Canada's Teck Resources beats profit estimates for second quarter
Teck's Trail operations, located in British Columbia, is one of the world's largest fully integrated zinc and lead smelting and refining complexes, according to the company website.
The company reported an adjusted profit of 38 Canadian cents per share for the quarter ended June 30, compared with analysts' average estimate of 27 Canadian cents per share, according to LSEG data.
Teck said London Metal Exchange (LME) copper prices declined by 2% in the June quarter compared with a year earlier and averaged $4.32 per pound.
The company produced 109,100 metric tons of copper in the reported quarter, and cut its full-year copper production guidance to 470,000 tons to 525,000 tons.
Teck expects to produce 525,000 tons to 575,000 tons of zinc in the current year.
The results come against the backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to impose a 50% tariff on copper imports, starting August 1.
Teck exports the vast majority of its copper to Asia and Europe.
Trump's proposed 50% tariff on U.S. copper imports is unlikely to directly impact Teck, given its minimal exposure to the U.S. market. However, the tariff could tighten global supply and push prices higher, indirectly boosting Teck's revenue and margins.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What a weaker dollar means for inflation
The US dollar ( has fallen this year, and that can have big implications for inflation. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas talks about that connection and when the impact of tariffs may start to show in the US economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. turning out to the dollar index, it's seen many swings we know amid economic uncertainty. Joe, you highlight what the moves in the currency mean for inflation? Walk us through that. All right. When you get a sustained 10% decline in the value of the dollar, typically, you should expect to see a 1/2 of 1% increase in inflation over the next 6 to 12 months. We clearly are at that point, even though we had a nice rebound. I think it was 3.3% for the month of July, strongest month for the greenback this year, but nevertheless, the policy mix out of the administration, all points towards a weaker dollar, and I think that's what we're going to get. Moreover, when you take a look at import prices, especially import prices ex petroleum, it tells the tale. We're going to see more inflation and a weaker dollar going forward. Does Trump want a strong dollar? I would think he does, and I think, well, I think like all politicians, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want de-dollarization, clearly, but he wants a weaker dollar because A, it really tends to juice the tech sector, and B, it will provide relief to the beleaguered manufacturing sector that's been in an effective recession for the past couple of years. Is it too soon to say the kind of impact the softer dollars had during this earnings season, particularly what it's meant for the multinationals? It's way too early to jump on that bandwagon. I think we're really going to be talking in the fourth quarter earnings, and then next year. Moreover, a lot of those firms that he wants to help are actually having real problems with the tariff issue because, you know, 45% of everything we import goes into domestic manufacturing. So policies at a cross purposes, a good portion of the time this year, which is why that economy slowed to 1.2% growth in the first half of the year, and we think it's not going to do much better. Our forecast for this year is 1.1%. Can I ask you when we talk about these tariff policies? We've been talking about them all show. There's the near to intermediate impact, but how long do we have to wait to see what the long-term impact is? Meaning, do I have to wait till does it have to be August 2026, and Joe and Josh are back on set for me to really know, okay, it's really boosted manufacturing job. It's really opened up all these new markets for American business. It's really raised this much revenue. It's a little worse, actually. So as of midnight last night, on once we get to October 5th, we're going to have an effective 18.3% tariff. The real problem is we won't really understand what any of this means, not till October 5th, 2026, but more like October 5th, 2027. Why? Why do you say that, Joe? Because it takes so long to pass through the tariff costs. You know, there are four points along the chain. You've got your retail, you've got your consumers, you've got your importers, and you've got your exporters. At each point of the supply chain, you're going to see a bit of it absorbed, a bit of it eaten. When we went through this in 2018, for example, we didn't see the full price of the increase in the price of washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers caused by tariffs show up on consumers' balance sheets until about two years later. Turned out 90% of that cost was eaten entirely by consumers. So when we talk about whether where the cost falls falls on the value chain, and there was this big debate, maybe it's really the key debate inside the Fed. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this debate about whether the the the tariff induced inflation is one time or transitory persistent. Even if it's one time, it could go on for some time. Is that part of the point? Well, that's right, and that's why they've been counseling patients because you just don't know. Right now, for all of the noise, right? The tariff rate that's showing up, which is causing revenues to rise, right? And from the Trump administration's point of view, that's an absolutely good thing. It's about 8.85%. It's not 30, it's not 50, it's not 15. But as we get into mid-October, it'll be closer to 20 is my sense because we're still not done with Mexico, and we're still not done with China, and then USMCA has to be renegotiated next year. So this is going to be a variable target. It's going to be a moving target, but nevertheless, if you cause the average price of goods imported in the United States to rise by 18.3%, that's going to be eaten. And here's why we say that. There's a lot of talk that, well, foreign exporters are just eating the price. You know, they're going to engage in invoice pricing. If that was the case, import prices would be falling significantly. They're not. They're actually rising. So that's just not happening. So that means it's not the exporter, it's going to be the importer, the retail, or the consumer. Those points on the chain where those are going to be eaten. Joe, I can honestly say that given the news flow today, you were the perfect guy to be sitting in that chair. That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, Joe.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta to share AI infrastructure costs via $2 billion asset sale
By Echo Wang (Reuters) -Meta Platforms is pressing ahead with efforts to bring in outside partners to help fund the massive infrastructure needed to power artificial intelligence, disclosing plans in a filing on Thursday to offload $2 billion in data center assets as part of that strategy. The strategy reflects a broader shift among tech giants — long known for self-funding growth — as they grapple with the soaring cost of building and powering data centers to support generative AI. The social media giant said earlier this week that it was exploring ways to work with financial partners to co-develop data centers to help finance its massive capital outlay for next year. 'We're exploring ways to work with financial partners to co-develop data centers,' Meta Chief Finance Officer Susan Li said on a post-earnings conference call on Wednesday. While the company still expects to fund much of its capital spending internally, some projects could attract 'significant external financing' and offer more flexibility if infrastructure needs shift over time, Li said. The company did not have any finalized transactions to announce, she said. The disclosure in Meta's quarterly filing, however, signals that plans are firming up. In its quarterly filing on Thursday, Meta said it had approved a plan in June to dispose of certain data center assets and reclassified $2.04 billion worth of land and construction-in-progress as "held-for-sale". These assets were expected to be contributed to a third party within the next twelve months for co-developing data centers. Meta did not record a loss on the reclassification, which values the assets at the lower of their carrying amounts or fair value less costs to sell. As of June 30, total held-for-sale assets stood at $3.26 billion, according to the filing. Meta declined to comment for this story. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has laid out plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into constructing AI data center 'superclusters' for superintelligence. 'Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan,' he said. The Instagram and WhatsApp owner on Wednesday raised the bottom end of its annual capital expenditures forecast by $2 billion, to $66 billion to $72 billion. It reported stronger-than-expected ad sales, boosted by AI-driven improvements to targeting and content delivery. Executives said those gains were helping offset rising infrastructure costs tied to its long-term AI push. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's tariffs are as unpopular as ever, but the GOP's tolerance is growing
Donald Trump TariffsFacebookTweetLink Follow There has been something of a shift in the conventional wisdom about President Donald Trump's tariffs of late. On the one hand, economists and political analysts have warmed to the idea that Trump is more or less getting what he bargained for out of his threats of a global trade war. This has come as a number of foreign nations come to the table and, in a few cases, cut apparent deals. On the other, that's different from saying Trump's tactics will ultimately work. And the picture there certainly got more complicated this week, including with yet more judges suggesting they could rein in Trump's tariff authorities and the increasingly troubling economic numbers highlighted by another bad jobs report Friday. Many have been wondering when (and if) the economic pain many economists predicted would actually arrive, and signs are increasing that it might be upon us. In other words, we seem to be at an inflection point, particularly with Trump signaling Thursday that he'll finally press forward with global tariffs (probably!) next week. But how is all of this playing? Are people reevaluating their previous positions? It's too soon to gauge public opinion on Trump's latest moves this week. But the short answer is that we haven't seen many shifts of late in the already pretty dismal views of Trump's trade war at the macro level; if anything, views appear to have gotten slightly worse. But there have been some key shifts that suggest his base is more on-board than it used to be, which could allow Trump to press forward. Overall, foreign trade and tariffs remain some of the president's worst issues, and it continues to look like the policy that very few people (besides Trump) are asking for right now. Gallup polling shows Trump's approval on 'foreign trade' dropping from 42% in February to 36% in mid-July. Fox News polling around the same time showed Americans disapproved of Trump on tariffs by a 26-point margin, virtually the same as in April (25 points). And CBS News-YouGov polling shows people increasingly dislike that this is a priority for Trump. Its most recent data, from mid-July, show 61% say Trump is too focused on tariffs, similar to April but up from March. It also showed a new high in the percentage of people who say Trump isn't focused enough on lowering prices (70%). (This also ties into the tariffs, because tariffs are often inflationary.) The CBS data also show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans who think Trump's policies are making them better off financially (23% in March versus 18% today), and an increase in perceptions that his policies are making food prices increase (52% in March versus 62% today). Overall, Americans went from opposing the tariffs by 12 points in March to opposing them by 20 points today. So if there is a vibe shift on Trump's tariffs, it hasn't really shown up in the polls – at least yet. But as with most things Trump, overall views probably don't matter as much as how his base feels. The president has proven over and over again that he's happy to plow ahead as long as his supporters are on board. And those supporters might be growing in their tolerance for this gambit. The percentage of Republicans who say Trump is focused too much on tariffs in the CBS poll actually fell from 34% in April to 28% today. And polling from Quinnipiac University suggests Republicans are also less pessimistic about economic pain from the tariffs. Republicans were already much more patient with Trump's gambit. More than 8 in 10 said in that polling in both April and today that the tariffs were likely to help the economy over the long term. That's been consistent. But there has been a shift in Trump's favor in views of their short-term impact. While Republicans back in April were about evenly split on whether the tariffs would help or hurt in the short term, they now say by about a 2-to-1 margin that they'll help over the short term. While Republicans in April said 46-44% that the tariffs would help in the short term, they now say that 62-30%. Republicans also overwhelmingly express confidence in Trump's strategy on tariffs, saying it's working, 84-9%, in Quinnipiac's July polling. All of which suggests Trump's leash on this has lengthened with his base, which matters a great deal. It means GOP lawmakers who might feel compelled to try and check Trump on this gambit will probably be less likely to do so. But all of this is subject to change, particularly if the economic numbers look suspect like many economists predicted they will. How Republicans respond to that is when the rubber will really meet the road and the White House could face some really hard choices.
