Pandora CEO says US jewelry production ‘simply won't work'
DANISH jewelry company Pandora A/S rules out moving production to the US and will instead use price increases to mitigate the impact from potential tariffs, according to its chief executive officer.
Alexander Lacik, whose company makes more pieces of jewelry than any other in the world, said in a Bloomberg TV interview on Wednesday that high labor costs and a lack of skilled craft workers prevent him from starting US-based manufacturing.
Moving to the US 'simply wouldn't work for us because of us being an affordable proposition,' Lacik said. 'This tariff is an unwelcome aspect.'
Pandora currently makes 95% of its jewelry in Thailand, which US President Donald Trump has threatened to hit with 36% import tariffs. Pandora also next year plans to open a plant in Vietnam, a country the US has threatened with levies of 46%.
Pandora is branding itself as an affordable luxury brand, but was forced to raise prices twice over the past year to offset the impact from higher silver prices. If Trump implements the global tariffs when the 90-day pause ends, the Danish jeweler may raise prices further, Lacik said.
'There is not enough efficiency that I could generate in our production or value chain to cover tariffs of, let's say, 40%,' he said in a phone interview. 'It will be passed on to consumers in one way, shape or form.'
Following Trump's tariff announcement in early April, Pandora initially said the total impact from the levies would amount to about 1.2 billion kroner ($182 million) annually, with a 2025 cost of about 700 million kroner. However, given the current tariff pause, Pandora has excluded any tariff impact from its 2025 guidance and on Tuesday in its first-quarter earnings report reaffirmed its full-year organic revenue forecast, while trimming its profit margin outlook to reflect currency headwinds.
'If tariffs are 40%, then I have no visibility on what my context looks like, so therefore no point in guiding,' Lacik said. 'The moment I know, then we will have to go back and either confirm the current guidance or adjust it a little bit. Who knows?' –BLOOMBERG
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
44 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's tariffs made fast fashion faster — and dirtier
WASHINGTON, June 10 — When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs. However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning — far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years. Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump's first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit. This trend accelerated with the newer 'reciprocal' tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative. From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A US$5 (RM21) dress or US$3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot. Much of Shein's production takes place in the so-called 'Shein village' in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items. When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145 per cent (since paused), and closing the 'de minimis' loophole, which had allowed imports under USUS$800 to enter tariff-free. But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17 per cent, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can't provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer. So why does Australia matter? Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia. Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally. Just 3 per cent of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis. The hidden costs of cheap clothes The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump's tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies — together with the retreat from climate commitments — worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion. The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia. Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage. Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions. Will ethical fashion ever compete? Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates. Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards. Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential. Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing. Australia's new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way. Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a US$5 T-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step. Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm. Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game Trump's trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than USUS$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was. Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it. — Reuters
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
U.S. stocks close mixed as investors monitor trade talks
NEW YORK, June 9 (Xinhua) -- U.S. stocks ended mixed on Monday, as investors looked ahead to a key round of China-U.S. trade negotiations. The Dow Jones Industrial Average edged down 1.11 points to 42,761.76. The S&P 500 added 5.52 points, or 0.09 percent, to 6,005.88. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased by 61.28 points, or 0.31 percent, to 19,591.24. Six of the 11 primary S&P 500 sectors ended in red, with utilities and financials leading the laggards by losing 0.66 percent and 0.55 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, consumer discretionary and materials led the gainers by going up 1.08 percent and 0.62 percent, respectively. The first meeting of the China-U.S. economic and trade consultation mechanism opened in London on Monday. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, attended the meeting with U.S. representatives. In an interview with American outlet CNBC, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council at the White House, on Monday said that the U.S. expectation was that "immediately after the handshake, any export controls from the U.S. will be eased, and the rare earths will be released in volume, and then we can go back to negotiating smaller matters." Meanwhile, investors are also keeping a wary eye on escalating tensions in Los Angeles after U.S. President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard to deal with anti-deportation protests. Shares of major technology companies, which have been central to the market's momentum, were mostly higher. Amazon and Alphabet both advanced nearly 1.5 percent, while Tesla rose 4.55 percent, continuing its volatile stretch following last week's public clash between its CEO Elon Musk and Trump. Microsoft and Nvidia posted modest gains. In contrast, Apple shares slipped 1.2 percent as the company's Worldwide Developers Conference opened with a keynote from Apple's CEO Tim Cook. Broadcom and Meta also fell. Semiconductor stocks posted strong gains to start the week. The iShares Semiconductor ETF jumped 2.36 percent, fueled by a 4.77 percent gain in Advanced Micro Devices, a 4.41 percent rise in ON Semiconductor, and a 4.13 percent surge in Arm Holdings. Elsewhere, shares of Robinhood Markets and Applovin declined by 1.98 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively. Both companies had recently hit milestones that raised speculation about their potential addition to the S&P 500, but the index's rebalancing did not include either stock, disappointing some investors. Wall Street strategists are growing more confident about the outlook for U.S. equities, with analysts at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs now signaling a more optimistic tone. "We have high conviction that the sharp drawdown in April was the end of a much longer correction that began a year ago with the peak rate of change on earnings revisions breadth," Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Wilson wrote in a note. A pick-up in analyst upgrades "keeps us positive on U.S. equities on a 12-month basis."
BusinessToday
6 hours ago
- BusinessToday
Stonepeak Partners' Reported Acquisition Of Yinson Could Value The Deal At RM9 Billion
Yinson Holdings Bhd - FSO (FPSO) Helang New York-based infrastructure investment firm Stonepeak Partners is reportedly in exclusive negotiations to acquire Malaysian energy infrastructure company Yinson Holdings Berhad, in a deal that could value the company at up to RM9 billion (US$2.1 billion). The development was first reported by Bloomberg. According to analysis by CIMB Research, this valuation translates to approximately RM3.23 per share, based on Yinson's 2.784 billion existing shares. CIMB Research indicated that if the report proves accurate, these exclusive talks could pave the way for a privatisation offer for the remaining shares of Yinson. Yinson's current market capitalisation stands at around RM6.5 billion. CIMB Research noted that the exclusivity arrangement suggests the deal has entered advanced stages of negotiation. The Lim family, who founded Yinson, currently holds a significant 26.6% stake in the company. The research house also commented that Stonepeak's investment focus appears to align well with Yinson's strategic direction, particularly given Yinson's growing presence in floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) and renewable energy sectors. From a valuation perspective, CIMB Research highlighted that the indicative RM9.0 billion take-private valuation, equivalent to RM3.23 per share, implies a substantial 38.0% premium to Yinson's last closing price. Relative to CIMB Research's own target price of RM2.93, the proposed acquisition price would represent a slight premium of 10.2%, suggesting potential additional upside should a formal offer materialize. Related
