Continental's Aumovio aims for higher sales in long term after IPO
BERLIN, June 24 (Reuters) - Continental's (CONG.DE), opens new tab automotive division, set to go public in September under the name Aumovio, hopes to boost sales by 22% in the long term as it sharpens its focus on technologies that add value to the carved-out company, it said on Tuesday.
Continental said Aumovio is targeting a long-term increase in sales to over 24 billion euros ($28 billion) compared with 19.6 billion euros last year, and an adjusted EBIT margin in the range of 6-8%.
"We have a clear strategy for increasing value and are well equipped to take on the market challenges that lie ahead," Aumovio CEO Philipp von Hirschheydt said, giving a strategy update at the group's capital markets day.
On the auto business's exposure to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have panicked German carmakers and their suppliers, von Hirschheydt told reporters 92% of its products are produced in the United States or Mexico, meaning they are exempt.
"For many years, we have tried to produce very closely to where our buyers and customers are located," he added.
($1 = 0.8621 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Fed Chair Jerome Powell sticks it to Trump as he reveals the BIG reason interest rates haven't been cut
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell struck back at President Donald Trump on Tuesday, claiming his sweeping tariff plan is the main reason he has not lowered interest rates. 'Increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity,' Powell told members of the House Financial Services Committee. 'For the time being, we are well-positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance,' the Fed chair testified. Powell has served atop the Federal Reserve since 2018 and has long caught the ire of the president, who has recently nicknamed the banker 'Too Late' Powell for not yet lowering the cost of borrowing. 'We should be at least two to three points lower. Would save the USA 800 billion dollars per year, plus,' Trump said in a late-night social media post ripping Powell ahead of his hearing. The president also called on his GOP lieutenants in Congress to pummel Powell for refusing to lower interest rates. 'I hope Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over. We will be paying for his incompetence for many years to come.' Several Republican lawmakers took Trump's memo and pressed Powell on why the central bank has yet to lower interest rates this year. During a pointed questioning from Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., Powell continued to reiterate that Trump's tariffs have prompted uncertainty over rising inflation. 'The reason we're not is the forecast by all professional forecasters that I know of on the outside and the Fed do expect a meaningful increase in inflation over the course of this year,' he said. The central bank chairman also conceded that tariffs may not push inflation up to forecasted levels. In that case, the Fed would move to quickly reduce rates, Powell testified. A drastic increase in unemployment could also prompt the bank to lower borrowing costs, he said. 'We could see inflation come in not as strong as we expect,' he said. 'And if that were the case, that would tend to suggest cutting sooner.' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., slammed the Fed chair for being too late in raising interest rates in 2021 when inflation from COVID-19 began to grip the nation. 'Do you believe we are in a position where we may be able to cut rates in July?' Lawler asked. Powell responded: 'If it turns out that inflation pressures do remain contained, then we will get to a place where we cut rates sooner rather than later... I don't think we need to be in any rush,' he added. The impact of Trump's tariffs are expected to show up in the June inflation report, the Fed chair said. However, the analysis won't be released until July 15. The 19-member Federal Reserve members unanimously voted against changing interest rates last week.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Senate Republicans scramble to resolve tense divisions as Trump ramps up pressure to pass his big bill
WASHINGTON — The Senate bill's Medicaid cuts are too aggressive for politically vulnerable Republicans. Its clean energy funding cuts are too tame for conservative House Republicans, who are threatening to sink the legislation. And the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions is a nonstarter for key blue-state House Republicans. The GOP-led Congress is barreling toward its own deadline for passage of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' and it's getting messy in the final stretch as President Donald Trump ramps up the pressure on lawmakers to put it on his desk by July 4. 'To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK,' Trump wrote Tuesday on Truth Social. 'Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT'S DONE.' Passing the party-line bill through the House and Senate, where Republicans have three votes to spare in each chamber, will be a daunting task that requires bridging acrimonious divides. The toughest part will be settling on a final product that can unify Senate GOP moderates, like Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, with the far-right House Freedom Caucus. Those two factions have tended to drive the hardest bargain. After a conference lunch meeting, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters his chamber's goal is to get the bill 'across the finish line by the end of the week,' with the goal of crafting a package that can win 51 votes in the Senate. 'Hopefully when push comes to shove and everybody has to say yes or no, we'll get the number of votes we need,' Thune said. A significant source of consternation is the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate bill, which include lowering provider taxes that are used to fund the program, and limiting payments to states. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who faces re-election in a battleground state next year, warned his party during a Tuesday meeting that they will lose the 2026 midterm elections if they push ahead on proposed Medicaid cuts. He compared the situation to the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the 2014 midterms after a rocky Obamacare rollout, according to one source in the room. The meeting came one day after Tillis circulated a document with estimates of how much Medicaid money states would lose if the Senate bill passes, including $38.9 billion in losses for North Carolina, $16 billion for Tennessee and $6.1 billion for Missouri. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the current version of the bill — which also extends the 2017 Trump tax cuts — doesn't have enough votes and would harm rural hospitals in his state. 'Senate leadership now needs to fix this. They're the ones who have invented this new rural hospital defund scheme that the House says they can't pass, that's going to close rural hospitals,' he said. 'It was a bad idea on their part to fool around with it.' Republicans are looking at creating a new fund to protect rural hospitals from the negative consequences of their bill. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said only a small portion of Medicaid funds go to those institutions, but he argued that 'having a fund specifically for rural hospitals is a targeted way to help ensure their viability.' Senate GOP leaders want to include the Medicaid cuts to limit the bill's red ink. The version the House passed is projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. On Tuesday, 16 House Republicans — almost all representing competitive districts — sent a letter rebelling against the Senate's Medicaid cuts. They fretted that those policies would 'place additional burdens on hospitals,' among other things. 'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers,' wrote the House Republicans, led by Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., whose district has one of the highest shares of Medicaid recipients in the country. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Justin Chermol responded quickly to the letter, questioning the sincerity of the Republicans' opposition to Medicaid cuts. 'Spare us the performative bulls---,' he said in a statement. 'These so-called moderates already voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in American history — and when the time comes, they'll cave to their D.C. party bosses once again to give their billionaire donors a massive tax break.' On the other hand, the Senate bill pares back some of the clean energy cuts, a move that House conservatives say is unacceptable. That's because much of the green tax credits and funding goes to red states, and Republican senators are reluctant to take it away. Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the Freedom Caucus, said the Senate bill 'backtracks' on clean energy cuts and threatened to vote against it. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who voted for the House bill, has also objected to the energy provisions and vowed to oppose the current Senate bill. Roy also warned GOP leaders not to use the July 4 deadline to try and force members to swallow a bill that isn't palatable to them. 'Rumor is Senate plans to jam the House with its weaker, unacceptable [One Big Beautiful Bill] before 7/4. This is not a surprise but it would be a mistake,' Roy said on X. 'The bill in its current Senate form would increase deficits, continue most Green New Scam subsidies, & otherwise fail even a basic smell test... I would not vote for it as it is.' Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., pointed to another reason the process is slow: the bill is still being vetted by the parliamentarian to make sure it complies with Senate rules limiting the bill's provisions to budget matters, a process known as the 'Byrd bath.' 'There's only so much you can pre-negotiate, because the bill is still changing over here as a result of a Byrd bath. I think we're almost done with the Byrd bath. We're making progress in terms of talking through it, but I think we're headed toward the bill hitting the floor sometime toward the end of the week,' Kennedy said. 'And then will everybody be happy? No. But everybody will have a chance to offer an amendment or two.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended Tuesday's Senate Republican meeting, said afterward that he expects a solution on the state and local deduction "in the next 24-48 hours." A decisive group of House Republicans from states like New York and California is threatening to sink the entire bill unless the SALT cap is at least $40,000 per tax filer. But Senate Republicans have no interest is raising the cap to that level in because none of them represent blue states where the deduction is a big issue. Bessent added that the U.S. "getting close to the warning track" on the debt limit, which he has urged Congress to raise before August in order to prevent a default by that month's deadline.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Starmer: No tax rises on working people to reach 5% defence spending pledge
The Prime Minister is meeting leaders of other Nato member countries in The Hague, where they are expected to formally agree the target, made up of 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. He rejected that tax rises would be needed to pay for higher defence spending. 'Every time we've set out our defence spending commitments, so when we went to 2.5% in 2027/28, we set out precisely how we would pay for it, that didn't involve tax rises. 'Clearly we've got commitments in our manifesto about not making tax rises on working people and we will stick to our manifesto commitments,' the Prime Minister told reporters in the Netherlands. He said the current commitment to get defence spending up to 2.5% of GDP by 2027/8 was not coming at the expense of welfare, but rather from cuts to overseas development aid. 'So, it's a misdescription to suggest that the defence spending commitment we've made is at the expense of money on welfare.' Donald Trump is among the world leaders at the summit, and told reporters on the way to the Netherlands that it would depend 'on your definition' when asked if he would commit to Nato's Article 5, which requires members to defend each other from attack. At a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, Sir Keir underscored that national security is the 'first duty' of Government. His trip comes as the Government publishes its national security strategy, setting out plans to make the UK 'more resilient to future threats'. Downing Street has described the 5% goal as 'a projected target' that allies will review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. It is a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that an increase in core defence spending from 2.6% to 3.5% would cost around £30 billion more a year. It noted however that the plans concern spending far in the future – due in 10 years' time – and therefore may not affect the Government's spending review or autumn budget decisions, but prompt the chancellor to revise plans at the 2027 spending review. Spending 3.5% of national income on defence is 'certainly not unprecedented' but much more is now spent on health than in the past, IFS researcher Bee Boileau noted. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the Government had not been clear enough about how it would reach the core defence spending goal, claiming ministers had only offered 'smoke and mirrors'. She added: 'So, when will he actually deliver a plan to get to 2%, and why won't he heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament, which would be vital, and a vital stepping stone on the way to that higher defence spending that he is seeking.' The Nato gathering comes amid the backdrop of escalating Middle East tensions and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Sir Keir has urged Israel and Iran to get back to the fragile ceasefire brokered by Donald Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to attend the summit, but not take part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic Council. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance'. But it was reported on Sunday that Spain had reached a deal that would see it exempted from the 5% target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs.
