Nissan's woes deepen as more job cuts loom
Along with a year-on-year loss, the automaker will reduce its workforce by an additional 15%.
Nissan has posted its biggest operational loss in almost 25 years. Photo by Kazuhiro NOGI / AFP
Nissan plans to cut 10 000 more jobs worldwide, Japanese media reported on Monday, a day before the struggling carmaker was expected to report a record annual loss of around R5-million or R91-billion.
Public broadcaster NHK said the decision, in addition to a November announcement that it would slash 9 000 positions, means Nissan is now aiming to reduce its total workforce by approximately 15%.
Nissan, whose mooted merger with Honda collapsed earlier this year, declined to comment on the reports which also appeared in the Nikkei business daily.
Timeline of tough
Like many peers, Nissan is finding it difficult to compete against home grown electric vehicle brands in China, while its profits are now under further threat from US trade tariffs.
The possible merger with Japanese rival Honda had been seen as a potential lifeline. But talks crashed in February after Honda proposed making Nissan a subsidiary instead of integrating under a holding firm.
Then last month, Nissan issued a stark profit warning, saying it expects an annual net loss $5.1-billion or R93-billion for the 2024-25 financial year.
ALSO READ: Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida officially steps down
Its previous worst full-year net loss was 684 billion yen (R85-billion) in 1999-2000, during a financial crisis that birthed its rocky partnership with Renault.
Nissan has since faced more speed bumps, including the 2018 arrest of former boss Carlos Ghosn.
The automaker, whose shares have tanked nearly 40% over the past year, appointed a new CEO in March.
Ratings agencies have downgraded the firm to junk, with Moody's citing its 'weak profitability' and 'ageing model portfolio'.
Tariffs threat
An additional headwind is the 25% tariff imposed by President Donald Trump on all imported vehicles into the United States.
Of all Japan's major automakers, Nissan is likely to be the most severely impacted, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tatsuo Yoshida told AFP.
Its clientele has historically been more price-sensitive than that of its rivals, he said.
Recently appointed Nissan CEO, Ivan Espinosa. Photo by Richard A. Brooks / AFP
So the company 'can't pass the costs on consumers to the same extent as Toyota or Honda without suffering a significant loss in sales units', he added.
One potential solution for Nissan could be Taiwanese electronics behemoth Hon Hai, better known as Foxconn, which assembles iPhones and is expanding into cars.
Foxconn said in February it was open to buying Renault's stake in Nissan, and this month it agreed in principle to develop and supply an EV model to Mitsubishi Motors, an alliance partner of Renault and Nissan.
External help, Yoshida said, is 'very much needed' for Nissan, which can no longer differentiate itself from its rivals by making internal efforts to save costs alone.
NOW READ: Nissan announces drastic job cuts and reduction in sales figures
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Auto sector reels from China's rare earth restrictions
New cars of various brands are parked for export on the parking of a car terminal at the harbour of Duisburg, western Germany. Image: AFP The global auto industry has been rocked by China's decision to restrict exports of rare earth magnets that are crucial to making vehicles. With a near monopoly on the output of rare earth elements, Beijing is using them as a key weapon in its trade war with Washington. These are the implications for the sector: China's restrictions China accounts for more than 60% of rare earth mining production and 92% of global refined output, according to the International Energy Agency, driven by generous state subsidies and lax environmental protections. As the trade war with the US has developed, Beijing has required Chinese companies since April to obtain a licence before exporting these materials - including rare earth magnets- to any country. While these rules were expected to be relaxed after a tariff deal in Geneva last month, industry stakeholders said they have not been eased at a sufficient pace. "Since early April, hundreds of export licence applications have been submitted to Chinese authorities, yet only approximately one-quarter appear to have been approved," the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) said Wednesday. "Procedures are opaque and inconsistent across provinces, with some licenses denied on procedural grounds and others requiring disclosure of intellectual property-sensitive information." And US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said Beijing was "blocking certain products it had agreed to market as part of our agreement". China, however, defended its "common international practice". Few alternatives Rare earths are 17 metals used in a wide variety of everyday and high-tech products, from light bulbs to guided missiles. Two of them - neodymium and dysprosium - are crucial to making powerful magnets for electric vehicles and wind turbines. These components play an essential role in "electric motors, sensors, power steering, and regenerative braking systems, among other advanced features in modern vehicles", according to consultancy firm BMI. China's restrictions highlight the world's heavy dependency, with Europe importing 98% of its rare earth magnets from the country, BMI said. And, it notes, while the European Union has introduced regulations to boost its production of critical minerals, "rare earth processing operations in Europe not only struggle to compete with Chinese producers on cost, but also lack the necessary scale to supply its automotive sector". Industry group CLEPA added that efforts undertaken in Europe to diversify supply sources "offer no short-term solutions and cannot address the acute risks currently facing supply chains". Production halts, supply concerns The auto industry is already suffering globally. "With a deeply intertwined global supply chain, China's export restrictions are already shutting down production in Europe's supplier sector," said CLEPA Secretary General Benjamin Krieger. The group on Tuesday reported "significant disruptions" in Europe, where these restrictions "have led to the shutdown of several production lines and plants". It warned that "further impacts (were) expected in the coming weeks as inventories deplete". "The slow pace of customs formalities for shipments requiring a valid export licence poses a problem," said Hildegard Muller, president of Germany's automotive industry association VDA. "If the situation does not evolve quickly, production delays, or even production losses, can no longer be ruled out." While not citing "direct restrictions" for itself, Germany's Mercedes-Benz said it was maintaining "close contact" with its suppliers, while Japan's Suzuki Motor said Thursday it "had ceased production of certain models due to a component shortage", including rare earths, the Nikkei daily reported. And US auto giant Ford had to halt production for a week in May at its Chicago plant making the Explorer SUV because of shortages, according to Bloomberg. The firm told AFP that it does not comment on "supplier issues". Indian scooter-maker Bajaj Auto recently warned the restrictions could impact its production in July. "The slow processing of (export) requests appears to be causing significant supply shortages," Cornelius Bahr from IW Economic Institute told AFP. "Statements (by German companies) indicating that stocks will only suffice through the end of June should certainly be taken seriously." The electronics industry, another major consumer of rare earths, could also suffer. "Concern is visibly growing, many companies currently have resources only for a few weeks or months," said Wolfgang Weber, president of Germany's electronics industry association ZVEI. Hope for a turnaround While uncertainty remains, talks between US President Donald Trump and Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Thursday seem to have paved the way for a potential easing by Beijing. "There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of (exporting) Rare Earth products," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform after their phone call. A rapid resolution of the China-US row remains unlikely but reports indicate "an agreement was reached to overcome immediate obstacles, particularly concerning critical minerals", noted Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. AFP
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Europe's Left Must Unite to Oppose NATO's Rearmament and Austerity
U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (left) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in conversation ahead of the meeting of NATO defence ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on June 5, 2025. Image: AFP John Ross As Europe approaches NATO's 24–26 June summit in The Hague, its 750 million people face a decisive strategic choice that will affect their lives for years to come – and one with a far wider global impact. The policies implemented in Europe in recent years have been disastrous socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Europe is experiencing worsening social conditions, its largest war since 1945 in Ukraine, and the biggest rise of far-right authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic forces since the Nazis in the 1930s. The proposals to the NATO summit would worsen that situation. The key question is therefore whether Europe will continue down this destructive, disastrous path or adopt policies that offer a way out. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed to the 32 NATO members that 'the NATO summit… aim for 3.5% hard military spending by 2032' – a 75% increase from the previous 2.0% GDP target. Trump calls for even higher military expenditure of 5% of GDP. Rutte opened the door to this by supporting a commitment to '1.5% related spending, such as infrastructure, cybersecurity and things like that. Also achievable by 2032'. The 3.5% plus 1.5% adds up to Trump's 5%. The social and political consequences of such a course are already clear. Europe's economies are nearly stagnant, with the EU's annual per capita GDP growth averaging less than 1% from 2007 to 2024. The IMF, somewhat optimistically, projects an increase to only 1.3% by 2030. With rising inequality and reductions in social spending due to austerity policies, hundreds of millions of people in Europe have already experienced stagnant or declining living standards. Diverting more resources into military spending, already being accompanied by social spending cuts to finance it, will worsen that situation further. The political consequences are also clear. Far-right and neo-fascist forces, exploiting the worsening conditions, which are caused by austerity measures and increased military spending, by demagogically blaming immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, will gain further strength. The disastrous consequences for traditional left-wing and progressive parties supporting or enacting these rearmament and austerity policies, even before their support for the new NATO rearmament policies, are already known in major European countries. The SPD in Germany in 2025 saw its vote drop to 16%, the lowest since 1887. In the last elections at which they stood independently, the French Socialist Party gained only 6%. In Britain, the Labour Party, which already received one of its lowest votes since the 1930s at the last election, is now in the polls behind the far-right Reform Party. In contrast, left-wing parties that have opposed austerity and NATO policies – La France Insoumise in France, Die Linke in Germany, and the Belgian Workers Party – have maintained or significantly increased their support. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This disastrous collapse suffered by traditional left-wing parties that have supported war and austerity is extremely dangerous in the context of the rise of far-right parties across Europe. The reason for the collapsing support for such parties is obvious. Such policies attack the population's living standards. If parties claiming to be on the left continue to support austerity and rearmament, this trend of decline will just continue. The only way out of this situation for both Europe's population and the left is a complete policy reversal to one that prioritises social progress and economic development. Following the end of the Cold War, Europe should have focused on fostering economic cooperation and minimising military tensions and expenditures. This would have created a balanced economic area, equivalent to the US, with a strong potential for growth by combining Western Europe's manufacturing and services with Russia's energy and raw materials. What was possible was shown in Asia by ASEAN, which, in a continent that had suffered the worst conflicts of the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, became the world's most rapidly growing economic region through a concentration on economic development and the absence of military blocs. But, because an economically cooperating Europe could have been a successful competitor to the United States, US administrations pursued a path to prevent it – primarily through NATO's eastward expansion, which was carried out in direct violation of US promises to then-Soviet Premier Gorbachev that NATO would not advance 'an inch' eastward after Germany's reunification. Instead, in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, new countries were added to NATO, and the door was deliberately left open to admitting Ukraine, known to be a red line for Russia due to Ukraine's proximity to Russia and its position as a historical route for invasion. Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe opposed this, led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be 'the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era'. But their warnings were ignored, with results culminating in the Ukraine war. Now NATO demands rearmament and cuts in social protection to finance this war. NATO forces simultaneously expanded outside Europe to participate in wars in the Global South, Afghanistan and Libya, and set up numerous organisations and initiatives to prepare for intervention in the Global South – such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Strategic Direction-South HUB, the Liaison Office in Addis Ababa – and has begun to expand into the Pacific – with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea attending every NATO summit since 2022. Such NATO expansion would involve Europe in even more conflicts and more calls for military expenditure. What is required is the complete opposite – priority to social progress and investment for economic growth. Both require more spending and are therefore directly contrary to a military build-up. Europe's need for social spending is obvious. But Europe's investment, the key to economic growth, has also collapsed. In the EU, investment, once depreciation (the wearing out of existing means of production) is taken into account, has halved from 7.4% of GDP in 2007 to only 3.5% on the latest data. International comparisons show this is enough only to generate 1% annual economic growth. Additionally, the US is now pressing for further policies harmful to Europe and its people. The US has already enormously damaged Europe by its conscious policy of cutting off Western Europe's source of cheap energy from Russia, achieved via the Ukraine war and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, which anyone who looks seriously at the matter knows was carried out by the US.
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
Does Musk-Trump spat blow a hole in Tesla bull case?
An ugly, name-calling, chest-thumping public brawl on Twitter between the richest guy in the world and the most powerful guy in the world – it's what the platform was made for, says the writer. Image: Allison Robbert / AFP I spoke almost a year ago to Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital in New York. He said it was just a matter of time before Musk and Trump fell out – the only question was who would shaft who first, but his view was that sooner or later everyone 'gets Musked'. An ugly, name-calling, chest-thumping public brawl on Twitter between the richest guy in the world and the most powerful guy in the world – it's what the platform was made for. It's also whacked Tesla stock as bulls need to reassess their upside case for the carmaker. Both probably realise that this is doing each of them a lot of harm – Musk could lose billions of dollars in government contracts and tax credits, while Trump could see his 'big beautiful bill' fail to pass. They are going to cool off a bit and talk things over. But in the words of Anchorman, boy, that escalated quickly! Selling in Tesla was HEAVY, with $153bn wiped out in one day. There is a whole cluster of related items here - we saw the likes of Palantir also hit hard, down almost 8%. Tesla, though, is coming back in pre-market trade. BTD is ever present. To summarise where we are - Musk has been criticising the tax and spending bill all week, which prompted Trump to talk about his disappointment with his 'former' ally. Musk then went full tweetstorm and launched a series of attacks on X, suggesting that Trump appears in unreleased files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump shot back, saying Musk "went CRAZY" and was asked to leave the administration, while he also threatened to cut government contracts with Musk's companies. Tesla's stock price dropped 14%. Clearly this introduces new risks for TSLA – the argument that Musk's closeness to Trump was bullish for the stock because Trump always promotes his favourites is kinda becoming unstuck. For instance, the assumption was it would mean an easier path for the rollout of robotaxis or some other favourable policy decision - that is now very much in doubt. Enmity with Trump changes the regulatory environment. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ But, I guess, TACO...? I subsidies were always on the chopping block, but I guess Musk thought his 'influence' at court would help..I guess he found out he'd been labouring under a misapprehension. Anyway, look at it like this – the tax bill will cut Tesla's EV subsidy, probably negatively impact profits by $1.2bn a there is a $2bn hit coming from California explains why Musk is such a critic. The tax bill has much broader ramifications than EV credits and Tesla shares, though, so the question is whether this intervention is going to derail the legislation. If it does, then it's probably GOOD for Tesla. But then Trump has many other levers of vindictiveness to pull – he's already mentioned pulling government contracts for things like SpaceX or Starlink. And then you have to chuck in elements like MS's Adam Jonas says could turn TSLA into a defence stock... I guess TSLA won't be getting any Pentagon contracts soon ...but either way, the bulls will keep grasping and throwing new reasons to buy. Does it blow a hole in the bull case? I never bought into the Tesla bull case in the first case - to me it just reaffirms what I already knew. Let's not forget trade! Before this Trump-Musk spat S&P 500 e-mini futures touched 6,016, the highest since late February, as reports that Trump had held a phone call with China's Xi Jinping. Trump said he has had a "very good" phone call amid their ongoing trade war, during which they agreed to more tariff talks. Meanwhile, markets are braced for today's nonfarm payrolls report from the US. It's expected at 130,000 in May, down from the 177,000 increase recorded in April, with the unemployment rate sticking at 4.2%. Wall Street fell yesterday as Tesla dragged the broader tech sector down, with the Nasdaq Composite down 0.83% and the Nasdaq 100 off 0.8%. The S&P 500 fell half a percent, while the Dow was 0.25% lower. European stock markets were mixed in muted early trade on Friday, with investors looking over their shoulders at trade wars and the economic data in the US, which is going to be important for sentiment. Ultimately, really bad economic data may be coming, but it could spur the Fed into action. Yesterday we had US jobless claims up, labour costs up, productivity data is cracking. Broadcom was down 4% after it forecast modest revenue for the current quarter, hinting AI spending isn't as strong as expected. Sales will be around $15.8 billion, with more AI chip deployment next year. Stock fell 4% in extended trading.
