AT&T stock slumps on annual profit forecast
The telecom company said it expects adjusted earnings of $1.97 to $2.07 a share, lower from the Street's forecast of $2.09 on average.
AT&T stock fell 3.7% in pre-market trading on Wednesday after closing at $27.42 on Tuesday.
The stock is up 20% so far this year through Tuesday's close.
AT&T said its earnings for the second quarter ended June 30, 2025 rose to 54 cents a share.
Its revenue surged 3.4% to $30.8 billion. It reported free cash flow of $4.4 billion.
The company added fewer fiber customers than expected in the second quarter, stoking concerns about intense competition and eclipsing a surge in wireless subscribers fueled by its discounted bundles.
Texas-based AT&T added 243,000 fiber customers in the June quarter, as compared to 261,000 customers during the January-March period.
Its bundled plans helped the company add 401,000 net monthly bill-paying wireless phone subscribers in the second quarter.
The company said it is spending heavily to advance its fiber optic network across the United States and will use cash savings from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill to accelerate those plans.
AT&T further said it expects to realize $6.5 billion to $8 billion of cash tax savings through 2027 as a result of the bill.
It plans to invest $3.5 billion of these savings into building out its fiber internet network to a pace of 4 million locations per year by the end of 2026.
To expand its wired footprint, the telco is in the process of acquiring Lumen Technologies Inc.'s consumer fiber unit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
India's ‘Next Gen GST' may pave way for single tax slab System: Report
Senior government officials have described the proposed GST tax reforms as 'Next Gen GST', a significant overhaul that could eventually pave the way for a single sales/services tax rate by 2047. The proposal, if approved by the GST council, aims to replace the current four-slab structure in the goods and services tax (GST) regime with a two-slab regime, featuring rates of 5 per cent and 18 per cent, while also retaining a 40 per cent tax on 'sin goods.' This new system would eliminate the 12 per cent and 28 per cent tax brackets, PTI reported. The primary goal of this reform is to boost the economy and also serve to mitigate tariff threats. Calling it the "next Gen GST', one government official said "it is a game changer reform. In the pantheon of economic reforms seen in India, it's right up there." said officials who spoke to PTI. They also said the new structure would mean that almost all of the common use items will move to the lower tax bracket, leading to price cuts, which in turn would boost consumption. The changes are a result of nearly six months of extensive deliberations and meetings, with an aim of creating a stable tax environment and preventing the accumulation of input tax credit (ITC). The new structure is designed to cater to the needs of the middle class, poor, farmers, and MSMEs in mind. Daily use items, such as packaged food, beverages and apparel would be moved to the lower 5 per cent from 12 per cent bracket to boost consumption of these products. "Once the system is put in place and India becomes a developed nation, we can think about a single rate GST," said the official, adding that a single rate structure is suitable for developed countries where income and spending capacities are uniform. "We have looked at every item, item by item and in some cases we have gone back and forth 3-4 times. Whether it is pesticide for use by farmers or pencils for students or some raw material or intermediaries for MSMEs, every item has been discussed threadbare and categorized in the merit or standard slab,' the official said. According to the proposal, a significant number of items would be re-categorized: 12 to 5 per cent: As many as 99 per cent of the items in the 12 per cent category such as butter, fruit juices and dry fruits would move to 5 per cent tax rate. 28 to 18 per cent: About 90 per cent of the items currently taxed at 28 per cent, including electronic items like ACs, TVs, fridges, and washing machines as well as other goods like cement will be moved to the 18 per cent slab. The Council is expected to meet next month to deliberate on the tax reform proposal. The move comes after US President Donald Trump imposed an additional 25 per cent tariff on all goods India exports to the US, bringing the total to 50 per cent from August 27 to punish New Delhi for its crude oil purchases from Russia. The tariffs are likely to impact $40-billion of non-exempt Indian exports such as that of gems and jewelry, textiles and footwear. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day address to the nation on Friday emphasized that India should become self-reliant and consume what is made in India, PTI reported.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Gilgit-Baltistan: A New Uprising In Pakistan's ‘Last Colony' Against Oppressive Rule
Last Updated: For decades, GB has sought autonomy, political representation, and development aligned with local needs and ambitions, but has faced growing neglect and exploitation from Pakistan A fresh wave of resistance against the Pakistani state's illegal occupation of the region is being witnessed in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB). The local traders and business community of GB have launched a movement to oppose trade and travel between Pakistan and China via the Khunjerab Pass. This latest protest is the outcome of the relentlessly exploitative economic and political conditions imposed on GB by the Pakistani state. The protest by the traders has come close on the heels of a mass movement by the local residents of GB against the controversial Land Reforms Act, 2025, passed on May 21. For the last four weeks, traders have been continuing with a sit-in at the Karakoram Highway, bringing the region to a standstill. They are demanding recognition of local interests by Islamabad as well as its accountability. To understand GB's tumultuous relationship with Islamabad, it is important to look at the history of this asymmetric and oppressive power dynamic, which continues to disenfranchise, marginalise, and politically erase the identity, aspirations, and future of the people of this region. According to the US-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Pakistan has treated GB more as a colony rather than as part of the federation. 'The region has long been regarded by Pakistan not as a cherished part of the federation, but as a distant and burdensome periphery. Successive governments have turned a blind eye to the fundamental needs of the humble inhabitants of Gilgit-Baltistan, relegating the region to an ad hoc governance framework administered from afar—governed not by participatory laws, but by decrees handed down from Islamabad," says a recent MEMRI report. The origins of this injustice lie in the 1949 Karachi Agreement. Under this 'agreement", the control of GB (then called Northern Areas) was transferred from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) to Islamabad without any representative from the region. Since then, Islamabad has directly ruled GB through the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, using the draconian colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulation. Its constitutional status remains in limbo as Pakistan has tried to use it to build another false narrative by linking it to the resolution of the Kashmir issue with India. But to deal with growing frustration among the local residents, it introduced limited self-governance reforms to the region, renaming it 'Gilgit and Baltistan' in 2009. However, this move was exposed as hollow; right from the beginning, the GB assembly was systematically populated by 'compliant figureheads or puppets, rather than leaders who dared to interpret their roles with independence and purpose," as emphasised in the MEMRI analysis. For decades, GB has sought autonomy, political representation, and development aligned with local needs and aspirations, but instead has faced growing neglect and exploitative policies from Pakistan. The Pakistani magazine Herald once described Gilgit-Baltistan as Pakistan's 'last colony", a phrase that aptly reflects Islamabad's governing attitude toward the region. Very recently, GB was engulfed in massive demonstrations against the forcibly passed Land Reforms Act, 2025. This legislation was opposed by the people, as it would enable land grabs by Punjabi landlords and the Pakistani military, displace the local population, and exploit natural resources. This law would also intensify military control. As GB is the only region under Pakistan's occupation that has a Shia and Ismaili majority, Islamabad has also undertaken a systematic campaign of altering the demography by opening up the region to outsiders. Now, fed up with increasing federal taxes and deliberate obstacles to local trade, GB traders—backed by a host of local political parties and religious groups—have sustained a resilient sit-in at Sost. This powerful show of solidarity and demand for justice compelled Chief Minister Haji Gulbar Khan and Governor Mehdi Shah to seek federal intervention, leading to the formation of a federal committee to make recommendations for the issue's resolution. The protestors' demands are simple: exemption from income, sales, and other federal taxes on commodities imported from China through the Khunjerab Pass—deemed illegal by traders considering GB's lack of constitutional status—and urgent customs clearance for 280 consignments stuck at Sost Dry Port under a one-time amnesty scheme. Ironically, while Gilgit-Baltistan is considered to be geographically very significant for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Islamabad's treatment of local traders sends a clear message that it is least bothered about the interests of the local population and is only interested in exploiting the strategic position and resources of the region. All routes connecting Pakistan to China, including the critical Karakoram Highway, pass through GB, which should ideally have brought more economic opportunities for the local population. However, in contrast, it has resulted in increased Chinese military presence. This reinforces the fact that Pakistan follows the template of exploiting the region while keeping the people underdeveloped. If the locals dare to express their aspirations, they are handled brutally by the Pakistani military and its death squads. Therefore, the traders' blockade in GB represents more than an economic conflict—it is the roar of a voice silenced for decades from a region long suffering under the thumb of Islamabad's colonial and oppressive policies. The writer is an author and columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. tags : China Kashmir pakistan view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 16, 2025, 22:02 IST News opinion Global Watch | Gilgit-Baltistan: A New Uprising In Pakistan's 'Last Colony' Against Oppressive Rule Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
