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

Struggling Six Flags names new CEO. What does that mean for Knott’s and Magic Mountain?

Published

on

Struggling Six Flags names new CEO. What does that mean for Knott’s and Magic Mountain?

Struggling with a plummeting stock price and a decline in revenues, Six Flags Entertainment Corp. named a new CEO Monday, weeks after company officials suggested they would sell more underperforming theme parks.

Six Flags announced John Reilly, a veteran theme park operator, as its new president and CEO. He had served as an interim CEO and chief operating officer at SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment in the past.

Reilly is taking the reins of the struggling Charlotte, N.C.-based company that operates Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park and Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia.

“He’s got his work cut out for him,” said Martin Lewison, associate professor of business management for Farmingdale State College in New York, who is also a Six Flags shareholder.

Advertisement

Since its merger with Cedar Fair Entertainment Company last year, Six Flags has upset some parkgoers with its cost-cutting efforts, including moving to a regional management model where park presidents at Knott’s Berry Farm and Magic Mountain were laid off. At some parks, live entertainment was reduced or mostly canceled, and some seasonal events did not return this year, such as WinterFest and Tricks and Treats at California’s Great America in Santa Clara.

Lewison said his own experience has been spotty at Six Flags parks, and two issues the company will need to address are how it wants to brand itself, and whether it wants its theme parks to be family-oriented or thrill-oriented.

“The company is just sort of a mishmash of a brand right now,” Lewison said.

While the holidays can be a big driver of traffic to Southern California theme parks like Disneyland, Six Flags’ regional parks have experienced some challenges, Lewison said.

At Six Flags, revenues and earnings were down in the third quarter compared to the same period last year, and there were fewer visitors in October compared to the same month in 2024. Executives earlier this month suggested they’re taking a stronger look at closing and selling off more of its underperforming theme parks.

Advertisement

In an earnings call earlier this month, Brian Witherow, chief financial officer for Six Flags, said certain parks that represent 70% of the company’s earnings are outperforming, while its other parks are struggling.

Witherow said the company had invested more money in maintenance to improve the guest experience at the underperforming parks, “but did not yet achieve the commensurate uplift in profits we were targeting.”

In a pair of examples, Witherow cited a “historically well-maintained” theme park “with a loyal customer base,” where the company was able to “minimize costs without impacting consumer demand or the guest experience,” and earnings grew 14%. Then, he cited an underperforming park, where, despite significant spending to address deferred investment needs, earnings fell significantly.

“Going forward, we intend to be more nimble and strategic in allocating investment dollars, focusing only on our highest potential underperforming parks and the strongest opportunities to deliver near-term returns,” Witherow said. He declined to list which parks were underperforming.

Witherow said it’s a priority for Six Flags to narrow its focus “and shrink our capital needs.”

Advertisement

“We’re going to look at the parks where our returns are the greatest, where the opportunities for growth are the highest, and we’re going to focus on those parks. The other parks we’ll look to monetize and use those proceeds to reduce debt,” Witherow said.

In the third quarter, Six Flags’ underperforming parks saw attendance decline 5%, Witherow said.

The company this month permanently shuttered its Six Flags America theme park and Hurricane Harbor water park in Bowie, Md., and will put up the land for sale. In Northern California, California’s Great America is set to close in the coming years, with its final season either in 2027 or in 2032, depending on whether the company exercises an option to extend its lease by an additional five years.

Could Six Flags be considering selling either of its parks in Southern California? Not at this time, Witherow suggested.

Some of Six Flags’ parks that have high property values are in Southern California, as well as Toronto, but those are parks that “are critical to the long-term growth of the business,” Witherow said. A sale of those properties, “I think from that perspective, would not be something, at least where we sit today, that we would be interested in pursuing.”

Advertisement

Reilly succeeds Richard A. Zimmerman, who announced his plans in August to step down as Six Flags’ president and CEO and will leave the board on Dec. 8.

Reilly will join the company at a time when it is facing pressure from activist investors like New York-based Jana Partners to improve its operations. Last month, NFL football player Travis Kelce joined an investment coalition — which includes Jana Partners — that owns about 9% of Six Flags.

Jana has said it plans to engage with Six Flags’ board and management team to improve the company’s marketing strategy and operations, accelerate technology modernization, assess its leadership and evaluate potential acquisitions.

Zimmerman, in the earnings call, said the company has an “ongoing constructive engagement” with the investment group led by Jana Partners, which includes Kelce. He said following the announcement of the group’s interest in Six Flags, there was a surge of consumer interest, a reaction that “reinforces our confidence that Six Flags is as exciting and relevant as ever.”

“Travis Kelce, influencers of that ilk, have tremendous followings,” Zimmerman said. “Travis Kelce is somebody that’s come to our parks in many of our locations and has an affinity for them. We are going to work very closely with him and his team to make sure that we optimize that opportunity.”

Advertisement

For the third quarter, net revenues were $1.32 billion, down $31 million, or 2% compared with the third quarter of 2024. Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization was $555 million, down by $3 million.

That came despite attendance totaling 21.1 million guests, up 1%. One warning sign was a decline in how much guests were spending inside the theme parks, with more season pass holders visiting but fewer single-day visitors.

There were more warning signs in October. For the five-week period that ended Nov. 2, there were 5.8 million guests, down 11% compared to the same five-week period last year.

Six Flags shares closed Monday at $14.44, up 7%. Its 52-week high was $49.77.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Giant landlord settles with California for colluding on rents in L.A. and elsewhere

Published

on

Giant landlord settles with California for colluding on rents in L.A. and elsewhere

Greystar, which manages dozens of apartment complexes in Southern California, has settled a lawsuit that alleges the property giant and other landlords colluded to keep rents artificially high.

The national apartment landlord and manager was a defendant in an ongoing suit filed last year by the U.S. Department of Justice that focuses on software from RealPage that is used by many apartment operators to set rent prices for vacant units and renewal rates for existing tenants.

The lawsuit alleges Greystar and other landlords were illegally using RealPage to share proprietary data so they could align their prices and drive up rents.

Last week, Greystar agreed to stop using software offered by any company, including RealPage, that uses competitively sensitive information to align rent prices, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. Greystar also agreed to cooperate in the ongoing prosecution of RealPage and other defendant landlords.

Advertisement

“Whether it’s through smoke-filled backroom deals or through an algorithm on your computer screen, colluding to drive up prices is illegal,” Bonta said.

Greystar, which is based in Charleston, S.C., manages about 333 multifamily rental properties in California that use RealPage’s pricing software, the attorney general said.

The company has agreed to pay $7 million in penalties and fees to nine states, including California.

“We are pleased this matter is resolved and remain focused on serving our residents and clients.” Greystar spokesman Garrett Derderian said.

In a competitive market, authorities said, property owners would be forced to compete with each other, helping to drive down rental costs for Americans. But RealPage was used to avoid some of that competition, the lawsuit said.

Advertisement

The suit said competing landlords shared nonpublic information — such as occupancy and rents on executed leases — with RealPage, which then used that data to recommend rents at individual properties.

The company previously called similar allegations false and misleading, saying clients can decline its recommendations, which at times includes suggestions to drop rental rates.

But in its complaint, the Justice Department pointed to instances where RealPage described its software as a tool for maximizing rent and outperforming the market. Authorities also alleged the company made it more difficult for landlords to reject its recommendations than accept them.

“There is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down,” a RealPage executive said, according to the lawsuit.

At another point, RealPage described its tools as ensuring landlords are “driving every possible opportunity to increase price even in the most downward trending or unexpected conditions,” the complaint says.

Advertisement

Without competitive pressure, landlords have no incentive to decrease prices or offer discounts common in rental markets, like a free month or waived fees, the attorney general said.

The settlement is a “big deal” for renters, said K Agbebiyi of the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project.

“Greystar is essentially not allowed to use the rental price setting component of RealPage,” they said. “That places doubt about the long-term stability of RealPage, when the largest landlord in the country is banned from using them.”

Greystar manages nearly 1 million apartments in the U.S., according to real estate data provider CoStar. It is one of the country’s largest apartment managers.

Other large apartment managers named in the suit include Camden, Cushman & Wakefield/Pinnacle, LivCor and Willow Bridge.

Advertisement

Times staff writer Andrew Khouri contributed to this report

Continue Reading

Business

‘Wicked: For Good’ flies to the top of the box office with $150-million domestic debut

Published

on

‘Wicked: For Good’ flies to the top of the box office with 0-million domestic debut

Elphaba and Glinda have changed the box office, at least for this weekend.

“Wicked: For Good” — the conclusion to Universal Pictures’ two-part film franchise — hauled in an estimated $150 million in the U.S. and Canada this weekend, marking the second-highest domestic opening this year, trailing only blockbuster hit “A Minecraft Movie.” Globally, the film grossed about $226 million.

The opening weekend audience for “Wicked: For Good” skewed even more female (69%) than the first film, which counted 61% of its viewers as women, according to data from EntTelligence.

Lionsgate’s “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” came in a distant second at the domestic box office with $9.1 million. The third installment of the illusionist franchise has now brought in a cumulative $36.8 million in the U.S. and Canada and a total of $146.2 million globally across its two weekends.

Disney’s 20th Century Studios’ “Predator: Badlands,” Paramount Pictures’ “The Running Man” and “Rental Family” from Searchlight Pictures rounded out this weekend’s top five.

Advertisement

The Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande-led film was bolstered by a massive marketing push that began early last year before the first “Wicked” movie debuted. Though the films are based on the hit Broadway play, Universal wanted to expand awareness of the story to markets that had been less exposed to the theatrical show.

As a result, the franchise has partnered with more than 100 brands, including toy companies like Lego and Mattel as well as more unexpected firms such as household goods giant P&G and online Asian supermarket Weee!, where director Jon M. Chu serves as chief creative officer.

The film’s opening weekend success also points to a demand for female-focused franchises.

After 2023’s “Barbie” grossed $1.4 billion at the global box office, there were countless calls for more films geared toward women. But this year, many of the big-budget movies were male-leaning, and the narrower returns at the box office have prompted questions about whether films were reaching all possible demographics.

“Women continue to be a really underserved audience,” said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of the website Box Office Theory. “In terms of large blockbusters, it’s been a minute since there’s been a female-skewing movie on the scale of ‘Wicked’ or ‘Lilo & Stitch.’”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending