Latest news with #480
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Bitcoin nears R2m as crypto goes mainstream — but don't get too excited just yet
In case you missed it last week, bitcoin hit almost R2m. This wasn't just another crypto bro celebration moment either — it goes deeper. Bitcoin's breakthrough last week to past $111,000 (R1,966,480 for those keeping track) has been hailed as a genuine turning point for digital assets, coming at a time when traditional tech stocks were having what can only be described as a tantrum. 'Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high above $111,000 marks a major milestone for the crypto industry,' said Hannes Wessels, the general manager of Binance South Africa. 'It reflects growing global confidence in digital assets, driven by strong institutional demand and regulatory progress.' Translation for the rest of us: Big money is finally taking crypto seriously, and governments are starting to figure out how to regulate it without completely breaking it. When trading goes nuclear The bitcoin surge wasn't happening in isolation. On 19 May, crypto wallet platforms recorded the kind of trading volumes that would make the JSE weep with envy. Binance Wallet alone hit over $5-billion in daily trading — that's roughly R88-billion changing hands in a single day on one platform. To put it in perspective, that's more than the entire market capitalisation of Shoprite, and it happened in 24 hours on a platform most South Africans probably haven't heard of. This trading frenzy suggests something fundamental is shifting in how people interact with cryptocurrencies. Gone are the days when crypto was just about buying bitcoin and hoping for the best. Users are becoming more sophisticated, seeking out early opportunities and engaging with what the tech crowd calls 'Web3' — think of it as the internet's awkward teenage phase, where everything becomes decentralised and confusing. The early bird gets the (digital) worm Much of this activity revolves around platforms that let users get in on cryptocurrency projects before they hit the big exchanges. These early-access platforms have become incredibly popular by offering exclusive token generation events and airdrops. Since December 2024, Binance Alpha has featured 18 tokens that eventually got listed on major exchanges — a 43% success rate that would make any venture capitalist jealous. Here's where it gets interesting for regular investors: participants in these early events bought tokens at prices averaging eight times lower than their opening day values. That's the kind of return that makes property investment look like a savings account. But — and this is a big but — this is also where things get properly risky. Don't fall for the Fomo trap Before you start liquidating your unit trust to chase crypto dreams, let's talk reality. Getting early access to cryptocurrency projects is like being invited to a high-stakes poker game where half the players are card sharks and the other half are algorithms. Yes, the potential returns are eye-watering. But so are the risks: Regulatory roulette: Governments worldwide are still figuring out how to handle crypto. Rules can change overnight, potentially making your investment illegal or inaccessible. Hacker heaven: Crypto platforms are magnets for cybercriminals. When they succeed, your money disappears into the digital ether with zero chance of recovery. Volatility on steroids: Traditional shares can be volatile, but crypto makes the JSE look like a lazy Sunday afternoon. Prices can swing 50% in a day just because someone influential tweeted something. Liquidity nightmares: Sometimes you can't sell your tokens even if you want to, because there aren't enough buyers or the trading volumes are too low. Technical meltdowns: When platforms crash or have bugs, your investments can be stuck in digital limbo. When courts get crypto reality The legal system is slowly catching up with crypto reality, and the results are sobering for investors who think digital assets are a guaranteed path to riches. A recent UK Court of Appeal case involving Bitcoin SV investors provides a masterclass in crypto reality checks. These investors sued Binance and other exchanges for $13.4-billion (yes, billion), claiming that delisting their favourite token prevented it from becoming the next bitcoin. The court's response was, essentially, 'Nice try, but no.' The judges ruled that cryptocurrencies are 'by their nature, volatile investments' and should be treated like shares or other financial instruments. More importantly, they rejected the idea that investors could claim damages based on what their tokens might have been worth in some hypothetical future. As the court put it: 'It would be unthinkable for the holders of freely tradeable shares, whose value had been reduced by tortious conduct, to be able to claim more than the current value of those shares to compensate them for the prospect that their value might have substantially increased in the future.' This ruling could reshape how crypto disputes are handled globally, establishing that digital assets don't get special treatment just because they're digital. The regulatory maze Meanwhile, regulators worldwide are creating a patchwork of rules that would make a tax consultant weep. The European Union's new crypto regulations are so strict that Tether — the company behind the world's most popular stablecoin — simply refused to comply. This has led to major exchanges delisting USDT (a dollar-pegged cryptocurrency) for European users, creating a fragmented market where your access to certain digital assets depends entirely on your location. In Nigeria, tensions have escalated dramatically, with authorities seeking $79.5-billion from Binance in alleged damages, plus another $2-billion in back taxes. What this means for you For South African investors watching this unfold, the message is clear: crypto is maturing, but it's maturing into something complex and regulated, not the Wild West of easy money that early adopters experienced. The good news is that institutional money is flowing in, providing stability and legitimacy. The bad news is that with legitimacy comes regulation, compliance costs, and the kind of complexity that makes traditional investments look simple. Bitcoin's march toward R2-million represents genuine progress for digital assets, but it's progress that comes with grown-up responsibilities and grown-up risks. Keep it tidy The cryptocurrency market is undoubtedly entering a new phase of maturation, with unprecedented trading volumes, institutional adoption and regulatory clarity. But this maturation cuts both ways — while it brings legitimacy and stability, it also brings complexity and risk that many retail investors aren't prepared for. For South Africans considering crypto investments, the advice remains unchanged: only invest what you can afford to lose, understand the risks, and remember that past performance — even R2-million Bitcoin — is never a guarantee of future returns. DM
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
ITD Cementation India Ltd (BOM:509496) Q4 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strong Growth Amidst ...
Total Income (Q4 FY '25): INR2,480 crores, 10% growth year-on-year. EBITDA (Q4 FY '25): INR268 crores. EBITDA Margin (Q4 FY '25): 10.8%. Profit After Tax (Q4 FY '25): INR111 crores. Total Income (FY '25): INR9,097 crores, 18% growth year-on-year. EBITDA (FY '25): INR923 crores. EBITDA Margin (FY '25): 10.1%. Profit After Tax (FY '25): INR373 crores, 30% growth from last year. Net Debt to Equity Ratio: 0.31 times. New Orders Secured (FY '25): INR7,100 crores. Order Book (as of March '25): INR18,300 crores. L1 Orders: INR600 crores. Recent Order Secured: INR600 crores from Jaipur Airport. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Sign with BOM:509496. Release Date: May 14, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. ITD Cementation India Ltd (BOM:509496) reported a 10% year-on-year growth in total income for Q4 FY '25, reaching INR2,480 crores. The company achieved an 18% year-on-year growth in total income for the full fiscal year, amounting to INR9,097 crores. Profit after tax increased by 30% from INR274 crores last year to INR373 crores for FY '25. The company's balance sheet is significantly deleveraged with a net debt to equity ratio of 0.31 times. ITD Cementation India Ltd secured new orders worth about INR7,100 crores during the year, with an order book of INR18,300 crores as of March '25. The company faced execution delays in Bangladesh due to political issues, impacting project timelines. Order book guidance has been reduced by approximately 25% compared to previous expectations. The company needs to enhance its capability in terms of labor resources, which remains a challenge. There is uncertainty in achieving the targeted order inflow of INR15,000 crores to INR16,000 crores for FY '26. The company faces competition and challenges in expanding into new segments such as data centers and larger airport projects. Q: How is the execution progressing in Bangladesh, and what revenue is expected from there this year? A: Jayanta Basu, Managing Director, stated that after a brief halt due to political issues, work has resumed smoothly in Bangladesh. They expect to complete about 80% of the project this year, with approximately INR6,500 crores worth of work, having already completed INR400 crores so far. Q: What is the current mobilization advance as of March '25, and is it interest-bearing? A: Prasad Patwardhan, CFO, mentioned that the outstanding mobilization advances are about INR950 crores, with approximately 75% being interest-free. Q: What is the order pipeline for this year, and what sectors are you focusing on? A: Jayanta Basu highlighted a project pipeline visibility of around INR90,000 crores, with tenders in marine, underground metros, airports, and road tunnels. They are targeting INR15,000 crores to INR16,000 crores in new orders for FY '26. Q: What are the growth expectations for FY '26 in terms of top line and margins? A: Jayanta Basu expects a 25% growth in both top line and bottom line for FY '26. Prasad Patwardhan added that they aim to continue improving EBITDA margins, which are already in double digits. Q: Are there any plans to expand into new segments or international markets? A: Jayanta Basu confirmed interest in expanding into the Middle East, with a branch office in Abu Dhabi. They are also exploring opportunities in data centers and larger airport projects, while maintaining a focus on marine and infrastructure projects. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
TimesLIVE
07-05-2025
- Automotive
- TimesLIVE
Rivian and Lucid flag increasing costs as Trump tariffs bite
US President Donald Trump's administration introduced 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and car parts. Last week, Trump signed two orders to soften the blow, with a mix of credits and relief from other levies on materials. In the face of uncertainty, several carmakers, including Tesla, have also said they were reassessing their full-year targets. Rivian on Monday said it would invest $120m (R2,182,770) to bring its key parts suppliers near its plant in Illinois as it prepares to produce its smaller, more affordable R2 SUVs next year. Lucid is also gearing up to launch a midsize vehicle with a target price of about $50,000 (R909,487) next year. However, Winterhoff said Lucid might start production of the vehicle in Saudi Arabia, a major market for and an investor in the EV maker, instead of the US, given tariff costs, though that plan was not final. A successful rollout of affordable vehicles is seen as critical for the two EV makers. Lucid and Rivian reported smaller-than-expected losses on an earnings-per-share basis in the first quarter as they doubled down on slashing costs. Rivian, which is also benefiting from a $5.8bn (R105,509,256,960) software joint venture with Volkswagen, reported a gross profit of $206m (R3,747,356,155) and stuck to its target of modest gross profit this year. The company, however, increased its forecast for capital expenditures for the year to between $1.8bn (R32,763,777,480) and $1.9bn (R34,583,990,000), as tariffs hurt its plant expansion costs, from between $1.6bn (R29,138,640,000) and $1.7bn (R30,966,604,320) predicted earlier.
New Straits Times
23-04-2025
- New Straits Times
Assistant officer fined RM33,000 over forged documents
KOTA KINABALU: The Special Corruption Court has fined a man RM33,000 after he pleaded guilty to six charges of abetting and using forged documents as genuine. Ady Said, 40, admitted to the six alternative charges read out before Sessions Court Judge Jason Juga. For the first five charges, the court imposed a fine of RM5,000 each or, in default, three months' imprisonment per charge. For the sixth charge, he was fined RM8,000 or, in default, four months' imprisonment. The first charge involved Ady, an Assistant Town and Country Planning Officer at the Town and Regional Planning Department in Sandakan, abetting one Rozidah in using a forged document — a bill of claim from Syarikat Pengangkutan Putra dated May 8, 2017 — valued at RM17,100 for the transport of vehicles and household goods to Taman Indah Jaya, Sandakan. The second charge stated that Ady abetted Myron in using a forged receipt from the same company dated March 5, 2020, worth RM6,250, for the delivery of household items and motorcycles to government quarters in Tawau. The third charge again involved Rozidah, with Ady abetting her in using another forged bill of claim dated June 13, 2019, worth RM17,000, for the delivery of vehicles and household goods to Taman Lokawi Perdana, Taman Pantai Lokawi. According to the fourth charge, Ady conspired with Alif to use a forged bill dated June 12, 2019, amounting to RM8,480, for the delivery of household items to Taman Permata Apartment, Sandakan. The fifth charge involved Ady conspiring with Mohd Efendi to use a forged bill dated March 7, 2020, valued at RM6,250, for similar deliveries to Taman Desa Ranggu, Tawau. All five charges were framed under Section 471 of the Penal Code, punishable under Section 465, and read together with Section 109. For the sixth charge, Ady was found to have used a forged document himself — a bill dated March 13, 2020, valued at RM6,450 — for the delivery of household items to Kampung Gum-Gum Batu 16, Sandakan, on Sept 8, 2020. The offence is also punishable under Section 471, read with Section 465 of the Penal Code, which carries a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. During mitigation, his lawyer Shahlan Jufri pleaded for leniency, saying that Ady was a first-time offender, has a child with special needs, and a wife who is a full-time homemaker. The family is entirely dependent on him financially. Due to his suspension, he is now earning a living through freelance work, including as a graphic designer. Prosecuting Officer Rekhraj Singh requested that a proportionate fine be imposed, considering the number and frequency of the offences committed between 2017 and 2020. It was learnt that he paid the fine.
