Connect with us

Business

WeRide CEO pitches robotaxi safety as shares start trading in HK

Published

on


Shares of WeRide start trading on Hong Kong’s stock exchange today, just over a year after the robotaxi firm forayed into U.S. markets with a Nasdaq listing. For CEO and founder Tony Han, the offering is part of a global strategy to fund the expensive but necessary research behind the company’s autonomous-driving tech.

WeRide’s shares are now listed on both the Nasdaq and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. WeRide elected for a dual primary listing, which will allow mainland Chinese investors to buy the stock through the city’s Southbound Stock Connect scheme.

“We want to make our stock more accessible to investors all over the world,” Han told Fortune in late October, on the sidelines of the Fortune Global Forum. “China is a very important market, both for consumers and also for investors. A Hong Kong dual listing actually helps some potential investors who can only invest in the Hong Kong stock market to buy our stock.”

Han says the funds raised through the Hong Kong listing will help the robotaxi firm continue to spend on R&D and deployment. “We will still need to raise more funds,” he said, “so this will put WeRide in a much better position to access more funds.”

Fellow robotaxi firm Pony AI also starts trading in Hong Kong today after its own IPO on that exchange. Like WeRide, Pony AI listed on the Nasdaq late last year.

Hong Kong’s IPO market is booming as Chinese firms hope to leverage the city’s access to both international and mainland Chinese capital. Firms listed in mainland China, including home appliance manufacturer Midea and battery-maker CATL, have launched secondary listings in Hong Kong in order to draw international investment. 

Yet several U.S.-listed Chinese companies are also considering primary listings in Hong Kong in order to access mainland Chinese investors. There’s also a geopolitical dimension: U.S.-listed Chinese firms may see Hong Kong as a backup in the event the Trump administration decides to delist them from U.S. exchanges, as part of a years-long dispute between Washington and Beijing over auditing standards.

The city’s Southbound Stock Connect scheme allows certified investors in mainland China to buy stocks listed in Hong Kong. Southbound flows hit a record $110 billion in the first seven months of the year, according to the South China Morning Post citing data from Wind, already greater than the entire total in 2024. 

Investors are flocking to AI firms and “new consumption”—think Pop Mart and Labubu. Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index is up around 32% for the year so far; by comparison, the Nasdaq Golden Dragon index, which tracks U.S.-listed Chinese companies, is up 22%.

WeRide raised $308 million in its Hong Kong IPO, Bloomberg reported Tuesday. Shares were priced at 27.10 Hong Kong dollars, a slight discount to the stock’s Nasdaq price at Monday’s close.

WeRide HK-listed shares fell almost 12% on their first day of Hong Kong trading; the firm’s shares have lost over 40% of their value since the U.S. IPO. Pony AI’s HK shares fell around 14%.

Self-driving cars: A social good?

Tony Han, formerly the chief scientist at Baidu’s autonomous vehicle unit, founded WeRide in 2017. Based in Guangzhou, the self-driving vehicle company operates in several major Chinese cities, as well as markets outside of China. The company has pilot programs in Singapore, France, Spain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others. As of November, WeRide is now testing or operating vehicles in 30 cities across 10 countries. 

WeRide is a member of this year’s Future 50, Fortune’s annual ranking of companies with the greatest potential for growth. The firm is also a member of this year’s Change the World list, which highlights companies that are doing social good through their business models.

Han evangelizes the many ways that self-driving vehicles—and moving away from a car-centric culture—can improve society. He predicts that accident rates will be “drastically reduced” once cars are put in the hands of computers as opposed to humans.

Renault and WeRide’s autonomous Robo Minibus undergoing test, runs in Barcelona on February 14, 2025.

Josep Lago—AFP via Getty Images

“Most accidents, we find, are due to human factors,” Han explained, citing the effects of drinking, drowsiness, and distractions on human drivers. “Machines won’t be drunk, won’t overdose. Machines are very reliable. Fatal accident rates for robotaxis are much lower than human drivers.”

Less congestion could be another benefit of automated vehicles. “Robotaxis will never speed, will never just cut in line,” he said. “Traffic will just flow much more smoothly.”

There’s a broader economic argument for self-driving cars in countries whose populations are rapidly aging as birth rates decline—a particularly thorny problem in China and elsewhere in Asia. “With such huge markets, we will need lots of labor in transport and mobility,” Han said. “If we are short-handed, then we have to use AI to replace the shortage, to fill the gap between demand and requirements.”

That extends to public transport and public services. WeRide runs robobuses, robosweepers, and other automated forms of public transit and city vehicles. “The cost of bus drivers in a developed economy is quite high,” Han explained. If these costs can be reduced through automation, he argued, then cities can expand their transit systems and “help build more eco-friendly transportation for the whole planet.”

The robotaxi business

WeRide reported $27.9 million in revenue for the first six months of 2025, a 32% jump from the same period a year earlier. Still, the company reported a $110 million net loss for that same period, due in large part to spending of $90 million on research and development, approaching the $107 million spent on R&D for all of 2024. 

Robotaxis remain an expensive and unprofitable proposition. An HSBC report in July pointed out that self-driving cars have a lot of hidden costs, including remote supervisors, charging and parking infrastructure, and tech support. The bank suggested that robotaxis might not break even until about eight years after launch.

Yet HSBC also predicted that robotaxis will likely reach their commercial potential in China first, due to greater adoption and acceptance of robotaxi technologies. 

Chinese companies are leading the global push for robotaxis. In addition to WeRide and Pony AI, Baidu is also expanding its robotaxi offerings through its Apollo Go vehicles.

China also manufactures many of the components that go into self-driving cars. One key component producer is Hesai Technology, the world’s leading producer of automotive lidar sensors, which are used by robotaxis and other autonomous vehicles to recognize their environment and avoid obstacles. 

Global ride-share companies are taking notice. WeRide is offering its Middle Eastern robotaxis through a partnership with Uber. Singaporean ride-hailing firm Grab has also made a strategic equity investment in WeRide, and is working with the Chinese firm to offer robobuses in Singapore starting next year.

Singaporean transit company ComfortDelGro, meanwhile, is working with Pony AI to explore offering robotaxis, while Lyft is collaborating with Baidu to test its Apollo Go self-driving cars in Europe.

By comparison, U.S.-based robotaxi operations are proving to be a lot slower in global expansion. Waymo currently operates in Tokyo and London

Han isn’t surprised that global firms are now embracing Chinese robotaxis. After all, if China offers the best product, why wouldn’t foreign firms want to cooperate with it?

“When I was a teenager, we bought electronics from Japan, tools from Germany and computers from the U.S. It’s very normal. It’s very normal,” Han said.

“If WeRide can supply good robotaxi technology and services to Uber, and in turn, Uber and WeRide together bring a very efficient and comfortable taxi service to ordinary people; why shouldn’t we do that?”

Fortune is hosting the Fortune Innovation Forum in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from Nov. 17-18. Join business leaders and policymakers as they discuss opportunities and strategies for a world marked by AI, protectionism, and geopolitical tensions. Register here!



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Slipping on ICE: innocent retailers are the latest collateral damage from Trump’s perpetual noise machine

Published

on



In her classic 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, pioneering urbanologist Jane Jacobs advised that the key to safe cities is “more eyes on the street.”  She advocated that the best way to get these was to have neighborhoods filled with stores and restaurants. With local business providing a multitude of reasons for people to be active in city street life, eyes on the street would follow. It was these eyes that were mentioned by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his January 14 primetime media appeal for the public to witness and document the increasingly horrific actions of the agency known as ICE, the once celebrated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

Increasingly known for daily video footage of seemingly arbitrary and brutal force, used by masked ICE agents against shoppers and workers at retail shops and restaurants, Walz urged shoppers to “take out that phone and hit record.” The public has been horrified by the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed 37-year-old mother of three and an American citizen, who was shot multiple times in the face by an ICE agent in her own Minneapolis neighborhood. But the footage of ICE brutality is everywhere, and much of it is occurring in retail establishments.

Consider the vivid hypocrisy of the ICE agents who were seen feasting at the popular El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant in Willmar, Minnesota, and then returning later to arrest the owner and employees of this café that had graciously served them. ICE actions have led several local establishments to close for foot traffic, taking only phone orders, while others reported sales drops of 75%. 

As for larger enterprises, with recent raids occurring in Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Phoenix, Fortune 500 giants around the nation including  Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Ross, Keurig Dr Pepper, and Constellation Brands have all increasingly warned about the impact of ICE raids on their businesses. Patrons and laborers at one Walmart in Van Nuys, California, faced multiple raids in the same day with people tackled and dragged away from ICE agents. Calls for boycotts of retailers who aid and abet ICE enforcement are understandable but retailers are also victims here. They can and should do more to make their roles more clear.

The eyes on the street

The impact of such ICE invasions into Minnesota is being shared nationally, with profound cost to local commerce and also local communities. Local merchants serve a deeper purpose to society than selling goods that are often available through ecommerce. Retail stores are among the last remaining shared civic spaces—places where people of all backgrounds still cross paths in the course of everyday life. Shopkeepers are community pillars because they build social ties, foster local identity, boost the economy by keeping money local, and act as hubs for connection, often providing personalized service and supporting local events, making neighborhoods more vibrant, resilient, and unique places to live and shop. They transform basic commerce into meaningful relationships and community gathering spots, strengthening the social fabric. 

America’s great retailers have long understood this. From Walmart’s Sam Walton to J.C. Penney to The Home Depot co-founders Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, retail legends have long described stores not merely as institutions of public trust. Blank has spoken of retail as a civic platform—a space where people from different walks of life come together in ordinary, human ways. Marcus has emphasized that Home Depot was built on dignity: respect for customers, respect for workers, and a belief that welcoming people into shared spaces strengthens communities rather than fragments them.

So, what could possibly disrupt that vision?

Last week, videos ricocheted across social media showing federal immigration agents restraining a man inside a Walmart in Minnesota and detaining individuals at the entrance of a Target. Days later, in Los Angeles, Home Depot parking lots—long informal hiring sites for day laborers—again became flashpoints for enforcement actions and community backlash. These were just a few of many ICE raids playing out across the country, in locales as varied as New York, Georgia, Texas and beyond, where shoppers have reported increased immigration enforcement activity near department stores and shopping centers, triggering protests, boycotts, and a growing sense that retail spaces are being repurposed into stages for public confrontation. 

This is surely not the retail experience that Marcus and Blank had in mind when they spoke of dignity and friendly community commons.

President Donald Trump is likely pulling this lever unprovoked to tear apart communities’ harmonious fabric as the kind of diversionary tactic that he often utilizes. Trump’s first year has been soundly rated a failure in all major national polls and in each dimension of national and international priorities.  Barely 37% say that Trump places the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. As we write about in our new book, Trump’s Ten Commandments, the president has long resorted to “perpetual noise machine” distractions when faced with plummeting poll numbers and challenges on the economy and affordability, seeking to divert attention away from his difficulties. This diversion comes at a real cost to retailers and to the American economy.

Multiple major national polls reveal that the ICE mission is failing, with most Americans condemning these raids as making American cities less safe — with 82% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents leaning in this direction, but also 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Even MAGA-friendly podcaster Joe Rogan launched a harsh takedown of ICE, likening them to the Gestapo secret police of Nazi Germany.

In fact, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, recently showed on Fox TV that, before the ICE invasions, all major categories of crime including violent crimes like murders and carjacks were down last year from 20% to 50%. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has shown this weekend that there has been no surge of undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis to justify what is now five times the number of federal law enforcement officers as there are municipal police.

It appears that even Trump is recoiling, offering a surprising criticism of ICE overreach in a New York Times interview this week. Indeed, unless there is some inexplicable policy goal to get Americans to buy ladders, hammers, toilet seats, piles of bricks, washers, dryers, and garage doors online instead of at neighborhood stores, there is no reason why retailers need to become ground zero.

Why would ICE want to hurt businesses that form the backbone of the American economy? After all, we don’t know how good UPS is at delivering garage doors house-to-house, or if FedEx could really handle deliveries of bricks, sinks, and toilets, if they were bought from Amazon instead of from neighborhood stores. While that notion might seem ridiculous, there is nothing funny or ludicrous about the fact that these administration/ICE overreaches risk serious and genuine economic damage if they continue unabated.

The facts about retailers’ lack of complicity

While ICE might be slipping on the ice, the activists who are attacking America’s most beloved retailers as somehow “complicit” with ICE raids in their stores are similarly slipping up. That narrative is wrong, and retailers need to throw rock salt urgently, to avoid flipping over themselves. Here are the facts, which are too often lost in the crossfire, and should be clarified urgently.

First, retailers need to clarify that they have not been complicit and have had no advance knowledge of these raids. Retailers are not accessories with ICE, nor enablers; they are also victims, caught in the crossfire of a political and legal dispute they did not choose.

This clarification is urgent, because critics on all sides misrepresent what retailers can—and cannot—do. One widely circulated myth holds that retailers invite ICE into their stores. In reality, ICE agents, like any law enforcement officers, may enter public spaces open to all customers without needing a warrant.

Another myth suggests that retailers can simply “ban ICE” from their properties if they choose, with some choosing to do so while other stores invite them in with open arms. That, too, misunderstands the law. A retail store is not a private home. As a public-facing space, retailers cannot selectively exclude certain groups—whether law enforcement or anyone else—from areas open to the general public. A store manager cannot “kick out ICE” the way they might remove a shoplifter. Even if a retailer tried to ban ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, from their otherwise public facing spaces, the law enforcement agency could simply ignore it under the law, and the retailer could be subject to a variety of legal claims, including discrimination or obstruction by the affected government entities. Some have suggested that perhaps stores could put whistles by the cash registers or parking lots, but in reality, retailers have no control.

A third myth claims that retailers are facilitating the arrest of their employees or customers. That is false. As Federal law enforcement officers, ICE agents have the authority to make arrests in any public spaces based on probable cause, without the consent—or cooperation—of the venue. While there are allegations that surveillance cameras operated by such retail partners as Flock Safety are being use to assist ICE raids as some activist investors charge,  retailers should assert this electronic collaborating is not true—consistent with denials by Flock Safety.

Retailers did not ask to be put into the middle of America’s political and legal fight over immigration. But they are being drafted nonetheless, and need to scream these facts loudly from the mountaintops to deescalate a worsening situation. Fortunately, they are not likely to use needlessly incendiary language the way some overreacting public officials do. Home Depot’s public statements capture the hard edge of their dilemma: the company has said it is neither notified in advance nor coordinating with immigration enforcement, while also acknowledging that it cannot legally interfere with federal agencies.

Now that retailers find themselves in the middle, they deserve something too often missing from this debate: truth, and they need to be screaming this truth loudly from the mountaintops. They are neither covert Quisling collaborators nor law enforcement-subverting antagonists. They are institutions built to welcome the public of all stripes, not to adjudicate federal policy—and they should not be targeted as such by either side.

Some may wonder, why target retailers? If the goal is to trigger unruly public unrest to justify presidential invocation of the insurrection act as some charge, why not visit the spirited crowds at WWE instead. The average Home Depot store has an impressive 2,000 transactions a day but a WWE slapdown such as Raw or Westlemania easily draws five times as many for 10,000 heated fans. If the goal is to capture foreign guests, why not raid the Metropolitan Opera crowds filled with EU national as performers or the American Ballet Theater or the Colorado Ballet known for their high Russian degree of heritage dancers, or the several hundred heavily promoted high kicking Shen Yun performances each year sponsored by the Chinese Falun Gung religious movement.

It is painful to see ICE arrests taking place in the aisles, parking lots, and entry foyers of Minneapolis stores. Who would have thought that even the raucous reputation of the Minnesota Vikings would look refined compared to the hard-edged, ICE enforcement actions? Perhaps they should drop their cowardly masks to hide their identities by donning Viking helmets with horns to more accurately dress for their retail raids. Regardless of the bias in whatever racial or political agenda may be behind this nightmarish remake of Eugene O’Neil’s dark drama of societal miscreants, The Iceman Cometh, the ICE men are making sure their own approval rating melts, while doing damage to both commerce and community safety.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



China has fulfilled its initial commitment to buy 12 million metric tons of soybeans from the U.S., but it’s not clear if the trade agreement announced in October can withstand President Donald Trump’s ever-shifting trade policy as American farmers are still dealing with high production costs.

Earlier this month, Trump said he would impose 25% tariffs on any country that buys from Iran, which would include China. Then last weekend he threatened to impose 10% tariffs on eight of America’s closest allies in Europe if they continue to oppose his efforts to acquire Greenland.

So the administration’s trade policy continues to change quickly, and Iowa State University agricultural economist Chad Hart said that could undermine the trade agreement with China and jeopardize the commitment by the world’s largest soybean buyer to purchase 25 million metric tons of American soybeans in each of the next three years.

“Those new tariffs — what does that mean for this agreement? Does it throw it out? Is it still binding? That’s sort of the game here now,” Hart said.

Beijing paused any purchase of U.S. soybeans last summer during its trade war with Washington but agreed to resume buying from American soybean farmers after Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping met in South Korea and agreed to a truce.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the purchasing milestone China has met in an interview with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business on Tuesday from the sidelines of a major economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Bessent met with his Chinese counterpart, Vice President He Lifeng. Bessent said China remains committed.

“He told me that just this week they completed their soybean purchases, and we’re looking forward to next year’s 25 million tons,” Bessent said. “They did everything they said they were going to do.”

Last fall, preliminary data from the Department of Agriculture cast doubts on whether China would live up to the agreement because it was slow to begin purchasing American soybeans and there is a lag before the purchases show up in the official numbers.

On Tuesday, the USDA data showed that China had bought more than 8 million tons of U.S. soybeans by Jan. 8, and its daily reports indicated that China placed several more orders since then, ranging from 132,000 tons to more than 300,000 tons.

China has shifted much of its soybean purchases over to Brazil and Argentina in recent years to diversify its sources and find the cheapest deals. Last year, Brazilian beans accounted for more than 70% of China’s imports, while the U.S. share was down to 21%, World Bank data shows.

Trump is planning to send roughly $12 billion in aid to U.S. farmers to help them withstand the trade war, but farmers say the aid won’t solve all their problems as they continue to deal with the soaring costs of fertilizer, seeds and labor that make it hard to turn a profit right now. Soybean farmers will get $30.88 per acre while corn farmers will receive $44.36 per acre. Another crop hit hard when China stopped buying was sorghum, and those farmers will get $48.11 per acre. The amounts are based on a USDA formula on the cost of production.

That and uncertainty about trade markets and how much farmers will receive for their crops has even some of the most optimistic farmers worried, said Cory Walters, who is an associate professor in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Department of Agricultural Economics. Soybean prices jumped up above $11.50 per bushel after the agreement was announced, but the price has since fallen to about $10.56 per bushel on Tuesday. So prices are close to where they were a year ago and aren’t high enough to cover most farmers’ costs.

“Everything is changing — the land rental market, the fertilizer market, the seed market and it’s all pinching the farmer when they go to do their cash flows. The ability to make a decision is tougher now because of all the uncertainty in the market,” Walters said.

___

This story has been updated to correct that Bessent spoke on Fox Business, not Fox News.

___

Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska. Associated Press writers Didi Tang and Fatima Hussein contributed from Washington.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Wall Street is talking about whether Trump’s Greenland plan will end U.S. ‘primacy’

Published

on



Investors reacted emphatically to President Trump’s insistence that he won’t back down on his plan to take over Greenland: They hate it. The S&P 500 fell 2% yesterday, even though 81% of its companies have beaten their Q4 earnings expectations so far. The dollar fell off a cliff, losing nearly 1% of its value against a basket of foreign currencies. U.S. bond prices weakened modestly. Gold, the safe-haven investment, hit yet another new record high.

The “sell America” trade is in full effect, in other words. S&P futures were up marginally this morning, suggesting that the bloodletting has been put on hold until traders hear what Trump has to say at the World Economic Forum in Davos later today. Trump offered a small ray of hope before he left for Switzerland when he told NewsNation, “We’ll probably be able to work something out.”

The drama has started a global debate about ending America’s “primacy” as the place for investors to hold assets. Increasingly, analysts and economists are talking about hedging against U.S. risk and deploying their capital in markets which are more predictable. The fact that the S&P 500 underperformed last year compared to markets in Asia and Europe is helping make the case. It’s a rerun in 2026, too. The S&P is down 0.71% year-to-date, while the Europe STOXX 600 is up 0.69% and the South Korean KOSPI is up an astonishing 14%.

“Until the US no longer ‘threatens’ with the use of tariffs … the so-called ‘primacy’ of the U.S. remains at risk of further dissolution, and with it an upending of the geopolitical alignments that have upheld markets in recent years,” Macquarie analysts Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry wrote in a recent note to clients.

Their argument—perhaps one of the most extreme ones that Fortune has ever seen in an investment bank research note—is that when the U.S. goes through a major political convulsion a period of stagnation follows, and thus investors should begin moving their money away from America:

“A line can be traced, for example, from the failure of the U.S. in the Vietnam War and the follow-on decline in U.S, primacy, to the U.S.’s gold reserve depletion, and the subsequent end of the fixed exchange rate system under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. The ‘fiat money’ era that followed was associated with a large decline in the real value of the USD, from 1971 until 1981, as well as a period of inflation and recessions across the 1970s,” they said. 

“We should worry about the USD and its relation to other currencies, too. If the reserve status of the USD does depend on the U.S. role in the world—as guarantor of security and a rules-based order—then the events of the past year, and of the past three weeks, in particular, carry the seeds of a reallocation away from the USD, and the search for alternatives, especially among reserve managers. So far, allocators have only found solace in gold, but they may eventually move toward other fiat currencies, too.”

Wall Street got a glimpse of what this might look like when the Danish retirement savings fund AkademikerPension said yesterday that it would sell its $100 million stake in U.S. bonds by the end of the week.

So far, traders are flinching at Trump’s actions. But we haven’t yet seen the kind of full-scale capital flight away from U.S. assets that might, for instance, raise inflation, interest rates or trigger a recession. But the mere fact that Wall Street is discussing it is significant.

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos told clients in a note at the weekend: “Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the U.S. has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined. In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.”

This note was internally controversial. Deutsche Bank CEO Christian Sewing had to call U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to disavow it.

The CEO does not stand by it but Saravelos’s colleagues may be more sympathetic. Jim Reid and his team, who religiously send an early morning email summarizing market action, did not send their email this morning. The bank told Fortune, “Deutsche Bank Research is independent in their work, therefore views expressed in individual research notes do not necessarily represent the view of the bank’s management.”

In fact, the idea that Europe might move out of U.S. assets is a commonplace inside investment banks right now. At UBS, Paul Donovan told clients earlier this week, “The implications of additional tariffs are more U.S. inflation pressures and a further erosion of the USD’s status as a reserve currency. So far, bond investors do not seem to be taking the threats too seriously.”

This morning he said that the most likely scenario wouldn’t be investors selling U.S. debt but simply refusing to buy new debt, thus reducing the flow of funds that the America is dependent on.

In a tariff war, one under-discussed weapon at Europe’s disposal is its Anti-Coercion Instrument: It has the power to ban U.S. services businesses from the E.U.

“U.S. services exports to the E.U. were $295B in 2024, equivalent to 0.9% of US GDP, suggesting the harm could be much greater if the E.U. pulled this relatively new lever at its disposal than if it responded simply with tariffs, though its economy would be hurt more too,” Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen told clients.

“In short, nobody would win from a new trade war, but the E.U. has ample scope to harm the U.S. if the Greenland situation escalates,” they said.

Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:

  • S&P 500 futures were up 0.19% this morning. The last session closed down 2.06%.
  • STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.4% in early trading.
  • The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was flat in early trading. 
  • Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 0.41%.
  • China’s CSI 300 was flat. 
  • The South Korea KOSPI was up 0.49%. 
  • India’s NIFTY 50 was down 0.3%. 
  • Bitcoin was down to $89K.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.