Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Tariffs Could Help Tesla, by Hurting Its Rivals More

Published

on

Trump’s Tariffs Could Help Tesla, by Hurting Its Rivals More

As President Trump puts new tariffs on goods from China and threatens a trade war with allies like Mexico and Canada, one global company is likely to suffer less than most of its competitors: Tesla.

But the electric car maker led by Elon Musk, which accounts for a third of the billionaire’s wealth, is also vulnerable if relations with China worsen. That country is the company’s second-largest market after the United States and it produces more cars there than anywhere else.

Tesla has built largely self-sufficient supply chains in the United States and China, a rarity in a world of interconnected trade. As a result, the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese goods, and the continuing threat to put them on Mexican and Canadian products, might help Tesla by hurting its competitors more.

Although there is no evidence that Mr. Musk is shaping trade policies, the tariffs are one of several measures adopted by the Trump administration that may benefit Tesla at the expense of its rivals. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump paused 25 percent tariffs on most autos and parts made in Canada and Mexico, but the reprieve expires in a month, leaving automakers in the United States that depend on foreign supply chains in a state of uncertainty.

The administration is also trying to eliminate financial support for the construction of fast-charging stations for electric vehicles, a move that could handicap companies seeking to compete with Tesla’s extensive network. And it is attempting to cut or eliminate loans and subsidies that competitors like Ford Motor and Rivian are using to finance electric vehicle and battery factories.

Advertisement

Mr. Musk has said next to nothing about trade or the administration’s crusade to promote fossil fuels and impede sales of electric vehicles, which could also hurt Tesla. And his support of Mr. Trump has inspired protests at Tesla dealerships and weighed on Tesla’s share price. But his position as a de facto member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet gives him influence that far exceeds any other auto executive.

“Conflict of interest is putting it very mildly here,” said John Helveston, an assistant professor at George Washington University who teaches engineering management.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. A White House official said that its policies predated Mr. Musk’s support for Mr. Trump.

“President Trump consistently slammed Biden’s job-killing electric vehicle policies on the campaign trail since summer 2023 — more than a year before Elon Musk even endorsed President Trump — and he has consistently pressed companies to have their products be made in America since he first ran for president in 2015,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in an email.

The trade war and other Trump policies also hold risks for Tesla when the company is already in crisis, with sales plummeting in China and Europe even as the overall market for electric vehicles is surging.

Advertisement

Mr. Musk’s extensive investments in China leave him vulnerable as trade tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration rise.

“He could become a pawn in all of this,” said Lei Xing, an independent auto analyst based in Massachusetts who is focused on China.

Tesla is already struggling in Europe and China because of competition from Chinese electric carmakers and a dearth of new models. Anger over Mr. Musk’s political activities, including promotion of far-right parties, has also hurt demand in Germany, the United States and other markets. Mr. Musk’s personal wealth is tied up in Tesla stock, which has been on a steep decline.

When Tesla began mass-producing electric cars at a factory in Fremont, Calif., in 2012, it designed a supply chain that was less dependent on imports than virtually all of its competitors. Electric vehicles were a new technology then, forcing Tesla to largely develop its own sources of batteries, motors and other components.

Tesla built a battery factory in Nevada in partnership with Panasonic of Japan, and it remains one of just a few car companies to mass-produce batteries in the United States.

Advertisement

When, in 2014, Mr. Musk began talking about building a factory in China, he received a warm welcome from government officials. Tesla opened a factory in Shanghai six years later under unusually favorable conditions. Beijing changed ownership rules so that the company could set up without a local partner, a first for a foreign automaker in China. The Chinese government also ensured low-interest loans, access to top leaders and even changes that Tesla had sought on emissions regulations.

But Mr. Musk kept supply chains for the Chinese and U.S. factories relatively separate, unlike other auto companies that depend heavily on imported parts.

“He set himself up nicely in the event that trade goes sideways and tariffs go higher,” said Michael Dunne, a longtime China automotive consultant. “And that serves him well today.”

Today, the cars made in Shanghai are sold in Europe, Southeast Asia or in the domestic Chinese market — but not in the United States.

The cars Tesla sells in the United States are made at factories in Fremont and Austin, Texas. Tesla also produces charging equipment for its proprietary charging network — the nation’s largest — in Buffalo, N.Y. Tesla regularly tops an annual ranking by Cars.com, an online shopping site, of how much of a vehicle is American-made.

Advertisement

“Tesla is in a good position” to withstand tariffs, said Patrick Masterson, who oversees compilation of the data that goes into the Cars.com ranking. “Their domestic production is robust.”

Tesla is still vulnerable to tariffs on goods from China and Mexico because a quarterof the components and materials in the car, measured by value, is imported, according to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But electric vehicles made by Tesla’s competitors are much more vulnerable to tariffs.

General Motors’ Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicle, for example, is made in Mexico. With a starting price of $34,000, the battery-powered Equinox is a threat to the Tesla Model Y, which starts at $45,000 before government incentives. The Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff will erase most of that advantage, assuming it stands.

The risk to Tesla in China is harder to gauge. So far, Chinese leaders appear to see Mr. Musk’s role in the Trump administration as a plus, viewing him as a potential point of contact. In January, when Han Zheng, China’s vice president flew to Washington to attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he met with Mr. Musk.

“U.S.-China policy often has operated through specific personal relationships,” said Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “There is hope in China that he could play a constructive role.”

Advertisement

But Mr. Musk has also lost some bargaining power in China.

When Chinese leaders greenlighted the Shanghai factory, Tesla was seen as a technology leader that would spur development of the E.V. industry. With sales plummeting in Europe and weakening in China, however, Tesla production in Shanghai fell 50 percent in February from a year earlier. Chinese automakers like BYD and Xiaomi are introducing new models that rival Tesla in features like autonomous driving.

Tesla’s prestige and leverage in China may be diminished as a result.

“Tesla can no longer control China,” said Jia Xinguang, an independent automotive analyst in Australia. “But China, by contrast, can control Tesla.”

Still, China would likely think twice before targeting Tesla and Mr. Musk because doing so could make it more difficult to attract foreign investment, said Wang Yanhang, a fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University in Beijing who tracks trade issues. “China will not shoot itself in the foot,” he said. “It is the last option.”

Advertisement

China has so far steered clear of autos when retaliating against the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese goods, instead raising duties on U.S. agricultural products like chicken and wheat.

Tesla has quietly fought at least one potential tariff on Chinese materials that would have a direct impact on its competitiveness.

China is the main source of high-purity graphite, an essential material for batteries. In December, a group of companies that are trying to produce battery-grade graphite in the United States accused China of dumping and asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to impose punitive duties that could be more than 800 percent.

At a hearing on the issue in January, Tesla hired a prominent Washington law firm to argue its case, and four Tesla executives spoke, according to public documents. Tesla is “pushing back because they don’t see an alternative to the Chinese graphite,” said Iola Hughes, head of research at Rho Motion, which tracks the battery industry.

Last month, the trade agency said there was a “reasonable indication” that Chinese exports of graphite were harming U.S. producers. The agency has not issued a final decision. Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on trade has not included any mention of graphite.

Advertisement

Joy Dong contributed reporting.

Business

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Published

on

Courts rejects bid to beef up policies issued by California’s home insurer of last resort

Retired nurse Nancy Reed has been through the ringer trying to get insurance for her home next to a San Diego County nature preserve.

First, she was dropped by her longtime carrier and forced onto the state’s insurer of last resort, the California FAIR Plan, which offers basic fire policies — something thousands of residents have experienced at the hands of fire-leery insurance companies.

But what she didn’t expect was how hard it would be to find the extra coverage she needed to augment her FAIR Plan policy, which doesn’t cover common perils such as water damage or liability if someone is injured on a property.

She secured the “difference-in-conditions” policies from two insurers, only to be dropped by both before finally finding another for her Escondido home.

“I’ve lived in this house for 25 years, and I went from a very fair price to ‘we’re not insuring you anymore’ — and I’ve had three different difference-in-conditions policies,” said Reed, 71, who is paying about $2,000 for 12 months of the extra coverage. “And I’m holding my breath to see if I will be renewed next year.”

Advertisement

Now, a Department of Insurance regulation that would have required the FAIR plan to offer that additional coverage has been blocked by a state appeals court — leaving the plan’s customers to find that insurance in a market widely considered dysfunctional.

The court ruled earlier this month that the order would have forced the plan to offer liability insurance, which was not the intent of the Legislature when it established the plan in 1968 to offer essential insurance for those who couldn’t get it.

“We appreciate that the court confirmed the California FAIR Plan is designed and intended to operate as California’s insurer of last resort, providing basic property coverage when it cannot be obtained in the voluntary market,” said spokesperson Hilary McLean.

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said he is “looking at all available options” following the decision. “I’ve been fighting so people can have access to all of the coverage the FAIR Plan is required by law to provide,” he said in a statement.

Lara has faced criticism from consumer advocates who’ve called for his resignation over his response to the state’s ongoing property insurance crisis.

Advertisement

A FAIR Plan policy covers fires, lightning, smoke damage and internal explosions, as well as vandalism and some other hazards at an additional cost. But in addition to water damage and liability protection, it doesn’t cover such common perils as theft and the damage caused by trees falling on a house.

The demand for the additional coverage — commonly referred to as a “wrap-around” policy — has become even greater than in 2021 when Lara issued the order overturned on appeal.

The FAIR Plan at the time had about 160,000 active dwelling policies following a series of catastrophic wildfires, including the 2018 fire that nearly destroyed the mountain town of Paradise. By September, that number had grown to 646,000.

The insurance department lists less than two dozen companies that offer wrap-around policies, including major California home insurers such as Mercury and Farmers and a a number of smaller carriers.

Broker Dina Smith said that to find the coverage for her home insurance clients she needs to place about 90% of them with carriers not regulated by the state — with the combined coverage typically costing at least twice as much as a regular policy.

Advertisement

“The [market] is very limited,” said Smith, a managing director at Gallagher.

Safeco has not written California wrap-around coverage since the beginning of the year and will begin non-renewing existing policies next month. Smith also said carriers are being selective, with the ones that offer the coverage often demanding exclusions, such as for certain types of water damage.

“If I’ve got a newer home with no prior claims … for liability losses, it’s going to be easy to write. If I get a home that is built in the 1950s that might still have galvanized pipes … that’s going to be a tough one,” she said.

Attorney Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco consumer group, said the difference-in-conditions, or DIC, market is getting just as problematic for homeowners as the overall market.

“The market is not as strong as it needs to be … given how many people are in the FAIR Plan, and there aren’t as many DIC options — with the DIC companies being just as picky as the primary insurers,” she said.

Advertisement

There is also confusion about the policies, she said. Her group is considering pushing for a law next year that would clearly label the coverage so consumers better understand what they are buying.

Continue Reading

Business

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

Published

on

Student Loan Borrowers in Default Could See Wages Garnished in Early 2026

The Trump administration will begin to garnish the pay of student loan borrowers in January, the Department of Education said Tuesday, stepping up a repayment enforcement effort that began this year.

Beginning the week of Jan. 7, roughly 1,000 borrowers who are in default will receive notices informing them of their status, according to an email from the department. The number of notices will increase on a monthly basis.

The collection activities are “conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans,” according to the email, which was unsigned.

The announcement comes as many Americans are already struggling financially, and the cost of living is top of mind. The wage garnishing could compound the effects on lower-income families contending with a stressed economy, employment concerns and health care premiums that are set to rise for millions of people.

The email did not contain any details about the nature of the garnishment, such as how much would be deducted from wages, but according to the government’s student aid website, up to 15 percent of a borrower’s take-home pay can be withheld. The government typically directs employers to withhold a certain amount, similar to a payroll tax.

Advertisement

A borrower should be sent a notice of the government’s intent 30 days before the seizure begins, according to the website, StudentAid.gov.

The administration ended a five-year reprieve on student loan repayments in May, paving the way for forced collections — meaning tax refunds and other federal payments, like Social Security, could be withheld and applied toward debt payments.

That move ushered in the end of pandemic-era relief that began in March 2020, when payments were paused. More than 9 percent of total student debt reported between July and September was more than 90 days delinquent or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, only one-third of the 38 million Americans who owed money for college or graduate school and should have been making payments actually were, according to government data.

“It’s going to be more painful as you move down the income distribution,” said Michael Roberts, a professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. But, he added, borrowers have to contend with the fact that they did take out money, even as government policies allowed many to put the loans at the back of their minds.

After several extensions by the Biden administration, payments resumed in October 2023, but borrowers were not penalized for defaulting until last year. About five million borrowers are in default, and millions more are expected to be close to missing payments.

Advertisement

The government had signaled this year that it would send notices that could lead to the garnishing of a portion of a borrower’s paycheck. Being in collections and in default can damage credit scores.

The government garnished wages before the pandemic pause, said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, which provides free advice for borrowers. But the 2020 collections pause was the first she was aware of, she said, and that may make the deductions more shocking for people who have not had to pay for years.

“There’s a lot of defaulted borrowers that think that there was a mistake made somewhere along the line, or the Department of Education forgot about them,” Ms. Mayotte said. “I think this is going to catch a lot of them off guard.”

The first day after a missed payment, a loan becomes delinquent. After a certain amount of time in delinquency, usually 270 days, the loan is considered in default — the kind of loan determines the time period. If someone defaults on a federal student loan, the entire balance becomes due immediately. Then the loan holder can begin collections, including on wages.

But there are options to reorganize the defaulted loans, including consolidation or rehabilitation, which requires making a certain number of consecutive payments determined by the holder.

Advertisement

Often, people who default on debt owe the smallest amounts, said Constantine Yannelis, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge who researches U.S. student loans.

“They’re often dropouts or they went to two-year, for-profit colleges, and people who spent many, many years in schools, like doctors or lawyers, have very low default rates,” he said.

This year, millions of borrowers saw their credit scores drop after the pause on penalties was lifted. If someone does not earn an income, the government can take the person to court. But, practically speaking, a borrower’s credit score will plummet.

Dr. Yannelis added that a common reason people default was that they were not aware of the repayment options. There are plans that allow borrowers to pay 10 percent of their income rather than having 15 percent garnished, for example.

The whiplash policy changes around the time of the pandemic were “a terrible thing from a borrower-welfare perspective,” Dr. Yannelis said. “Policy uncertainty is really terrible for borrowers.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

Published

on

Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees

In the midst of attempting to complete filming on his western anthology ”Horizon: An American Saga,” Kevin Costner is facing another legal dispute over the production.

On Monday, Western Costume Co. sued Costner and the production companies behind the epic western, claiming unpaid costume fees and damages to some of the clothing during the filming of the series’ second episode.

“The costumes are costly to replace if damaged or not returned,” states the complaint, which included copies of invoices for about $134,000 in costume rentals. “Without a reasonable basis for doing so and/or with reckless regard to the consequences, defendants failed to pay for the rented costumes and failed to return the costumes undamaged.”

Western Costume, the iconic business based in North Hollywood, is seeking to recover roughly $440,000, including legal fees, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A spokesperson for Costner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and financial problems that have dogged the sprawling western drama, which Costner directed, co-wrote, starred in and partially funded.

In May, United Costume Corp., sued the production, claiming $350,000 in unpaid fees for the first two chapters of “Horizon.” Two months later, the costume firm filed to dismiss the suit with prejudice.

In May, Devyn LaBella, a stunt performer on “Chapter 2,” sued the production for sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation in Los Angeles Superior Court. LaBella alleged an unscripted rape scene was filmed without the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

In a motion filed in August to get the suit tossed, Costner said he had reviewed LaBella’s complaint and was “shocked at the false and misleading allegations she was making.”

In October, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The judge also denied LaBella’s claim that Costner had interfered with her civil rights through the use of intimidation or coercion with respect to her participation in the filming of a rape scene, but allowed several of her other claims to proceed.

Advertisement

The case is pending.

The production is also facing an arbitration claim for alleged breaches in its co-financing agreement with its distributor New Line Cinema and City National Bank, “Horizon” bondholder, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

In June 2024, “Chapter 1” of the planned four-part series was released in theaters followed by a streaming broadcast on HBO Max, but it was largely panned by critics.

In its review, The Times described “Horizon” as “a massive boondoggle, a misguided and excruciatingly tedious cinematic experience.”

It failed at the box office, grossing just $38.8 million worldwide, on a reported $100 million budget.

Advertisement

“Chapter 2” premiered at the Venice International Film Festival last September, but its theatrical release was pulled and remains indefinitely delayed, while the final two chapters remain in production or development, according to IMDb.

Continue Reading

Trending