Cettire stung as US shoppers hold fire on luxury clothing in Trump tariff mire
High-end fashion retailer Cettire has fallen into negative earnings and reported a slowdown in customer purchases from the US — its biggest market — in the weeks since Donald Trump unleashed his tariff agenda.
Shares in the Melbourne-based business plunged more than 19 per cent on Wednesday after recording an earnings before interest, tax depreciation and amortisation loss of $4.7 million.
About half of that was due to foreign exchange losses triggered by a rising euro and a weaker US dollar over the past three months.
Sales revenue nudged upwards by just one per cent to $192.5m on the same time last year in what continues a period of weak global demand for luxury clothing, the retailer said.
Cettire sells products from more than 2500 luxury brands — including Gucci, Christian Dior, Givenchy and Burberry — but doesn't keep the inventory on-hand, instead sourcing products from third-party suppliers.
'The operating environment within the global personal luxury goods market since Cettire's H1 FY25 results has remained volatile, with softening underlying demand evident across all geographies,' chief executive Dean Mintz said.
He said the sector on the whole had been revving up promotions to stir demand among shoppers, and in turn Cettire had upped its marketing spend.
But The US President's tariffs have already started to cause problems in the US.
The business noted it had already seen a 'softening in US demand. . . with volatility in daily sales' since the tariffs were announced in early April.
Cettire will also need to contend with tariffs on the sale of China-manufactured goods into the US, though the company said this would only impact about 3.8 per cent of its sales.
Customers buying from Cettire spent about $829 per order on average, a fraction less than the average spend recorded this time last year of $832.
Cettire said it had started cost-saving initiatives throughout the business that would save about $5m a year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
37 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australian Tesla owners seeking compensation as phantom braking leaves drivers 'completely terrified'
When Dominic Yin bought his Tesla two years ago he didn't think he'd be taken for "a scary ride". A few months after his purchase, he was driving on the highway between Sydney and Melbourne when the car suddenly braked for no apparent reason. He told 7.30 a truck was behind him at the time. "The truck driver behind me pressed (his) horn and (gave me the finger), and I pointed to the car: 'It's not me, it's the car'". The issue is widely known as phantom braking and Mr Yin says it has happened to him numerous times. Some Tesla drivers have reported phantom braking while their car is in autopilot mode, which according to Tesla, "enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane". It's not entirely autonomous driving, but you can take your foot off the accelerator while the car drives along at a set speed and slows down for other vehicles. Tesla advises drivers that they should keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times. The company also maintains autopilot is designed to make driving safer, but in the US, Tesla has been sued over several deadly crashes in which the system was enabled. The Elon Musk run company has reportedly settled some of these cases but not admitted to any wrongdoing, citing driver error. Last month Tesla shared a video on social media showing an apparent test drive of its semi-autonomous system on Melbourne's streets, and said not even hook turns were a problem. Following a US consumer lawsuit over phantom braking, about 10,000 Tesla drivers in Australia have registered their interest in a class action against the company. The case began in the Federal Court last month, claiming that Australian consumers were misled over phantom braking, battery range and self-driving capability. "The issues that have been reported to us are that vehicles can be driving along on the highway at 100 or 110kph and all of a sudden the brakes are applied suddenly and without reason," class action lawyer, Rebecca Jancauskas told 7.30. "Drivers have reported feeling completely terrified when their vehicles have braked suddenly and it has led in some cases to collisions. "We've had many reports of people who registered for this class action, telling us that they've been driving with their hands on the vehicle, fully alert, and these issues have occurred nonetheless." 7.30 invited Tesla Australia to respond to the claims but it did not reply. The federal infrastructure department is responsible for road safety and told 7.30 it had received only six reports from consumers about braking problems with Teslas over two years. Peter Khoury from the NRMA said Tesla drivers should raise their concerns if they are subject to any phantom braking. "If you are experiencing this occurring in your vehicle, go to the manufacturer immediately because this can be a safety risk if it is occurring," he said. "If you're not satisfied with what the manufacturer has told you or done, you're not powerless in Australia. There is the capacity to notify the Australian government." The Australian class action is seeking compensation for Tesla drivers, claiming they have lost resale value given the problems. Mr Yin said there's "no way" he would have bought his Tesla had he been made aware by Tesla about phantom braking. He wants a full refund or for Tesla to fix the problem. "You're always wondering when (it's) going to happen next," he said. Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
After two days of talks, Trump's China trade deal is right back where it started
After almost 20 hours of marathon trade talks across two days, US and Chinese negotiators arrived back at the starting point they had brokered one month ago. Given the fragility of US-China relations and the worldwide consequences of when they sour, any progress along the path of de-escalation is welcome. But the key takeaway from Tuesday's incremental outcome is about as prosaic as the new agreement was underwhelming. Trade wars are easy to start, easy to escalate and extremely difficult to unpick, let alone win. Holed up for two days in London's opulent Lancaster House, officials from both camps emerged late in the evening with what appears, at best, to be a Groundhog Day agreement to wind back the clock to the May 12 tariff ceasefire brokered in Geneva. Unlike last time, there was no joint statement outlining the agreed terms, just a handful of remarks to reporters by the lead negotiators, where the main line of consensus appeared to be on what to call this bare-minimum breakthrough. 'The negotiators have negotiated a handshake agreement to seek sign-off to agree that a previously agreed agreement is still their agreed-upon agreement' Justin Wolfers, US economist 'A framework' for implementing 'the Geneva consensus' is how both US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang referred to the end product of the protracted negotiations. Under the Geneva truce, both sides agreed to scale back their eye-watering tariffs for 90 days – a deal that immediately wobbled when China continued to strangle the export of rare earth minerals and magnets, and the US retaliated with new curbs on semiconductor software and plane engine parts. After the London discussions, there is no solid resolution on these issues, just an in-principle agreement to withdraw the knives.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
After two days of talks, Trump's China trade deal is right back where it started
After almost 20 hours of marathon trade talks across two days, US and Chinese negotiators arrived back at the starting point they had brokered one month ago. Given the fragility of US-China relations and the worldwide consequences of when they sour, any progress along the path of de-escalation is welcome. But the key takeaway from Tuesday's incremental outcome is about as prosaic as the new agreement was underwhelming. Trade wars are easy to start, easy to escalate and extremely difficult to unpick, let alone win. Holed up for two days in London's opulent Lancaster House, officials from both camps emerged late in the evening with what appears, at best, to be a Groundhog Day agreement to wind back the clock to the May 12 tariff ceasefire brokered in Geneva. Unlike last time, there was no joint statement outlining the agreed terms, just a handful of remarks to reporters by the lead negotiators, where the main line of consensus appeared to be on what to call this bare-minimum breakthrough. 'The negotiators have negotiated a handshake agreement to seek sign-off to agree that a previously agreed agreement is still their agreed-upon agreement' Justin Wolfers, US economist 'A framework' for implementing 'the Geneva consensus' is how both US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang referred to the end product of the protracted negotiations. Under the Geneva truce, both sides agreed to scale back their eye-watering tariffs for 90 days – a deal that immediately wobbled when China continued to strangle the export of rare earth minerals and magnets, and the US retaliated with new curbs on semiconductor software and plane engine parts. After the London discussions, there is no solid resolution on these issues, just an in-principle agreement to withdraw the knives.
