SK Innovation expects better Q3 refining margins; losses deepen in Q2
"Sales and operating profit fell compared to the previous quarter due to the difficult external environment such as global economic uncertainty, tariff impact, and falling oil prices," SK Innovation said.
"Further improvements in refining margins are expected in the third quarter (and) easing tariff risks and increasing sales volumes in Europe in the battery business will positively affect earnings improvement," it added in a statement.
The company posted an operating loss of 418 billion won ($301.20 million) for the period from April to June, compared with a loss of 45.8 billion won a year earlier.
The results were worse than an average analyst forecast for a loss of 140 billion won compiled by LSEG SmartEstimate.
Battery subsidiary SK On, which supplies automakers such as Hyundai Motor (005380.KS), opens new tab, Kia Corp (000270.KS), opens new tab, Ford Motor (F.N), opens new tab and Volkswagen , booked an operating loss of 66 billion won, improved from a year-earlier loss of 460 billion.
SK On will issue new shares worth 2 trillion won ($1.44 billion) in a capital increase, the parent said on Wednesday, and merge with oil and lubricant-producing affiliate SK Enmove to improve the battery maker's financial position.
With this move, the company said previous IPO plans for SK On had been cancelled.
The United States struck a trade deal with South Korea on Wednesday including an auto tariff rate of 15%, officials said.
In an earnings call SK On said it would strive to mitigate risk as tariffs keep automakers' production and cost strategies in flux.
($1=1,389.5000 won)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Most Gulf markets fall on weak earnings, US economic worries
Aug 3 (Reuters) - Most stock markets in the Gulf ended lower on Sunday hit by lacklustre earnings, while a cooling U.S. labor market clouded the Federal Reserve's policy outlook as investors scrutinized recent U.S. tariff decisions. U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on U.S. imports from dozens of countries that failed to reach trade deals with Washington by his August 1 deadline. Saudi Arabia's benchmark index (.TASI), opens new tab dropped 0.8%, hit by a 1.2% decline by oil behemoth Saudi Aramco ( opens new tab ahead of its earnings announcement on Tuesday. Jabal Omar Development ( opens new tab slid 5.4%, after posting a second-quarter loss. The developer - which runs the Jabal Omar complex of hotels and property near Mecca's Grand Mosque - was hit by reduced hotel revenues and a 106 million riyal ($28.26 million) property impairment charge, which lowered gross profit. Among other losers, Saudi Basic Industries Corp ( opens new tab - 70% owned by Saudi Aramco - retreated 1.2%, after reporting a second-quarter loss. The chemical firm attributed its losses to 3.78 billion riyals in impairment charges and provisions related to a cracker closure in the UK in line with a portfolio review to reduce costs and improve profitability. Oil prices - a catalyst for the Gulf's financial markets - fell $2 a barrel on Friday due to jitters over a potential production hike by OPEC and its allies, while a weaker-than-expected U.S. jobs report fed worries about demand. Eight OPEC+ countries meeting on Sunday have agreed to raise oil output in September by 548,000 barrels per day, Reuters reported citing two OPEC+ sources while the meeting was still under way. Elsewhere, Saudi Aramco Base Oil Co ( opens new tab plunged 10% - its biggest intraday fall since its listing in December 2022 - following an 18% drop in quarterly profit. In Qatar, the index (.QSI), opens new tab fell 0.8%, with Qatar Islamic Bank ( opens new tab losing 1.8%. Outside the Gulf, Egypt's blue-chip index (.EGX30), opens new tab added 0.2%, helped by a 3.2% rise in tobacco monopoly Eastern Company ( opens new tab. ($1 = 3.7511 riyals)
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
What will the AI revolution mean for the global south?
I come from Trinidad and Tobago. As a country that was once colonized by the British, I am wary of the ways that inequalities between the global north and global south risk being perpetuated in the digital age. When we consider the lack of inclusion of the global south in discussions about artificial intelligence (AI), I think about how this translates to an eventual lack of economic leverage and geopolitical engagement in this technology that has captivated academics within the industrialised country I reside, the United States. As a scientist, I experienced an early rite of passage into the world of Silicon Valley, the land of techno-utopianism, and the promise of AI as a net positive for all. But, as an academic attending my first academic AI conference in 2019, I began to notice inconsistencies in the audience to whom the promise of AI was directed. AI researchers can often identify consistent choices for locations where such conferences are hosted, and where they are not. NeurIPS, one of the top AI conferences, has highlighted annual issues for obtaining visas for academic attendees and citizens from the African continent. Attending such a prestigious conference in the field grants one the opportunity to gain access to peers in the field, new collaborations and feedback on one's work. I often hear the word 'democratisation' within the AI community, an implication of equity in access, opportunity and merit for contribution regardless of one's country of origin. Associate professor of economics Fadhel Kaboub talks about how 'a lack of vision for oneself results in being a part of someone else's vision', reflecting on how systematically lacking an access to infrastructure results in local trade deficits in economies. As in the time of Nafta's promise of 'free trade', promises of 'AI democratisation' today still exist and benefit mainly countries with access to tech hubs not located in the global south. While the United States and other industrialized countries dominate in access to computational power and research activity, much of the low-paid manual labour involved in labelling data and the global underclass in artificial intelligence still exists in the global south. Much like coffee, cocoa, bauxite and sugar cane are produced in the global south, exported cheaply and sold at a premium in more industrialized countries, over the past few years we have seen influence in AI inextricably tied to energy consumption. Countries that can afford to consume more energy have more leverage in reinforcing power to shape the future direction of AI and what is considered valuable within the AI academic community. In 2019, Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri published Ghost Work, which exposed the invisible labour of technology today, and at the beginning of my tenure at graduate school, the heavily cited paper Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence was published. It has been five years since these seminal works. What would an AI community inspired by the Brics organisation, which united major emerging economies to advocate for themselves in a system dominated by western countries, look like for the global south? I often ask myself how AI has contributed to our legacy, and whose stories it won't tell. Has AI mitigated issues of mistrust and corruption in less-resourced countries? Has it benefited our civic communities or narrowed educational gaps between less-resourced regions? How will it make society better, and whose society will it make better? Who will be included in that future? A historical mistrust can impede adoption by developing countries. Furthermore, many developing countries have weak institutional infrastructures, poor or nonexistent laws and regulatory frameworks for data projection and cybersecurity. Therefore, even with an improved information infrastructure, they are likely to function at a disadvantage in the global information marketplace. A currency is only as good as its perceived global trust. When thinking about the democratization in AI and a vision of what it could be in years to come, AI's survival requires including more perspectives from regions such as the global south. Countries from the global south should work together to build their own markets and have a model of sovereignty for their data and data labour. Economic models often consider a definition of development that includes a measure of improvement in the quality of life of the most marginalized of its people. It is my hope that in the future that will extend to our evaluation of AI. Krystal Maughan is a PhD student at the University of Vermont studying differential privacy and machine learning
