Few materials matter quite as much as steel and aluminium.
Steel, an alloy of iron and carbon, is the main metallic ingredient in the structures we live in and the bridges we build. If it’s not made of steel it’s made with steel.
Aluminium, on the other hand, is a wonder material we use with wild abandon these days. A light metal we use in planes and trains, in the bodies of electric vehicles and in those high voltage power lines we’ll need so many of to provide electricity in the coming years.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:04
Prices to rise for planes, trains and automobiles
All of which is to say these metals are the bedrock for much of the world around us. And like most developed economies, the US is far from independent when it comes to these materials. The degree of dependence on other countries varies between them.
According to the US Geological Survey, America’s “net import reliance ratio” for aluminium is close to 50%, implying it is deeply dependent on imports to satisfy demand among its companies. The degree of dependence is considerably lower for steel – only a little over 10%.
At least part of the idea behind tariffs is to bring some production back to the US, but imposing them will have consequences.
Image: Molten aluminium. Pic: Reuters
What kinds of consequences? Well, at its simplest, tariffs push up prices. This is, when you think about it, blindingly obvious. A tariff is a tax on a good entering the country. So if aluminium and steel are going up in price then that means, all else equal, that the cost of making everything from aircraft wings to steel rivets also goes up. That in turn means consumers end up paying the price – and if a company can’t make ends meet in the face of these tariffs, it means job losses – possibly within the very industrial sectors the president wants to protect.
Image: Donald Trump stands on stage with steelworkers as he speaks at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania during the US election. Pic: AP
So says the economic theory. But in practice, economics isn’t everything. There are countless examples throughout history of countries defying economic logic in search of other goals. Perhaps they want to improve their national self-reliance in a given product; perhaps they want to ensure certain jobs in cherished areas or industries are protected. But nothing comes for free, and even if Donald Trump‘s tariffs succeed in persuading domestic producers to smelt more aluminium or steel, such things don’t happen overnight. In the short run, it’s hard to see how these tariffs wouldn’t be significantly inflationary.
Image: Donald Trump on Air Force One: Reuters
There’s a deeper issue here, which comes back (as so many of Mr Trump’s economic measures do) to China. Both the steel and aluminium markets have faced enormous influxes of cheap Chinese metals in recent years – to the extent that in recent months those Chinese imports have actually been cheaper than the cost of production in Europe.
To some extent, that’s a consequence of high European energy costs, but it’s partly down to the fact that China subsidises its producers more than most other countries around the world. Indeed, of all the products in the world, few have had as many cases lodged at the World Trade Organisation as steel.
Image: Donald Trump shakes hands with China’s President Xi Jinping in 2019 – as in his first term, many of his policies focus on China. Pic: AP
But while it’s worth being aware of these dynamics, which are pushing cheap steel into many markets, it’s also worth noting that the US actually imports far less from China than you might have thought. The vast majority of American aluminium imports, for instance, come from Canada rather than China. Any tariffs on the metal would further undermine the economic relationship between these parts of North America.
Much, of course, now depends on the structure and detail of these tariffs – and the extent to which they’re actually implemented. As with his threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico, these ones raise as many questions as they answer. That is likely to be the way of things for much of this presidential term.
Thousands of motorists who bought cars on finance before 2021 could be set for payouts as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said it will consult on a compensation scheme.
In a statement released on Sunday, the FCA said its review of the past use of motor finance “has shown that many firms were not complying with the law or our disclosure rules that were in force when they sold loans to consumers”.
“Where consumers have lost out, they should be appropriately compensated in an orderly, consistent and efficient way,” the statement continued.
The FCA said it estimates the cost of any scheme, including compensation and administrative costs, to be no lower than £9bn – adding that a total cost of £13.5bn is “more plausible”.
It is unclear how many people could be eligible for a pay-out. The authority estimates most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation.
The consultation will be published by early October and any scheme will be finalised in time for people to start receiving compensation next year.
What motorists should do next
The FCA says you may be affected if you bought a car under a finance scheme, including hire purchase agreements, before 28 January 2021.
Anyone who has already complained does not need to do anything.
The authority added: “Consumers concerned that they were not told about commission, and who think they may have paid too much for the finance, should complain now.”
Its website advises drivers to complain to their finance provider first.
If you’re unhappy with the response, you can then contact the Financial Ombudsman.
The FCA has said any compensation scheme will be easy to participate in, without drivers needing to use a claims management company or law firm.
It has warned motorists that doing so could end up costing you 30% of any compensation in fees.
The announcement comes after the Supreme Court ruled on a separate, but similar, case on Friday.
The court overturned a ruling that would have meant millions of motorists could have been due compensation over “secret” commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance arrangements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:34
Car finance scandal explained
The FCA’s case concerns discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) – a practice banned in 2021.
Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have then incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, any compensation scheme could also cover non-discretionary commission arrangements, the FCA has said. These arrangements are ones where the buyer’s interest rate did not impact the dealer’s commission.
This is because part of the court’s ruling “makes clear that non-disclosure of other facts relating to the commission can make the relationship [between a salesperson and buyer] unfair,” it said.
It was previously estimated that about 40% of car finance deals included DCAs while 99% involved a commission payment to a broker.
Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: “It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It’s fair for their customers to be compensated.
“We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal.”
The London-listed investment group ICG is closing in on a £200m deal to buy three of Britain’s biggest regional airports.
Sky News has learnt that ICG is expected to sign a formal agreement to buy Bournemouth, Exeter and Norwich airports later this month.
The trio of sites collectively serve just over 2 million passengers annually.
ICG is buying the airports from Rigby Group, a privately owned conglomerate which has interests in the hotels, software and technology sectors.
Exeter acted as the hub for Flybe, the regional carrier which collapsed in the aftermath of the pandemic.
The deal will come amid a frenzy of activity involving Britain’s major airports as infrastructure investors seek to exploit a recovery in their valuations.
AviAlliance, which is owned by the Canadian pension fund PSP Investments, agreed to buy the parent company of Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports for £1.55bn last year.
More from Money
London City Airport’s shareholder base has just been shaken up with a deal which saw Australia’s Macquarie take a large stake.
French investor Ardian has increased its investment in Heathrow Airport as the UK’s biggest aviation hub proposes an expansion that will cost tens of billions of pounds.
Some of the world’s leading tech companies are betting big on very small innovations.
Last week, Samsung released its Galaxy Z Fold 7 which – when open – has a thickness of just 4.2mm, one of the slimmest folding phones ever to hit the market.
And Honor, a spin-off from Chinese smartphone company Huawei, will soon ship its latest foldable – the slimmest in the world. Its new Honor Magic V5 model is only 8.8mm thick when folded, and a mere 4.1mm when open.
Apple is also expected to release a foldable in the second half of next year, according to a note by analysts at JPMorgan published this week.
The race to miniaturise technology is speeding up, the ultimate prize being the next evolution in consumer devices.
Whether it be wearable devices, such as smartglasses, watches, rings or foldables – there is enormous market potential for any manufacturer that can make its products small enough.
Despite being thinner than its predecessor, Honor claims its Magic V5 also offers significant improvements to battery life, processing power, and camera capabilities.
More from Money
Hope Cao, a product expert at Honor told Sky News the progress was “due largely to our silicon carbon battery technology”. These batteries are a next-generation breakthrough that offers higher energy density compared to traditional lithium-ion batteries, and are becoming more common in consumer devices.
Image: The Magic V5. Pic: Honor
Honor also told Sky News it had used its own AI model “to precisely test and find the optimum design, which was both the slimmest, as well as, the most durable.”
However, research and development into miniaturisation goes well beyond just folding phones.
A company that’s been at the forefront of developing augmented reality (AR) glasses, Xreal, was one of the first to release a viable pair to the consumer market.
Xreal’s Ralph Jodice told Sky News “one of our biggest engineering challenges is shrinking powerful augmented reality technology into a form factor that looks and feels like everyday sunglasses”.
Xreal’s specs can display images on the lenses like something out of a sci-fi movie – allowing the wearer to connect most USB-C compatible devices such as phones, laptops and handheld consoles to an IMAX-sized screen anywhere they go.
Image: Pic: Xreal
Experts at The Metaverse Society suggest prices of these wearable devices could be lowered by shifting the burden of computing from the headset to a mobile phone or computer, whose battery and processor would power the glasses via a cable.
However, despite the daunting challenge, companies are doubling down on research and making leaps in the area.
Social media giant Meta is also vying for dominance in the miniature market.
Image: Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses are shown off at the annual British Educational Training and Technology conference. Pic: PA
Meta’s Ray-Ban sunglasses (to which they recently added an Oakley range), cannot project images on the lenses like the pair from Xreal – instead they can capture photos, footage and sound. When connected to a smartphone they can even use your phone’s 5G connection to ask Meta’s AI what you’re looking at, and ask how to save a particular type of houseplant for example.
Gareth Sutcliffe, a tech and media analyst at Enders Analysis, tells Sky News wearables “are a green field opportunity for Meta and Google” to capture a market of “hundreds of millions of users if these devices sell at similar rates to mobile phones”.
Li-Chen Miller, Meta’s vice president of product and wearables, recently said: “You’d be hard-pressed to find a more interesting engineering problem in the company than the one that’s at the intersection of these two dynamics, building glasses [with onboard technology] that people are comfortable wearing on their faces for extended periods of time … and willing to wear them around friends, family, and others nearby.”
Mr Sutcliffe points out that “Meta’s R&D spend on wearables looks extraordinary in the context of limited sales now, but should the category explode in popularity, it will be seen as a great strategic bet.”
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s long-term aim is to combine the abilities of both Xreal and the Ray-Bans into a fully functioning pair of smartglasses, capable of capturing content, as well as display graphics onscreen.
However, despite recently showcasing a prototype model, the company was at pains to point out that it was still far from ready for the consumer market.
This race is a marathon not a sprint – or as Sutcliffe tells Sky News “a decade-long slog” – but 17 years after the release of the first iPhone, people are beginning to wonder what will replace it – and it could well be a pair of glasses.