Brazil's WEG expects to mitigate most impacts from Trump tariffs
Analysts have cited WEG - whose motors are used in vehicles, wind turbines and power transmission lines - among the most exposed firms to the steep tariffs, which are due to take effect on August 1.
The company on Wednesday reported lower-than-expected second-quarter results, noting that geopolitical uncertainties have limited long-term visibility and led some clients to postpone investment decisions for large projects.
Chief Financial Officer Andre Rodrigues suggested on Thursday the firm could use its Brazilian operations to supply countries such as Mexico and India, whose products would in turn meet U.S. demand.
"The execution may take a few months, but once the change is implemented, we expect to be able to mitigate most of these impacts," he told a call with analysts, though warning the move would also depend on the levies Trump imposes on other nations.
WEG has plants in over a dozen countries, including the United States and Mexico, and has touted its global presence and broad product portfolio as factors that might help shield it from the tariffs' impacts.
Rodrigues said that products made in Brazil currently account for less than a third of WEG's U.S. sales.
He noted that the effects on WEG's second-quarter results of the 10% tariff Trump had initially imposed in April were small, saying that the firm made some price adjustments in the U.S. to offset the impact of those levies.
"Looking ahead, at this point it's not possible to have a firm stance, given the many uncertainties and volatility in the trade structures being discussed," Rodrigues added. "But if the current situation persists, WEG does have an action plan."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump played the EU at its own game... and won
Squaring off across the table from Ursula von der Leyen was Donald Trump, banging his fists and demanding a 30 per cent blanket tariff. The clubhouse of the Trump Turnberry golf course had become the unlikely setting of a face-off between the two global superpowers – and ultimately, the EU's humiliation. The Telegraph has spoken to insiders who were in the room when the negotiations were taking place and has seen diplomatic notes that paint a clear picture. It's one of Mrs von der Leyen, the European Commission president, bowing to pressure from the US and being beaten at the bloc's own game. She had just agreed to the US imposing 15 per cent tariffs on EU goods entering America, while Britain had come away with a rate of 10 per cent. And at the end of it all, she and her team of EU negotiators had to put their thumbs up, their smiles not reaching their eyes, as they stood next to Mr Trump who boasted of the 'biggest deal ever made'. US officials had played hardball for the weeks and months leading up to the high-stakes showdown. Panicked European officials had turned to their Japanese counterparts for advice before flying to Scotland, asking for their advice on how to be successful like them. But ultimately, the EU was beaten by a dealmaker who played the bloc's game better than they could have played it. Over the years, Brussels has used the size of its single market to reinforce the need for trading partners to make concessions, rather than the other way round in talks over deals. And European leaders have voiced their frustration at the move. France's leaders described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and that the bloc hadn't been feared enough going into the talks. Trump plays hardball After a round of golf, the stage was set for the American negotiating team, including Mr Trump. A no-deal deadline was set for Friday, Aug 1. Without a pact Brussels would be subjected to the 30 per cent tariffs set out by the president in a letter to Mrs von der Leyen just two weeks earlier. European firms doing business in America would have become uncompetitive overnight if the EC president didn't shake hands on a pact. To secure this deal, the German eurocrat was told she would have to stomach a number of concessions, signing on the dotted line of an agreement that would be considered one-sided in favour of the Americans. Brussels also knew this agreement was needed to avert a nastier, more chaotic transatlantic trade war that would have left Europe without its most important ally until at least January 2029, when Mr Trump's second term comes to an end. To achieve this, member states agreed that they would have to stomach a blanket tariff because of a belief that the US president wouldn't settle without one, a source familiar with the negotiations told The Telegraph. Maros Sefcovic, the EU's trade commissioner, had briefed capitals that they simply wouldn't be able to do business in the US if that tariff rose to the 30 per cent demanded by Mr Trump. Therefore, they needed to settle on a number that would be an increase on the status quo originally charged on European imports into America – 14.8 per cent, according to one official. Some might argue that this was the EU being made to take a taste of its own medicine, with the bloc usually the first negotiator to reach for hard deadlines and use its size and strength to extract concessions from prospective partners. And it worked, the bloc had blinked. Before Mrs von der Leyen headed to Scotland, European capitals signed off on a mandate, perhaps for the first time, that would use a trade deal to increase tariffs from the current number. Behind the scenes For 24 minutes, the US President and the commission chief held an impromptu press conference under the eight chandeliers in the glamorous ball room at Trump Turnberry. With the Brussels and White House press packs ushered out, the real talks could begin. Mr Trump opened with his gambit of 30 per cent tariffs on all European products imported into America. The commission's first offer was 'high single digits', a source briefed on the wrangling said. The White House delegation stood firm as their European counterparts began slowly ratcheting their number closer to the American's figure. But ultimately, the commission's team kept their cool, at the recommendation of the Japanese, the most recent country to sign an agreement with the US. The Telegraph can reveal that a top aide to Mr Sefcovic had reached out to his Japanese counterpart for help on handling the Americans before the talks. 'They come in shouting the high number, and all you have to do is hold your cool and they diminish as you push back,' a source said, describing the advice. The other tactic deployed by the Europeans was to woo Mr Trump with some large numbers presented to him on a single sheet of A4 paper. Eurocrats had used their build-up to prepare an offer on paper that the US president would see as a major victory. That was an offer to buy billions of dollars worth of American military technology – born out of Nato's recent decision to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The EU pledged to purchase $750bn (£565bn) worth of energy from the US over the next three years. And then there was a further promise that European companies would invest $600bn (£452bn) by 2028. These, European officials claim, are non-binding, not really worth the paper they were written on. The numbers were calculated using publicly available order information and information from trade associations. But this was enough to convince Mr Trump to settle at a tariff rate of 15 per cent, covering about 70 per cent of EU exports and totalling about €780bn (£588bn) worth of trade. In return, US imports into the EU will not face higher tariffs. 'This is probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade,' Mr Trump declared. 'It's a giant deal,' he added, referring to the $600bn and $750bn promises. 'That's going to be great.' The US president's claims of victory and the deal were met with derision in Europe. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, said the bloc hadn't been 'feared' enough in the talks, which opened the door to the concessions. François Bayrou, Macron's prime minister, described it as a 'dark day' for Europe and accused the Commission of bowing to American pressure. Michel Barnier, the EU's former Brexit negotiator, said accepting tariffs was an 'admission of weakness'. 'This weakness is not inevitable. It results from poor choices that ensure neither the sovereignty nor the prosperity of the continent and its states,' he wrote on social media. Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, meanwhile said it would cause 'considerable damage' to his country's economy, the largest in the Eurozone. In comparison, Britain had negotiated a tariff rate of 10 per cent, five less than the EU, in its own deal with Washington. This was hailed by Brexiteers as evidence that leaving the bloc was the right thing to do. Paris and Berlin had been the two capitals pushing hardest for the bloc to take a more robust stance in the trade talks. The French had especially pushed for a package of €93bn (£81bn) of retaliatory tariffs to be unleashed to bring Mr Trump and Washington to heel. There were also calls from Paris to clamp down on American tech firms doing business in Europe. 'This was a big red button nobody was willing to push,' an EU diplomat told The Telegraph, spelling out fears that Europe's economy is reliant on American payment services. But Mrs von der Leyen, who was particularly dovish, argued that this would spill over into other sectors and potentially spell an end to what is a crucial alliance for Europe, especially in security. Fears that the White House and Pentagon would withdraw security guarantees for Europe and cut off weapons supplies to Ukraine overshadowed the talks. But the commission president and her top officials also steeled member states for a longer-term game. Devil in the detail Gabrielius Landsbergis, a former Lithuanian foreign minister, said: 'The only way I can explain to myself why the EU commission would choose to humiliate Europe by accepting the 15 per cent tariff is that they hope to appease Trump enough for him to maintain US security commitments in Europe.' Now Mr Trump has his victory, the devil would be in the detail as the terms are finalised, Mrs von der Leyen's team told member states. The commission will be looking to quietly enlarge a list of products that are exempted from tariffs in more technical talks with Washington. Eurocrats are already briefing that Britain's deal, despite having a lower tariff rate, doesn't protect key European industries, such as beef farmers.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle
A Miami jury has found Tesla was partly responsible for the 2019 crash of a self-driving vehicle that killed a woman and left her boyfriend badly injured to the tune of $242million in damages. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, died after a Tesla Model S slammed in to her and boyfriend Dillon Angulo, then 27, in 2019. The couple had pulled over to look at the stars at the side of a road near Key Largo, Florida, when they were struck by the vehicle after driver George McGee took his eye off the road to reach for his phone. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Footage from the Tesla's front camera showed McGee blow through a red light as he speeds down the road at nearly 70mph. The car passes a stop sign and crashes through several other road signs before striking the couple's vehicle, which was parked 40 feet off Card Sound Road by County Road 905. Benavides Leon was thrown 75 feet and died at the scene, while Angulo suffered serious injuries, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Tesla by the woman's estate. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of Leon and for her injured boyfriend Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn´t thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' The decision comes as Elon Musk (pictured) seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today´s verdict is wrong,' Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla´s and the entire industry´s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla´s compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla´s, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It´s not clear how much of a hit to Tesla´s reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs´ lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla´s decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don´t rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they´re playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn´t crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver´s admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the Ali Act overhaul is clearing the path for a Saudi-backed takeover of boxing
When Ari Emanuel – the notorious Hollywood powerbroker and CEO of TKO Holdings Group, which owns both the UFC and WWE – made a rare media appearance on the Pat McAfee Show in February 2025, he offered cryptic remarks about the state of boxing. Though typically cagey, Emanuel hinted, 'Who knows what's going to happen with the Ali Act' – a reference to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, a federal law designed to protect the rights and welfare of boxers. Since then, rumors have swirled that TKO is quietly working to amend the law to make way for its newly minted boxing venture with Saudi Arabia. Last week, those rumors were confirmed when US representatives Brian Jack, a Republican from Georgia, and Sharice Davids, a Democrat from Kansas, introduced the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act in Congress. The proposed bill is being touted by the congressional representatives as a much-needed modernization of federal regulations in professional boxing, adding new provisions to the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act and introducing 'alternatives' to the sanctioning bodies overseeing the sport. 'I am incredibly proud to introduce the bipartisan Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, which provides boxers with more opportunities, better pay, and greater safety standards,' Jack said in the press release. 'Professional boxing is the only sport regulated by Congress, and ambiguity in current law – adopted over a quarter-century ago – has stifled investment. Congressional action is needed to revive this once-great American sport, and this bipartisan legislation establishes a framework for innovation to flourish.' The 'stifled investment' that Jack is referencing in his statement is TKO's new boxing venture with Sela, an entertainment subsidiary of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF), and Turki al-Sheikh, the figure behind Saudi's General Entertainment Authority and a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The new venture, dubbed Zuffa Boxing, will debut on 13 September 2025, with an anticipated super middleweight showdown between Saul 'Canelo' Álvarez and Terence Crawford. An expanded boxing promotion will likely follow in 2026. Backed by the Saudi government's enormous resources, Emanuel's company advocated for the bill in Congress, including provisions to created alternatives to long-established sanctioning bodies like the World Boxing Organization (WBO) and World Boxing Council (WBC). The proposed alternatives in the legislation are known as Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs), which is what Zuffa Boxing will likely operate as. While framed as a 'framework for innovation', Zuffa Boxing empowers Saudi Arabia to establish a parallel boxing ecosystem where it has sole determination over fighter ranking and championship belts. This paves the way for Saudi to bypass established sanctioning bodies, undermine existing promoters, and ultimately, gut professional boxing. 'This is a concerning bill for professional boxers,' said Erik Magraken, a combat sports regulatory lawyer and founder of 'It guts the key protections from the Ali Act for promoters that choose to use the 'unified boxing organization' model. It allows a promoter to control rank and title … and achieve a stranglehold on the sport.' The bill also sets out a series of compliance requirements for UBOs, including minimum per‑round payments and safety provisions such as mandatory medical examinations and expanded health insurance. While these measures could, in theory, benefit up‑and‑coming boxers, they also create significant barriers to entry for smaller boxing organizations attempting to establish UBOs. Zuffa Boxing, backed by Saudi funding, would be well‑positioned to dominate this space, attract new fighters, and establish a new hierarchy in the sport – one in which TKO effectively determines who holds the world titles. This new model for boxing is based almost entirely on the structure of the UFC, an organization that has long been criticized for its exploitation of fighters in its pursuit of profit. Fitting since UFC CEO Dana White, a longtime friend of US president Donald Trump, is expected to lead the new Zuffa Boxing venture. 'Everybody knows the format – the best fight the best,' White said in interview with The Ring, the boxing magazine owned by Al-Sheikh and, by extension, the Saudi government. 'You work your way up the rankings, and once somebody breaks into the top five [and] there is no question [about] who the best five guys are in each weight class, they fight it out. And once somebody holds that belt, you don't need three letters in front of the belt. Whoever has that belt is the best in the world in that weight class. It's a very simple model.' Despite generating billions in revenue, the UFC pays its athletes a significantly smaller share compared to other major sports leagues. While NFL and NBA players receive close to 50% of league revenues, UFC fighters earn roughly 15% to 18%, with many on the roster making as little as $10,000 to $20,000 per fight – amounts that barely cover training costs, coaching and medical expenses. Efforts to unionize or challenge these inequities have been quashed by the UFC, which has used long-term, exclusive contracts and its market dominance to keep fighters in line. Last year, the UFC agreed to a $375m settlement with several hundred fighters to resolve an antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused the promotion of stifling economic competition and using its monopoly power to suppress fighter pay. While the UFC denied any wrongdoing, the underlying claims remain central to a separate, ongoing case. When Congress passed the Ali Act in 2000, it was in response to the unfair and anti-competitive practices rampant in pro boxing at the time. The sport was dominated by influential promoters, corrupt sanctioning bodies and coercive contracts. The Ali Act provided federally-backed oversight and enforcement meant to reduce the exploitation of fighters through transparency mandates and financial disclosure requirements. The legislation passed with unanimous bipartisan support and stands as the only example of Congress attempting to directly regulate a professional sport in the United States. While the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act does not repeal the Ali Act, it does pave the way for new organizations to emerge outside of the purview of current sanctioning bodies, effectively bringing the UFC model to boxing. It is unclear when the bill will reach the House floor, as Congress will be in recess through the entirety of August. Nevertheless, the bill has received support from Ali's widow, Lonnie Ali, who was quoted in the press release as saying that 'Muhammad would be proud to have his name associated with this bill.' Davids, who co-sponsored the bill, was also a former MMA fighter who once tried out as a contestant for The Ultimate Fighter – a reality show that places fighters in a mansion for several weeks as they work their way through a tournament for a 'six-figure UFC contract'. Their involvement in the bill is a masterstroke of lobbying tactics by TKO and Emanuel. 'The Ali Act was created to stop coercive and exploitative practices by promoters. It was designed to make a monopolization of the sport not possible. Independent rank and title are the key reasons why pro boxers can command such great purses compared to MMA athletes,' Magraken said. 'Boxers compete for titles. Promoters compete for boxers. If promoters own and control titles then boxers can be exploited by promoters.' This will be remarkably beneficial to Saudi Arabia and Al-Sheikh, who have invested billions to wrest control of boxing from its traditional masters. Al-Sheikh has bankrolled some of the most high-profile heavyweight fights and broken through negotiation stalemates by offering record-breaking sums of money. His success as a promoter has made him one of the sport's most powerful figures, while fans and media affectionately refer to him as 'His Excellency' – a title that underscores his growing cult of personality. Al-Sheikh's expanding influence has stifled criticism within boxing. Fans are willing to overlook troubling behavior as long as he continues to deliver exciting matchups, while journalists, eager to maintain their critical access, often frame the narrative in his favor. The kingdom also owns its own boxing magazine and deploys a vast network of PR firms and executives to advance its political agenda through sports. It is yet another reminder of Saudi Arabia's broader strategy in sports – a blueprint built on acquiring influence, shaping narratives and establishing self-sustaining ecosystems under its control. Boxing may be the ideal asset to complete that vision. Karim Zidan writes a regular newsletter on the intersection of sports and authoritarian politics.
