Britishvolt collapse should spark debate on whether it was actually needed

Published

2 years ago

January 17, 2023

admin

The collapse into administration of Britishvolt will rekindle concerns for the long-term future of the British car-making industry.

The sector is under extreme pressure to pivot from making cars powered by the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles (EVs). To that end the UK government has decreed that, from 2030, no new petrol or diesel cars will be sold in the UK.

Central to that transition to EVs is the need for a number of new ‘gigafactories’ – plants that could produce electric car batteries at scale – and the Johnson government had targeted at least seven or eight of them.

The assumption among industry analysts is that, due to the weight of EV batteries and the expense of transporting them, they need to be located near to the carmakers. Hence the need to build them in the UK.

That need for local sourcing is amplified by ‘rules of origin’ provisions in the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU which require that 70% of a battery must be built in either the UK or the EU for the EV it powers to be sold tariff-free in the bloc. Four in every five British-built cars are exported and just over half of them are sold to countries in the EU.

It is why Britishvolt was promised £100m from the Automotive Transformation Fund, the £850m taxpayer-backed programme aimed at supporting the electrification of Britain’s automotive supply chain.

So the failure of Britishvolt will be seen as a severe setback to the country’s ambitions for EVs. It casts doubt over what is one of only two gigafactories in the UK towards which meaningful progress was being made, the other being built at Sunderland by the Chinese battery maker Envision, which is partnering Nissan locally.

Yet some will argue it is premature to extrapolate Britishvolt’s woes to wider prospects for gigafactories in the UK.

Britishvolt has been seemingly cursed from the off.

Its co-founder, Lars Carlstrom, left the company nearly three years ago after it emerged he had been convicted for tax offenses in his native Sweden. There was then confusion when the company announced its factory would not be in Bridgend in south Wales, as originally intended, but at Cambois near Blyth, in Northumberland, where it had been offered more attractive financial incentives to locate.

In the meantime, the company continued to rack up costs, with the monthly salary bill for its 300 employees reported to be £3m.

Britishvolt then pushed back the planned start date for production to 2025, blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for pushing up costs, while a request for government support was made. It later emerged that management had put the company on what was described as ‘life support’ in July.

Then, in August last year, Mr Carlstrom’s co-founder, Orral Nadjari, unexpectedly resigned.

The Guardian newspaper subsequently reported details of his extravagant spending, revealing that the company had leased a seven bedroom £2.8m mansion with a swimming pool and jacuzzi for executives, as well as hiring a Dubai-based fitness instructor to conduct yoga classes for staff remotely.

Lack of firm supply deals with carmakers

Graham Hoare, the respected former head of Ford of Britain, was hired in his place as an interim chief executive and, in November, the company secured an emergency lifeline from Glencore, the commodities trading and mining giant, which was one of its shareholders.

But at the heart of its problems was that it had never signed firm supply deals with carmakers sufficient to guarantee future revenues of the kind that potential investors would have wanted to see.

All it had were preliminary agreements with two luxury carmakers, Aston Martin and Lotus, to design batteries for their EVs.

Last week, the company said it was in talks to sell a majority stake in itself to a consortium of investors in order to secure its future, but those came to nothing.

Today brought the news, which had seemed increasingly inevitable, of administration.

That need not be the end of the story.

Britishvolt’s main asset, the site at Cambois, is well-located close to a deep-water port and enjoys both good rail links and access to clean energy from Norway. It is highly likely to attract potential buyers.

India’s Tata Motors, the owner of Jaguar Land Rover, has been suggested as a possible buyer although it is hard to see why it would want to own a site in Blyth when a site in Coventry, much closer to the bulk of its manufacturing facilities elsewhere in the West Midlands, remains possible for development.

The bigger questions and concerns

Perhaps the bigger question – and concern – is how many car manufacturers will be in need of British-made EV batteries come the end of the decade.

Honda has already closed its plant at Swindon in Wiltshire while Stellantis, the Fiat, Peugeot and Citroen combine, is ending volume car production at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire and converting production there to electric vans and cars whose battery cells will be sourced on mainland Europe.

Mini’s owner, BMW, has confirmed the next generation of the model’s electric version will be built not at Cowley in Oxfordshire but in China. And it is not yet clear from where the luxury British carmakers Rolls-Royce and Bentley, respectively owned by BMW and Volkswagen, intend to source their batteries as they switch to EV production. Nor are Toyota’s intentions clear for its site at Burnaston in Derbyshire.

The biggest question of all concerns Jaguar Land Rover which, it seems, is likely to be relying on European production for at least some of the batteries powering its UK-built vehicles.

So perhaps the bigger worry is not the lack of gigafactories but whether they will actually be needed amid declining output from British-based volume car producers.

Business

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Published

18 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war escalation sparks global market sell-off

Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.

Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.

Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.

They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.

Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.

The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.

Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.

Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.

Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.

Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.

The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.

The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.

The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.

Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.

Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.

The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.

A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.

There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.

Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”

He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.

Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the
announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.

“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.

She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.

“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”

Business

British businesses issue warning over ‘deeply troubling’ Trump tariffs

Published

18 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

British businesses issue warning over 'deeply troubling' Trump tariffs

British companies and business groups have expressed alarm over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US – but cautioned against retaliatory measures.

It comes as Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds launched a consultation with firms on taxes the UK could implement in response to the new levies.

Money blog: Pension top-up deadline days away

A 400-page list of 8,000 US goods that could be targeted by UK tariffs has been published, including items like whiskey and jeans.

On so-called “Liberation Day”, Mr Trump announced UK goods entering the US will be subject to a 10% tax while cars will be slapped with a 25% levy.

The government’s handling of tariff negotiations with the US to date has been praised by representative and industry bodies as being “cool” and “calm” – and they urged ministers to continue that approach by not retaliating.

Business lobby group the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) said: “Retaliation will only add to supply chain disruption, slow down investment, and stoke volatility in prices”.

Industry body the British Retail Consortium (BRC) also cautioned: “Retaliatory tariffs should only be a last resort”.

‘Deeply troubling’

While a major category of exports, in the form of services – like finance and information technology (IT) – has been exempted from the tariffs, the impact on UK business is expected to be significant.

Mr Trump’s announcement was described as “deeply troubling for businesses” by the CBI’s chief executive Rain Newton-Smith.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) also said the tariffs were “a major blow” to small and medium companies (SMEs), as 59% of small UK exporters sell to the US. It called for emergency government aid to help those affected.

“Tariffs will cause untold damage to small businesses trying to trade their way into profit while the domestic economy remains flat,” the FSB’s policy chair Tina McKenzie said. “The fallout will stifle growth” and “hurt opportunities”, she added.

Companies will need to adapt and overcome, the British Export Association said, but added: “Unfortunately adaptation will come at a cost that not all businesses will be able to bear.”

Watch dealer and component seller Darren Townend told Sky News the 10% hit would be “painful” as “people will buy less”.

“I am a fan of Trump, but this is nuts,” he said. “I expect some bad months ahead.”

Industry body Make UK said the 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium would in particular be devastating for UK manufacturing.

Cars hard hit

Carmakers are among the biggest losers from the world trade order reshuffle.

Auto industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the taxes were “deeply disappointing and potentially damaging measure”.

“These tariff costs cannot be absorbed by manufacturers”, SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said. “UK producers may have to review output in the face of constrained demand”.

The new taxes on cars took effect on Thursday morning, while the measures impacting car parts are due to come in on 3 May.

Business

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Published

18 hours ago

April 3, 2025

admin

Trump trade war: The blunt calculation that should have spared UK from reciprocal tariffs

Economists immediately started scratching their heads when Donald Trump raised his tariffs placard in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.

On that list he detailed the rate the US believes it is being charged by each country, along with its response: A reciprocal tariff at half that rate.

So, take China for example. Donald Trump said his team had run the numbers and the world’s second-largest economy was implementing an effective tariff of 67% on US imports. The US is responding with 34%.

Trump latest: UK considers tariff retaliation

How did he come up with that 67%? This is where things get a bit murky. The US claims it studied its trading relationship with individual countries, examining non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers. That includes, for example, regulations that make it difficult for US exporters.

However, the actual methodology appears to be far cruder. Instead of responding to individual countries’ trade barriers, Trump is attacking those enjoying large trade surpluses with the US.

A formula released by the US trade representative laid this bare. It took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country and divided that by imports from that country. That figure was then divided by two.

So, in the case of China, which has a trade surplus of $295bn on total US exports of $438bn, that gives a ratio of 68%. The US divided that by two, giving a reciprocal tariff of 34%.

This is a blunt measure which targets big importers to the US, irrespective of the trade barriers they have erected. This is all part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the country’s deficit – although it’s US consumers who will end up paying the price.

But what about the small number of countries where the US has a trade surplus? Shouldn’t they actually be benefiting from all of this?

That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a “negative tariff” of 9%.

Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief – the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with – but, by Trump’s own measure, we haven’t got off as lightly as we should have.