.S. travel services surplus dwindles to a deficit, Mr. Karaguesian warned the Trump administration may eventually take notice. 'This is good for us economically as long as it lasts, but it could eventually put us back in the crosshairs,' he said. However, the options for Mr. Trump to retaliate against Canadians for boycotting the U.S. are not obvious. The President could 'try to scare Americans into not coming to Canada' with travel warnings, Mr. Karaguesian said. But to 'pump their travel surplus back up,' the U.S. would not only have to convince Canadians to overcome their anger with Mr. Trump, but 'advertise that the border is easy to cross.' That, of course, would go against Mr. Trump's insistence that the border needs to be tightened to stop the flow of fentanyl entering the U.S., which is his justification for the 35-per-cent tariff on all Canadian goods not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
Globe and Mail
12 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
If You'd Invested $1,000 in Pfizer (PFE) Stock 3 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
Key Points Those who invested in Pfizer three years ago and hung on are not thrilled. They would have done much better with a simple S&P 500 index fund. Still, Pfizer today offers a fat dividend and plenty of growth potential. 10 stocks we like better than Pfizer › Wondering how well you'd have done if you'd invested in pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) three years ago and hung on? Well, I'm afraid the answer isn't pretty: If you'd investing $1,000 in Pfizer on Aug. 8, 2022, hung on and reinvested dividends, that sum would have been worth $585 on Aug. 8, 2025. Ouch! For some context, during those same three years, the S&P 500 index of 500 of America's biggest companies averaged gains of roughly 17% per year, turning $1,000 into $1,615. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Here's some good news, though: Stock investors need to look forward much more than backward. Trailing returns are in the past. What matters most for current Pfizer investors and would-be Pfizer investors is how the company will perform from here on. And Pfizer's future is looking promising. Some investors have been disappointed in Pfizer when they've compared recent results to those from the past. But those past years were exceptional boom years thanks to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine and Paxlovid COVID-19 treatment. Those were in great demand, but demand has fallen. Others worry because some of Pfizer's big sellers, such as Eliquis, Ibrance, Inlyta, Xeljanz, Xtandi, and Vyndaqel, are coming off patent protection in the next few years. Pfizer has been planning for that, and investing in its pipeline, which features more than 100 active programs -- many of which are in oncology. Pfizer has also been getting additional approvals for its drugs, and it has been cutting its costs in an effort to boost profitability. Finally, Pfizer is a dividend-paying stock, with a whopping recent dividend yield of 7%. So as you invest in Pfizer and wait for its investments to pay off, you'll be rewarded. Should you invest $1,000 in Pfizer right now? Before you buy stock in Pfizer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Pfizer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 11, 2025
Canada News.Net
41 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
Nvidia, AMD agree to pay US share of China AI chip sales revenue
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Nvidia and AMD have agreed to give the U.S. government 15 percent of revenue from sales to China of certain advanced chips used in artificial intelligence, including Nvidia's H20, a U.S. official told Reuters. The arrangement follows months of export restrictions. The Trump administration halted H20 sales to China in April, but last month, Nvidia said it had been told it could resume shipments. On Friday, a U.S. official confirmed the Commerce Department had begun issuing export licenses. According to the Financial Times, which first reported the deal, the revenue-sharing agreement was a condition for obtaining licenses to sell semiconductors such as Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308. The Trump administration has not yet decided how the proceeds will be used. When asked about the 15 percent payment, Nvidia said, "We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide." AMD did not respond to a request for comment. China is a significant market for both companies. In its last fiscal year, Nvidia earned US$17 billion from China, 13 percent of total revenue, while AMD reported $6.2 billion from China in 2024, representing 24 percent of sales. The U.S. official stressed that the administration does not view the sale of H20 or equivalent chips as a national security risk. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has described the H20 as Nvidia's "fourth-best chip" and said allowing sales supports U.S. interests by keeping Chinese firms reliant on American technology, even if the most advanced products remain banned. Still, the move drew criticism from some policy experts. "Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn't be doing it to begin with, or it's not… in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?" said Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at the Center for New American Security. Alasdair Phillips-Robins, a former Commerce Department adviser under President Joe Biden, argued the arrangement could undercut security concerns. "If this reporting is accurate, it suggests the administration is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury," he said. China's foreign ministry did not immediately comment. The U.S. official said details on when and how the payments will be implemented remain undecided, but the administration will comply with the law.
