Latest news with #BAE
The National
a day ago
- Business
- The National
Plans for Glasgow tourist tax approved by councillors
The visitor levy due to be introduced on January, 25, 2027 will see people pay 5% of their accommodation bill for every night of their entire stay. It is expected the fee could bring in about £16 million annually after costs and will apply to hotels, hostels, guest houses, B&Bs and self-catering accommodation. Speaking at the city administration committee on Thursday, City treasurer Ricky Bell said he and leader Susan Aitken 'had been lobbying the Scottish Government for some time to give us more powers to be able to raise our own revenues and this is the start of what I hope will be a continuation of those powers being devolved to local government.' READ MORE: BAE given £9.2 million to create 300 shipbuilding jobs by Scottish Government It is proposed that hotel operators keep 1.5% of the amount collected to make up for any costs incurred. Organisations who don't comply would face penalties. Councillors approved the visitor levy at the city administration committee on Thursday morning. Cash generated would go towards the look and feel of the city with investment in infrastructure and the 'built and natural environment' as well as culture and events and marketing of the city as a destination to grow visitors. A visitor levy forum is also to be set up to provide advice to the council relating to the scheme and it is proposed those involved in the visitor sector and representatives from communities would have a key role. Employees are to be appointed at Glasgow City Council to handle the process and annual costs are estimated to be about £750,000 to £950,000 – with initial set up expected to be £400,000. Scottish Green councillors moved an amendment at the committee relating to accommodation provider costs stating that they 'may only retain money under this rebate scheme for three years' and providing more details on penalties if they don't pay. The amendment was rejected by Labour, the SNP and a Conservative councillor. Commenting, Scottish Green councillor Blair Anderson, whose motion started the process, said: 'The tourist tax is going to be a game-changer for Glasgow, delivering more money to tidy up our city and make it even more attractive for visitors and residents alike. READ MORE: 300 jobs at risk as London-based firm moves Scottish Power contract to South Africa 'A small contribution from tourists will mean we can invest millions more in street sweeping, bin collections, and getting Glasgow looking good again. 'I'm glad that Greens in Holyrood got this law passed, and I'm grateful to all councillors who have worked with me over recent months to get this tax in place as soon as possible.' Meanwhile, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said: 'Glasgow is a global city, drawing visitors from all over the world. But we have seen how over-tourism can damage communities, like in Venice and Barcelona, where the residents end up paying the price. 'The tourist tax is vital to delivering sustainable tourism where local residents feel the benefit of our tourism and events sectors. I'm delighted that Glasgow is continuing to benefit from Green policy in action.'
DW
13-06-2025
- Business
- DW
Iran-Israel tensions: What's at stake for global economy? – DW – 06/13/2025
Israel's attack on Iran jolted financial markets as fears grew of a regional conflict that could disrupt oil supplies. The tensions come at a time of heightened uncertainty, driven by Trump's tariff policies. What was the market reaction to the Israeli attack? The economic fallout of Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile facilities in the early hours of Friday was swift. Oil prices spiked and investors shifted out of stocks and into safe-haven assets, including government bonds and gold. Crude oil futures jumped by as much as 13% as traders bet that Israel's attack would not be a one-off. The Brent global benchmark for oil prices surged more than 10% to $75.15 per barrel, hitting its highest price in almost five months. A war of words between the two foes fueled fears of a protracted conflict, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowing that the military operation would "continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat," referring to Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, warned that Israel must expect "harsh punishment" for its strikes. Asian and European stocks declined at the open, while S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures were down nearly 1.5%. US markets were expected to open sharply lower as traders continue to pour into less-risky investments. While the travel and leisure sector was hit hard, energy stocks rallied, along with defense giants, including Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall and BAE, which spiked between 2-3%. "The effects of the attack have cascaded across global markets, with a strong risk-off move for several asset classes," wrote Deutsche Bank analysts in a research note. The analysts said the strikes had spurred "significant fears about an escalation and a wider regional conflict." Israel launched strikes on Iran early Friday, prompting retaliatory drones from Tehran Image: Majid Asgaripour/WANA/REUTERS What is the immediate economic impact? Israel and Iran closed their airspace, along with Iraq and Jordan. Several airlines cancelled flights to the region, as fears rose that the conflict could bring down a plane. Globally, six commercial aircraft have been shot down unintentionally, with three near-misses since 2001, according to aviation risk consultancy Osprey Flight Solutions. Rerouting flights, however, is a costly exercise, as journey times increase and planes require additional fuel. Fears of further retaliatory attacks by Iran forced Israeli airlines to relocate some of their planes overseas from Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport. Flight tracking data showed several jets leaving Tel Aviv on Friday morning local time. Some were flown to Cyprus and elsewhere in Europe, without passengers. The Israeli shekel currency slid nearly 2% against the dollar on Friday as Israel announced a "special state of emergency," which appeared to spur some panic buying. Social media accounts showed scenes of large crowds at supermarkets and empty shelves for some foods. Israeli media outlet Ynet cited supermarket chain Carrefour reporting a 300% increase in footfall on Friday. Why Iran and Israel are enemies To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video What is the biggest economic threat from the Israel-Iran attacks? An all-out war between Israel and Iran could disrupt energy markets and trade routes in the region, which would have ripple effects globally. The Middle East is a major global oil-producing region, home to some of the world's largest oil reserves and producers. Iran is the third-largest oil producer in the region, behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and despite international sanctions on its oil exports, the Islamic Republic still delivers significant amounts of crude to China and India. Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh warned in a research note that in a worst-case scenario, "the conflict could expand to other key oil and gas producers in the region, and shipping." All eyes are now on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, a key chokepoint for the global oil trade. If it were closed, as Iran has threatened several times, oil tankers would be stranded and oil prices could spike even higher. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the Strait — around 18-19 million barrels per day, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The price of oil affects the prices consumers pay for everything from fuel to food. How could a longer conflict impact the global economy? The Israel-Iran tensions are escalating at a time of heightened uncertainty in financial markets, driven by US President Donald Trump's on, off, on-again tariff policies. The threat of steep levies on imports to the United States has already disrupted global trade and rattled investors. These tariffs have spiked costs for consumers and businesses, slowing economic activity worldwide. A prolonged conflict between Israel and Iran could worsen these pressures as every 10% increase in the price of oil adds about 0.4% to consumer prices over the subsequent year, a 2019 analysis by FXStreet found. A multi-front conflict involving Iran-backed groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen could paralyze shipping and tourism. Netanyahu's endless wars: How dangerous are they for Israel? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Shipping prices are expected to spike, mirroring similar large increases seen when the Houthis began attacking commercial vessels in the Red Sea in late 2023, another chokepoint for global trade. The attacks prompted shipping firms to reroute vessels around the Horn of Africa, which added time and huge costs to journeys. Disruptions to regional gas supplies, including Israel's Tamar field or Gulf exports of liquified natural gas (LNG), would also add pressure to European and Asian energy markets. Israel's economy is already strained by the ongoing Gaza conflict and a broader war with Iran could potentially push costs to $120 billion or 20% of GDP, according to Israeli economist Yacov Sheinin. Iran remains in economic crisis due to international sanctions over its nuclear program, which have limited its oil exports. The Iranian rial remains weak and inflation is stubbornly high at around 40%. Any further disruption to oil exports would ripple globally. While analysts recently lowered the odds of a downturn, the combination of Trump's tariffs and a lasting Middle East war would significantly raise the risk of a global recession. Edited by: Ashutosh Pandey
9 News
13-06-2025
- Business
- 9 News
Expert says Australia's 'chronically over-budget' warship project should be scrapped
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Chronically over-budget, significantly delayed and lacking firepower - that's the expert assessment of a major warship project they say should be scrapped. The Hunter Class frigate project is already seven years behind schedule and many billions of dollars more expensive than initially anticipated. In 2018, British company BAE Systems won a $35 billion tender to build nine frigates, or $3.8 billion each, with the first scheduled to be in service by 2027. Australia's next Hunter-class frigates will be based on this British design. (Nine) By 2020 the price tag had blown out to $45 billion or $5 billion a piece, and Defence is now estimating it will cost $27 billion to build just frigates, or $9 billion each, with the first to be in service by 2034 - seven years late. BAE Systems is the company that will build Australia's AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines. Strategic Analysis Australia director Michael Shoebridge said the Hunter Class project was the "high point of decadence" in Defence decision-making. He said Defence adjusted the original BAE British design with a series of add-ons, including different combat and radar systems - which made it massively more expensive. "That frigate program is beyond scandalous - It's entered ludicrous mode for a wasteful use of taxpayer money and a very slow, small contribution to Australian military power," Shoebridge said. Australia's next Hunter-class frigates will be based on this British design. (Nine) He said the Hunter had just 32 missiles, which was a third of the weaponry of the Chinese cruiser that circumnavigated Australia in March. "We're in a very dangerous world and a very dangerous period in the world, and waiting to the mid-2030s and into the 2040s for three frigates for this amount of money, makes no sense. "We could go to the Japanese or the South Koreans and get a properly armed cruiser much faster than BAE is delivering this program." Defence analyst Dr Marcus Hellyer was equally scathing of the Hunter frigate, saying Navy's adjustments to the design had not only significantly increased its cost, but the frigate's weight, taking it from 8000 tonnes to more than 10,000 tonnes, making it slower. "It is monstrously expensive," Hellyer said. "And I would say, if you're in a hole, stop digging. "The government itself has decided it can't wait for the Hunter Class frigate, so it has kicked off a new frigate program and it is considering a competition between a German design and a Japanese design. "So the government itself has pretty much said we need to do something different - in a sense, they're halfway there already." Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said the Hunter frigate project would not be cut despite its problems. "I wish I had a time machine to go back to 2016 and avoid the mistakes that the Coalition government made, but we've moved on," Conroy said. "We've got the project on track. Steel is being cut right now, we've signed the contract, there are about 2500 people working on this project right now. "The fastest way of delivering new capability for the Royal Australian Navy, is following through on this, building this project, now that we've fixed up many of the mistakes the Coalition government made." navy Australia defence national CONTACT US Auto news:Is this the next Subaru WRX? Mysterious performance car teased.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CROX Q1 Earnings Call: Tariff Uncertainty Drives Guidance Withdrawal as Brand Investments Continue
Footwear company Crocs (NASDAQ:CROX) beat the market's revenue expectations in Q1 CY2025, with sales flat year on year at $937.3 million. Its non-GAAP EPS of $3 per share was 20.6% above analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy CROX? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $937.3 million (flat year on year) Adjusted EPS: $3 vs analyst estimates of $2.49 (20.6% beat) Operating Margin: 23.8%, in line with the same quarter last year Constant Currency Revenue rose 1.4% year on year (6.9% in the same quarter last year) Market Capitalization: $5.69 billion Crocs' first quarter results were shaped by contrasting trends in its brand portfolio and proactive cost management amid industry volatility. CEO Andrew Rees pointed to double-digit international growth for the Crocs brand and stabilization in HEYDUDE's direct-to-consumer channel as key positives, while acknowledging that U.S. wholesale softness and deliberate inventory controls impacted topline growth. Rees highlighted the success of new product launches and digital campaigns, especially in Asia, as drivers of engagement. He also noted, 'We have identified approximately $50 million of additional savings to be realized in 2025 and we are continuing to evaluate potential actions for future savings.' Looking ahead, Crocs is operating without formal guidance due to unpredictable tariff dynamics and broader macro uncertainties. Management stressed that their sourcing mix and pricing strategies will be critical levers to offset potential cost pressures, particularly if tariffs escalate or remain volatile. CFO Susan Healy explained that the company is 'pursuing three primary levers to mitigate any potential impact of tariffs in the short and longer term: adjusting our sourcing mix into the U.S.; further reducing costs; and evaluating potential price increases.' Management also emphasized continued investment in marketing and digital channels to support both brands globally, but cautioned that consumer demand could soften if higher prices become widespread across the industry. Management attributed the quarter's performance to international expansion, product innovation, and digital marketing, while cost control actions addressed external pressures. International growth drives Crocs brand: Crocs brand delivered double-digit growth internationally, with China revenue up more than 30% year over year. New product launches and tailored marketing campaigns, such as the BAE relaunch with a global celebrity, boosted engagement and store traffic in key regions. HEYDUDE stabilizing in DTC: The HEYDUDE brand saw 8% growth in its direct-to-consumer channel, aided by refreshed product assortments and targeted influencer campaigns. While wholesale declined, management cited improved traction in digital and new retail formats as evidence of progress in stabilizing the brand. Cost savings initiatives enacted: The company identified $50 million in additional cost savings, focusing on SG&A (selling, general, and administrative expenses) reductions to offset macro and tariff-related headwinds. Management is actively evaluating further savings opportunities as conditions evolve. Social commerce and digital focus: Crocs continues to prioritize social-first marketing strategies, leveraging platforms like TikTok Shop, which contributed to the brand being ranked as the top footwear brand on the platform in the quarter. Digital campaigns and limited-edition collaborations drove high levels of new customer acquisition. Tariff and sourcing response: Facing new U.S. tariffs and related uncertainties, Crocs is rapidly adjusting its sourcing mix away from China and remains agile in shifting production to other regions. Management provided frameworks for potential tariff cost impacts and reiterated its preparedness to further diversify sourcing if needed. Management's outlook centers on navigating trade policy changes and maintaining brand momentum through strategic investments and cost actions. Tariff exposure and mitigation: Crocs' future profitability is heavily influenced by evolving tariff policies, especially for goods sourced from China and Vietnam. Management is diversifying its sourcing and indicated readiness to shift production within six to twelve months if higher tariffs persist, while also considering targeted price increases to protect margins. Sustained marketing and innovation: The company plans to maintain elevated marketing spend to reinforce consumer engagement, particularly in international markets and new product categories such as sandals. Continued investment in digital and influencer-driven campaigns is expected to support both brand relevance and customer acquisition. Inventory and wholesale discipline: Crocs and its retail partners are planning inventory and order volumes conservatively to avoid channel oversupply amid uncertain demand. Management is prioritizing brand health and is prepared to accept lower unit sales in the near term if necessary to preserve pricing and brand positioning. In upcoming quarters, the StockStory team will be watching (1) the effectiveness of Crocs' tariff mitigation strategies and rapid sourcing adjustments, (2) continued growth in international markets, especially China and Western Europe, and (3) the sustainability of HEYDUDE's direct-to-consumer recovery. The ability to balance cost control with ongoing investment in marketing and innovation will also be closely monitored as a marker of execution. Crocs currently trades at a forward P/E ratio of 8.1×. Should you double down or take your chips? The answer lies in our full research report (it's free). The market surged in 2024 and reached record highs after Donald Trump's presidential victory in November, but questions about new economic policies are adding much uncertainty for 2025. While the crowd speculates what might happen next, we're homing in on the companies that can succeed regardless of the political or macroeconomic environment. Put yourself in the driver's seat and build a durable portfolio by checking out our Top 6 Stocks for this week. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Kadant (+351% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Guardian
03-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Nato to force UK to lift defence spending to 3.5% of GDP to appease Trump, say sources
Defence sources believe that Britain will be forced to sign up to a target of lifting defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 at this month's Nato summit after a campaign by the alliance's secretary general to keep Donald Trump onboard. One senior insider said Britain would 'without a doubt' sign up to a proposal from the Nato chief, Mark Rutte, to lift allies' defence spending, which would represent a real-terms increase of about £30bn from the Labour government's plan. They expressed surprise that Keir Starmer had tied himself up over spending at the launch of the strategic defence review on Monday, when he refused to set a firm date when budgets would increase to 3%. The prime minister has agreed to increase defence spending from its current 2.33% of GDP to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% in the next parliament, which was the spending context for Monday's 140-page strategic review. Starmer had said in a BBC interview on Monday he would not agree to 'performative fantasy politics' and pluck a date out of the air as to when the UK would meet the 3% target, even though the call from Nato is for a higher figure. On Tuesday, however, Downing Street insiders pointed to later comments by Starmer when he visited the BAE shipyard at Govan, Glasgow, in which he appeared to acknowledge the higher target. The prime minister said in response to a question from Sky News: 'There are discussions about what the contribution should be going into the Nato conference in two or three weeks' time,' as part of a wider conversation about 'what sort of Nato will be capable of being as effective in the future'. Rutte's proposal is that allies would agree to spend 3.5% on hard defence and 1.5% on cyber, intelligence and military-related infrastructure when leaders meet in The Hague for Trump's first Nato summit of his second term. Last week Rutte said: 'I assume that in The Hague we will agree on a high defence spend target of in total 5%.' Of that, he added, 'it will be considerably north' of '3% when it comes to the hard spending'. Insiders said Starmer was due to discuss Rutte's target at a meeting on Tuesday and argued it was inconceivable that the UK could turn down the request after announcing a 'Nato-first' defence strategy. Complicating the picture for the UK is that the 3.5% figure may exclude some elements, such as intelligence, that the Treasury counts as Nato-qualifying spending. But details are likely to be the subject of last-minute negotiations. A significant uplift to defence spending would have to be funded by savings from other government budgets or higher taxes. Starmer refused to rule out further cuts to the foreign aid budget on Monday, but this is forecast to represent only 0.3% of GDP by 2027, meaning that additional funds would have to come from elsewhere. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Other Nato allies are desperate to keep Trump onboard and prevent the summit descending into chaos. The US president has repeatedly complained about Nato members being 'delinquent' and failing to meet existing spending targets, currently 2% of GDP. Trump made a threat to quit Nato at a summit in 2018 over payments. Though he has not issued similar ultimatums recently, shortly after his re-election last November he demanded that Nato members hike defence spending to 5% of GDP – a level well beyond the current US figure of 3.4%. But Rutte's proposal, hammered out with Trump in face-to-face meetings, allows for a broad interpretation of the additional 1.5% spend, which can include virtually anything military-related, such as commercial transport infrastructure. Defence sources praised Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, for his careful work in holding the alliance together and the personal bond he appears to have forged with Trump in the months since his election. Rutte visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last November, when the US leader was president-elect, and went to the White House for more formal discussions in March and April.
