Barrons : How Trump’s Tariffs Could Upend the Auto Industry—and Raise the Price

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Upend the Auto Industry—and Raise the Price of Your Next Car
President Trump wants an all-American car. U.S. vehicle sales could plunge by as much as 20% if he uses massive levies to get one.

President Donald Trump wants to make U.S. manufacturing great again. He might just hobble the American auto industry in the process.

For all the talk of a manufacturing decline in the U.S., auto making remains a huge industry. Half of all cars sold in America are assembled domestically in factories in Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, and elsewhere, a far larger investment than industries such as clothing or electronics. The current setup uses low-cost foreign manufacturing to produce lower-value parts, while building higher-end components at home.

The U.S. has attracted foreign car manufacturers as well. Toyota Motor, Honda Motor, and Hyundai Motor directly employ some 67,000 manufacturing workers, supporting an additional nearly half-million jobs, while paying an estimated $7 billion in annual wages and benefits at almost two dozen facilities spread across the U.S.

Trump, however, wants an All-American car—parts included—and is willing to use massive tariffs to get one. He has proposed a 25% penalty on imported cars and parts, along with reciprocal tariffs and Section 232 levies on steel and aluminum.

“Steel production is imperative for our national and economic security,” a White House spokesman said in an email. He didn’t comment on the impact of parts tariffs. In the past, administration officials have cited the desire to boost American manufacturing and protect economic security as reasons for the tariffs.

After intense lobbying, the president modified the parts tariffs, essentially giving the industry two years to move supply chains back home. He also delayed reciprocal tariffs until July 9, allowing countries time to negotiate.

July 9 is now fast approaching—and the industry remains in wait-and-see mode. The automotive industry could handle 25% tariffs if levies were only on completed vehicles. But similar penalties on car parts will cause far more damage. In 2024, General Motors generated almost $160 billion selling cars in North America, making a profit of $14.5 billion in the process. Tariffs, as proposed, could increase its costs by about $25 billion and wipe out its profits, Barron’s estimates, based on potential penalties applied to import costs.

For now, things aren’t that dire. GM estimates current tariff headwinds of roughly $1.5 billion per quarter, net of cost reductions, or about $2,200 per car sold.

Ultimately, the full load would raise car prices by as much as 15%, Barron’s estimates, based on analyst projections and historical evidence. That would cause U.S. competitiveness to fade and create enough chaos that foreign auto makers could ultimately decide it’s easier to pay the levies than build factories in America. The end result? Car-mageddon. U.S. vehicle sales could plunge by as much as 20%—unless the administration chooses other mechanisms to reach its goals.

“You want to get to a certain local manufacturing outcome, and you’re penalizing yourself by putting tariffs on everything,” says Edward Jones analyst Jeff Windau. “You don’t want to drive the car off the cliff.”

Assembling cars in the U.S. makes sense—and global auto makers know it. In March, Hyundai announced a $9 billion investment to expand production at its Savannah, Ga., plant, the newest car factory in the U.S. It is also building a steel factory to supply its steel stamping plants. The plan to increase U.S. production predates Trump 2.0, but Hyundai CEO Jose Muñoz says localization is the best way to address the tariffs. Still, according to reports, Hyundai is considering raising prices across its U.S. lineup by 1% to offset tariffs, the result of the company’s annual pricing review.

U.S. auto makers are also building more in the U.S. GM recently announced plans to spend $4 billion to retool the Orion Assembly Plant in Michigan, the Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas, and Spring Hill Manufacturing in Tennessee, which would add some 300,000 units of production back to America. Stellantis plans to reopen its Belvidere Assembly Plant in Illinois. Ford Motor already assembles more cars domestically than its Detroit peers. All told, domestic production could approach 75% of demand by the end of the decade, based solely on tariffs placed on completed cars.

“We have excess manufacturing capacity at our existing plants, and auto companies can easily bring good union jobs back to the U.S.,” says UAW President Shawn Fain.

That’s not the case if tariffs on car parts are imposed as currently proposed. The auto supply chain is spread across the world to make it as efficient as possible, with cheaper components made in low-cost countries. Ontario-based Magna International, for instance, has more than 340 manufacturing facilities in 28 countries. It makes hundreds of products, including the e-axle—a high-tech drivetrain component that integrates gears, an electric motor, a power inverter, and an axle for the Ford F-150 hybrid pickup truck.

The e-axle is an international piece of machinery. The gears and motors are made by Magna suppliers in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The power inverters come from the U.S. The casings come from Mexico. They all get shipped to Canada for subassembly. Then the finished parts are shipped to Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant outside of Detroit.

“This kind of cross-border coordination is common in our industry,” says Magna’s vice president of operations, Kathy Worthen. “It also shows why stable trade relations and efficient logistics matter so much—not just for [car makers] but for the entire supply chain that builds the modern car.”

The benefit to consumers of lower-cost manufacturing is improved affordability. That will “simply be out the window,” says David Greene, head of industry and marketplace analytics at Cars.com, adding that there will be precious few new cars costing less than $30,000 when the full effect of tariff policies is felt. Prices are already starting to rise. Cars.com counts an average price increase of about $1,100 for Mexican-built vehicles since the start of 2025. Used-car prices increased by 6.5% year over year in June. Buyers can expect the average car price to creep $1,000 to $2,000 higher over the next 12 months.

Ford CEO Jim Farley puts it more succinctly: “We’ve got to make sure the parts are available, even [foreign] parts.”

The president’s One Big, Beautiful Bill Act tries to offset that somewhat. It would eliminate electric-vehicle purchase tax credits worth up to $7,500 and replace them with a deduction for car loan interest for U.S.-assembled vehicles of up to about $1,000. The only problem: To get the full credit requires buying a car that is expensive enough to hit a $10,000 interest cap. Maybe sales of the $160,000 Cadillac Escalade V or a $200,000 Corvette ZR1 will get a boost.

The uncertainty around the final forms of the tariffs is already having an impact. A new factory can take up to five years from breaking ground to producing vehicles. The combination of potential parts tariffs, the on-again/off-again nature of their implementation, and country-by-country trade talks—which industry executives fear could favor one nation over another—have some auto makers opting to retool existing plants or simply manufacture overseas and pay the tariff.

“Many companies are hitting the pause button because they don’t know what the rules are going to be a week, a month, or a year from now,” notes Capital Group economist Darrell Spence.

The longer-term effect on the industry could be devastating. The fact that Trump plans to penalize all imported parts forces new costs on U.S. auto makers that others don’t bear, making U.S.-made cars too expensive for foreign markets, killing GM, Stellantis, and Ford’s ability to export cars. Take steel, which isn’t specific to just autos. The 50% penalty “hurts,” says John Pfeifer, CEO of fire engine maker Oshkosh. “They increase the input costs we all have as [U.S.] manufacturers…. Steel and aluminum are cheaper in Europe and Asia.”

More expensive materials, with a lack of low-cost parts, manufacturing scale, and specialization, could easily raise the cost to make a 100% U.S. vehicle by $10,000, or more, dangerously close to offsetting any penalty from importing whole cars.

A decade from now, the current policy regime, with tariffs on parts and imported vehicles, would make the U.S. car industry landlocked, less profitable, and smaller relative to the global industry. “Tariffs lower long-run productivity by both raising input costs, reducing investment, and distancing U.S. firms from competition,” says Ernie Tedeschi, head of the Budget Lab at Yale University. “By extension, they lower long-run real wages too.”

The tariffs could even accelerate the arrival of Chinese cars in the U.S., argues BofA Securities analyst John Murphy, setting up a dynamic similar to the arrival of cheap Japanese vehicles in the 1970s and 1980s. Back then, U.S. auto makers couldn’t make smaller, fuel-efficient cars as cheaply as the Japanese and reacted by abandoning the lower-end segment of the market, focusing on larger vehicles with fatter per-car profit margins.

It seemed like a sensible strategy, but it didn’t result in long-term success. Toyota still makes cheaper cars—the average cost for a Toyota purchased in the U.S. is about $42,000, some $12,000 cheaper than the average new Ford—but Toyota generates $1,900 more profit per car despite the lower selling price. The extra profit earned by Toyota turns into updated factories with better scale, producing improved models with new features.

If U.S. tariffs prompt U.S. auto makers to move even higher up the cost curve and abandon more of the lower-priced market, Chinese auto makers like EV leader BYD or Volvo owner Geely Automotive Holdings, with less need to maintain profit margins, could decide to build their own factories and fill the gap.

“The idea that you would have a Chinese manufacturer in the United States sourcing parts from the U.S., employing Americans, and abiding by all the rules, that would come in at the low end, is something that I don’t think is off the table,” says Murphy. “It is literally a matter of time.”

There are better ways to accomplish Trump’s goals. Industry leaders and analysts say the focus should be on making the U.S. the low-cost place to assemble cars, with tax breaks and credits for investments and exports used as tools to incentivize production. Murphy likes the idea in Sen. Bernie Moreno’s (R., Ohio) Transportation Freedom Act, which provides additional tax breaks for wages because it lowers employment costs.

Others point to export credits as a way to offset some of the costs. The value of imported vehicles and auto parts in 2024 totaled some $474 billion, while U.S. exports amounted to $169 billion. Meanwhile, Ford makes all of the automatic transmissions in Ranger pickup trucks, assembled in five global factories and sold in 180 markets around the world, in the U.S.

“Ford is almost a net exporter,” says CEO Farley. “We have to work with the administration and get some kind of credit. We want to manufacture more in the U.S., but it’s not just keeping it here, it’s actually exporting as well.”


Honda Manufacturing of Indiana in Greensburg, In. (Courtesy Honda)
The situation is enough to make investors write off the sector as uninvestible—and many have. Just 15% of Wall Street analysts covering Ford rate the stock a Buy or equivalent, while 27% have that rating on Stellantis, and 48% have it on GM. The average Buy-rating ratio for a stock in the S&P 500 index is about 55%.

All three, however, remain very cheap. GM, Ford, and Stellantis have recently been trading for about five, six, and four times estimated operating profits, respectively. Investors looking for a margin of safety could look for a discount of one point to those numbers before buying.

At those levels and based on operating profit estimates for 2025 and 2026, GM stock would be attractive at $45 a share, down 8% from a recent $49. GM has been relatively strong thanks to its consistent profit margins and stock buybacks.

Ford would be attractive at $10, down 7% from a recent $10.80. Ford’s performance, however, will depend mostly on its ability to improve production quality and reduce warranty expenses.

Stellantis, at a recent $9.60, has 15% upside to reach its margin-of-safety level of $11. It had a terrible 2024 and now has a new CEO, Antonio Filosa, overseeing a turnaround effort. His job, along with managing tariffs, is to repair dealer and employee relations while getting inventories under control.

Auto parts makers have been hit by concerns that production rates will drop off materially in the second half of the year as tariff impacts start to bite. Citigroup analyst Mike Ward suspects things will turn out better than that, setting up parts companies for earnings beats and increased guidance.

One of his favorites is Southfield, Mich.-based Lear, which makes seats and electrical components. Shares, which yield 3.4%, trade for about 7.3 times estimated earnings over the coming 12 months, a discount to its historic multiple closer to 10 times. GM is Lear’s largest customer, accounting for about 22% of sales, and the auto maker’s decision to build a new full-size sport-utility vehicle and light-duty pickup truck at its Orion, Mich., assembly plant will help Lear. Ward has a Buy rating and $123 price target on the stock, up 33% from a recent $92.42.

Aptiv and BorgWarner also look attractive, says J.P. Morgan analyst Ryan Brinkman. Borg, which makes powertrain components and will benefit from more EV and hybrids on the road, trades for just seven times earnings, a discount to its historical multiple of about 8.5 times. Brinkman’s price target for Borg stock is $43, up 29% from a recent $33.46, valuing shares for about 9.5 times his estimated 2026 earnings.

Aptiv, which trades at nine times earnings, also looks cheap relative to its history. The company is splitting into two parts. One unit will supply electrical systems to car makers, while the other will make “sensor-to-cloud tech solutions” for multiple industries. The bet is that a business less tied to cars could fetch a better valuation, since industrial companies in the S&P 500 trade for about 22 times estimated earnings, double the multiples for auto parts companies.

Brinkman has an $85 price target on Aptiv, up 25% from recent levels, valuing the stock at about 10.5 times his estimated 2026 earnings.

Ultimately, investors should be looking for ideas that aren’t completely dependent on tariff policy—and waiting for the right price to pounce when tariff fears beat up the sector.

EchoStar provides spectrum notes payment updates; all strategic options remain u

EchoStar provides spectrum notes payment updates; all strategic options remain under consideration (25.46)
  • On June 26, 2025, EchoStar notified the trustee for its 10.75% senior spectrum secured notes due 2029 and the trustee for the 5.25% secured notes due 2026, 5.75% secured notes due 2028, and 5.125% unsecured notes due 2029 (collectively the "DBS Notes") issued by EchoStar's subsidiary, DISH DBS Corporation ("DDBS"), that, on June 27, 2025, EchoStar would make the scheduled interest payment originally due on May 30, 2025 on the 2029 Spectrum Notes and that DDBS would make the scheduled interest payments originally due on June 2, 2025 on the DBS Notes, in each case including interest on the defaulted interest. Such payments are being made on June 27, 2025, within the applicable 30-day grace periods to make such interest payments before such non-payments would constitute an Event of Default (as defined in the relevant indentures governing such notes).
  • As previously disclosed, in light of the regulatory uncertainty created by the inquiries commenced in May 2025 by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), EchoStar had elected not to make interest payments. These elections allowed time for EchoStar to gather information and assess its alternatives on a more informed basis. During the ensuing weeks, EchoStar gathered initial relevant information, including through discussions with the FCC, regarding potential pathways to resolve the FCC's stated concerns. On June 11, 2025, EchoStar's Chairman met with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr; during this meeting EchoStar explained that any reconsideration of the September 2024 grant of EchoStar's construction deadline extensions, any after-the-fact change to the criteria upon which EchoStar's buildout is judged, or any decision to upend the 2 GHz band's sharing rules would threaten the viability of EchoStar's current operations and future plans. The President of the United States subsequently encouraged the parties involved to reach an amicable resolution. EchoStar and DDBS have determined, based on the current discussions, that they should in good faith cure the non-payment defaults under the indentures by making the interest payments. These actions will further extend the timeline for EchoStar to explore an acceptable resolution of the FCC's stated concerns in a manner that minimizes disruption to the Company's businesses and lifts the regulatory uncertainty created by the inquiries.
  • Because reaching an acceptable resolution of the FCC inquiries is not assured, the Company must continue to evaluate the deployment of its resources. In light of this continued uncertainty, DDBS has elected not to make a $77.5 million cash interest payment due on July 1, 2025 with respect to the 7.75% senior notes due 2026 and a $36.875 million cash interest payment due on July 1, 2025 with respect to the 7.375% senior notes due 2028 (the "Senior Notes"). Under the indentures governing the Senior Notes, such non-payment is a default, and DDBS has a 30-day grace period to make the interest payments before such non-payment constitutes an Event of Default with respect to the Senior Notes. All strategic options remain under consideration as it continues to explore potential resolution pathways.

>>> US Research Calls I

Research Calls I
  • Upgrades
    • Affiliated Managers (AMG) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman, tgt $218
    • Alphabet (GOOGL) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Citizens JMP, tgt $220
    • Amazon.com (AMZN) upgraded to Outperform from Neutral at BNP Paribas Exane, tgt $254
    • Autodesk (ADSK) upgraded to Buy from Hold at Berenberg, tgt $365
    • Boeing (BA) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Rothschild & Co Redburn, tgt $275
    • Estee Lauder (EL) upgraded to Buy from Hold at HSBC
    • Franklin Resources (BEN) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman, tgt $29
    • New Oriental Education (EDU) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup, tgt $50
    • Nike (NKE) upgraded to Buy from Hold at HSBC, tgt $80
    • The Trade Desk (TTD) upgraded to Outperform from In Line at Evercore ISI, tgt $90
    • WisdomTree (WT) upgraded to Neutral from Sell at Goldman, tgt $11.90
  • Downgrades
    • Alphabet (GOOGL) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at BNP Paribas Exane, tgt $172
    • AllianceBernstein (AB) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman, tgt $40
    • Bank of America (BAC) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Robert W. Baird, tgt $52
    • Crispr Therapeutics (CRSP) downgraded to Hold from Buy at Clear Street, tgt $45
    • JPMorgan (JPM) downgraded to Underperform from Neutral at Robert W. Baird, tgt $235
    • Molson Coors (TAP) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA Securities, tgt $50
    • TAL Education (TAL) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Citigroup, tgt $11.54
    • Uber (UBER) downgraded to Hold from Buy at Canaccord, tgt $84
    • W. R. Berkley (WRB) downgraded to Hold from Buy at TD Cowen, tgt $78
  • Others
    • A10 Networks (ATEN) initiated with a Buy at Deutsche Bank, tgt $22
    • Arq (ARQ) initiated with a Buy at Fearnley, tgt $9.50
    • Armada Hoffler (AHH) initiated with a Buy at Jefferies, tgt $8
    • Emcor (EME) initiated with an Outperform at Robert W. Baird, tgt $560
    • Fortis (FTS) initiated with a Buy at TD Securities
    • James Hardie (JHX) initiated with an Outperform at William Blair
    • Republic Bancorp (RBCAA) initiated with a Market Perform at Raymond James
    • S&T Bancorp (STBA) initiated with a Market Perform at Hovde Group, tgt $41

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers
  • Gapping up:
    • INMB +114.2%, AOUT +18.8%, MRC +14.8%, NKE +9.3%, DNOW +4.7%, AVAV +4.6%, FFAI +3.2%, UNFI +3.1%, UAMY +3%, BKKT +2.1%, MATX +2.1%, LULU +1.5%, KYMR +1.5%, SMCI +1.2%, PRQR +0.9%, AMZN +0.9%, HLN +0.8%
  • Gapping down:
    • ACHV -19.4%, CRMD -10.8%, ZTEK -7.5%, CNXC -6.9%, LI -3%, TRC -1.2%

FT : Enrico Letta: ‘If we have 27 markets, we will be a colony of Wall Street’

Enrico Letta: ‘If we have 27 markets, we will be a colony of Wall Street’
The former Italian prime minister on how to make Europe a single financial market

Enrico Letta is the dean of IE School of Politics and president of the Jacques Delors Institute. He served as prime minister of Italy in 2013-14 and led the Italian Democratic party from 2021 to 2023. He is also the author of “Much More than a Market”, a report on EU market integration commissioned by the European Council and the European Comission. He spoke to Unhedged by phone last week, covering topics ranging from the costs of regulatory fragmentation to the creation of a virtual 28th European regime.

Unhedged: Why wasn’t financial integration a priority when the European single market was created?

Enrico Letta: Three reasons. First, the creation of the euro absorbed so much energy that the leaders decided to let the integration of financial markets wait. Second, we had the financial crisis, which was terrible for financial integration, because it was the way for European leaders to say, for years and years, “I don’t want to put my face in finance.” And the third killer of capital markets union was Brexit, because that happened immediately after the European Commission launched the integration of financial markets project in 2014. The idea was to have London as the financial capital. And then Brexit happened in 2016, and that killed the project, because the countries fought each other to see which capital could substitute for London as [the] financial capital. That brought disaster, because there is no other London.

Those are the three reasons that in 2023 the European Commission and the council asked me to write a report on how to finally integrate the financial markets. And I proposed we change the name first. So we moved from “capital markets union” to “savings and investments union”. 

Unhedged: Why does the name matter?

Letta: Because the name is a way to completely change the story. In the new name, you have the link with investment — the bridge between finance and the real economy. It is a way to say, “We’re doing this because Europe needs investment.”

Unhedged: What are the steps on the road to a truly European banking system — a system in which there are European champion banks, rather than just national champions? 

Letta: First of all, this is bigger than just banking. This is something that touches the entire financial system. The banking system needs a specific agreement among governments about how to organise the system of deposit guarantees and its common backstop. So I hope the fact that today the entire process is moving will convince the member states to find an agreement on this point.

On financial services, the first step is to build a European savings system with better returns and with an incentive to create European pension funds. The second step, as laid out in commissioner [Maria Luís] Albuquerque’s plan, is how to link savings to investments, to incentivise the use of savers’ money to fund investments that are necessary at the European level. To label these investments, they are digital transition, green transition and security.

To these points, you have to add the problem of supervisory authority, because today you have the 27 supervisory authorities in the financial markets. So we need to organise an integrated system where the 27 are working under the leadership of European supervisory authority, similar to what is happening with the ECB, where the national central bank works with power on the ground, but as a subsidiary of the ECB.

There are many other important topics, for instance the creation of a single point of entry to Europe for financial products. Today we have 27 points of entry. When a fund starts in a country which is considered a non-accountable country, a small country, for example one with a tradition of links with Russian money or something similar. It is clear that today that there are walls that are created at the European level to avoid operations from these countries extending to the entire European market. At the end of the day, it is a sort of discrimination and it is a way not to have a level playing field. So we need to have a single point of entry with a common and effective compliance process.

Unhedged: What do you say to the sceptics who argue that the national authorities in the financial markets will never give up power to the European authorities?

Letta: My answer is very easy. We have to find a good compromise between the two. The national authority on the ground can be more effective, but at the same time, if we have 27 markets — and this is the core of the entire process — we will be a colony of Wall Street and the US market. If we continue like this, we are a colony. My proposal and the entire project of the Savings and Investments Union is to be stronger, more independent, more integrated — and more attractive to capital coming from the US.

I’ll add one more point: there is also a problem of the integration of the legal systems — 27 corporate laws, 27 solvency laws, and of course if we create a single financial market we need legal integration. How to do so without opening the Pandora’s box of the fight between national level and European level? These laws have been there for centuries. So the proposal in the report is for a so-called 28th regime. We can use the comparison with Delaware. It is a virtual state, not a physical state like Delaware, but the idea is to give it its own legal framework which is valid everywhere in Europe. So that can be a sort of passport. Of course, Delaware is not a perfectly correct comparison, because Delaware is also a fiscal haven. In this case, it’s all for rules.

When I am presenting the report everywhere in the capitals of Europe, the 28th regime proposal is the most popular. People are seeing that maybe finally there is a simplification path. Because the over-regulation and over-complication we have in Europe is stopping people from investing. But the cornerstone is to apply to the single financial market the method that won with the euro. That means setting a binding deadline, for example 1 July 2027, as the starting moment of the new Savings and Investments Union.

Unhedged: What is the path to a true European safe asset and how long will it take?

Letta: I put this in the same basket as this entire process — financial services, banking union, the safe asset. These are the three structures. The safe asset, I think, is no longer a chimera, something impossible to reach. I say that because I saw in Germany a more open approach to it, from both the Bundesbank and the German government. Because it is clear that the safe asset means partially replacing the Deutsche Bund, which is something similar to the safe asset today, and creating a safe asset using all the tools the European Union has. I’m not saying it’s easy; I’m saying that today it is not impossible. Five, 10, 15 years ago it was impossible.

Unhedged: How does the talk about de-dollarisation or America losing some of its safe haven status change how this whole project looks?

Letta: That’s the other part of the project. What [ECB president Christine] Lagarde said in your newspaper the other day is a demonstration that there is room today to say something that was unthinkable even two years ago. The “global euro” is possible because of the stepping back of the US. It is part of the Trump approach to say, “we’re stepping back from our responsibilities as global rule-setter and policeman”. And the first implication is the role of the dollar, of course. And that means the euro has room to do something more, and it is part of the same discourse of Europe gaining autonomy and independence. On this topic, the digital euro is also a chapter of the story. 

Of course, in all these discussions, we have concrete examples of the opposite. For instance, Commerzbank and UniCredit discussing [a merger] without any possibility of an agreement, only because one is German [and] the other one is Italian, not because of our other technical or market problems. 

Unhedged: So we have to have cultural evolution along with institutional evolution?

Letta: Yes. I’ll make the key point simple. In the US, you launch a brand in financial services, Armstrong and Partners. And your brand is American and has immediate access to all of America. I launch a brand in Europe, Letta and Partners. It will start, not as European, but as Italian. It will have an Italian passport, but I will try to bring it to Paris or Madrid. And probably the neighbouring countries will be the first obstacles to my expansion, because they will see competition. My problem won’t arrive from the Chinese or the UK or the US. It will be from Germany, France, or Spain, or the Dutch, or Irish. And at the end of the day, that is the big difference. And culturally, we have to give European passports, and we have to consider that a European product is a European product, not an Italian, or a Belgian, or a Slovenian product.

FT : Greek energy group Metlen plans August London listing

Greek energy group Metlen plans August London listing
Company will shift primary listing from Athens in boost to UK market

Greece’s Metlen Energy & Metals plans to list in London this summer, in a fresh boost to the ailing UK market following a string of departures.

The mining and energy company said on Friday that it aimed to shift its primary listing from Athens to London in August, in a move that could see the company admitted into the FTSE 100.

It is the latest vote of confidence in the UK stock market after the Financial Times this week reported that private equity-backed software group Visma had selected London over Amsterdam for the initial public offering of the €19bn company.

Metlen will not raise any fresh capital as part of its move, and will retain a secondary listing in Athens, where it has a market capitalisation of more than €6bn. Shares in the company have risen by almost 60 per cent in the past year.

The UK has suffered from a dearth of IPOs as well as exits from companies that have moved their primary listings to other exchanges. This month, metal investment group Cobalt Holdings scrapped plans for its London listing.

Metlen’s chief executive Evangelos Mytilineos told the FT earlier this year that London was a better listing venue than New York because companies ran the risk of “disappearing” in the crowded US market.

Metlen produces electricity from assets including gas-fired power plants and solar and wind farms, and also has an aluminium, alumina and bauxite business.

It plans to expand into the production of gallium, a critical mineral essential for the technology industry but the supply of which is dominated by China. The industrial group has said it aims to “fully substitute current gallium imports into Europe” from its new production line.

Metlen, which reported annual sales of €5.7bn in 2024, said it aimed to go public on the London Stock Exchange on August 4.

Global supply chains have been rocked by the Trump administration’s imposition of a range of import tariffs and the escalating US-Sino trade war. However, Metlen said on Friday that the direct impact of tariffs “would be negligible to the group”.