The strategy, named CI Morningstar International Value Index ETF (VXM), uses a factor-based approach to invest in undervalued companies in developed markets outside the United States and Canada.

“The ETF has a strong track record, ranking number one out of all mutual funds and ETFs in the Morningstar International Equity Category based on total returns over the one, five and 10-year periods ending February 28, 2026. The ETF is offered in Canadian dollar Hedged Common Units and Unhedged Common Units,” CI GAM said.

The ETF is currently available in formats like a mutual fund (CI Morningstar International Value Hedged Index Fund, which invests in Hedged Common Units of the ETF and is available in mutual fund Series A, F, I and P units) and ETF series (Unhedged USD Common Units, which have started trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange).

“Market developments over the past 15 months have underscored the importance of diversifying investor portfolios beyond the United States and Canada. CI Morningstar International Value Index ETF is a compelling choice for investors seeking robust international content for their portfolios due to its well-constructed, multi-factor approach and exceptional long-term outperformance. The ETF’s value orientation also makes it a solid complement to growth-oriented US portfolios,” said Jennifer Sinopoli, Executive Vice-President and Head of Distribution for CI GAM.

“By providing expanded access to this proven strategy, we’re giving Canadian investors more options to build resilient portfolios,” the official added.

“The VXM strategy focuses on undervalued international companies by providing diversification across regions and investment styles. A value-based international portfolio provides an excellent diversifier for growth-oriented North American large-caps. It further capitalises on current attractive valuations of select companies in international markets,” CI GAM noted.

The VXM strategy also uses a systematic factor-based approach that screens for traditional value metrics while avoiding value traps (firms with weakening fundamentals), apart from providing a portfolio well diversified by country, sector and market cap, as it includes small and medium-sized companies, along with large caps.

The post CI GAM expands customer access to international equity strategy appeared first on International Finance.

Bank of Montreal, the third-largest Canadian bank by market value, said in October that it would sell 138 branches to First Citizens Bank, apart from reinvesting in markets with stronger client engagement and longer-term growth prospects.

Bank of Montreal’s latest move comes amid some of the biggest American banking players investing in building branches in affluent areas to attract more clients, earn consumer trust and provide higher-value services such as mortgage services and wealth management. In 2023, Bank of Montreal bought BNP Paribas’ US unit, Bank of the West, for USD 16.3 billion. This was the BMO’s largest deal to date, giving it access to nearly two million customers, about 500 retail branches, and commercial and wealth offices in the Midwest and Western United States.

“The bank plans to open three new financial centres in Greater Los Angeles in 2026, two in the Bay Area and two in San Diego, which will create hundreds of jobs and expand access to in-person and advice-led banking,” the lender said in its media note.

Bank of Montreal has over 220 financial centres in California, and the planned expansions would add more than 50% to its footprint in the American state. Shares of BMO have returned a little over 7% so far in 2026, ahead of its larger peer, Royal Bank of Canada.

Meanwhile, BMO is navigating a more volatile North American rate environment while doubling down on expansion and capital discipline in the United States. For global investors, BMO offers a diversified North American banking franchise with exposure to cross-border trade, wealth management, and capital markets, but faces risks like cyclical credit and regulations.

The post Bank of Montreal to open around 150 financial centres in United States appeared first on International Finance.

The narrative is a deliberate distortion designed to evade moral responsibility and commit grave political wrongdoing. Canada, a prosperous nation, is abandoning its most vulnerable citizens, leading to soaring poverty and starving children. This catastrophe is wrongly labelled a temporary economic headwind, not a policy failure. We must immediately reject this sanitised view.

The evidence is overwhelming and utterly damning. Canada’s official poverty rate, measured by the Market Basket Measure (MBM), is expected to have climbed significantly to 10.2% in 2023, reversing years of hard-won progress and signalling a structural breaking point.

This distressing climb follows a staggering 21.8% jump in the poverty rate just from 2021 to 2022, confirming that the economic floor supporting low-income Canadians is fragile, inadequate, and wholly dependent on temporary governmental goodwill, which is now receding.

Look around and watch the financial anxiety spread like a contagion through every province. One in six Canadian households now experiences food insecurity, representing a crushing 15.6% prevalence in 2022.

This rate of insecurity closely tracks peak inflation and the soaring costs of necessities like shelter and transportation, confirming the economic origins of hunger. When Food Banks Canada assesses the country’s performance, it returns a dismal D grade for meeting food security needs and a failing grade for food insecurity overall. This is not an evaluation of charitable success, but an indictment of a state that failed its most basic duty, which is to ensure its citizens do not go hungry.

The moral obscenity is most acute when we count the children. 2.5 million children in the ten provinces are now growing up in food-insecure households in 2024, representing a third of all Canadian children, condemned to the stress and lifelong stigma of going without because their government prioritised fiscal inertia over feeding its young.

The rapid collapse in basic material well-being, evidenced by the increase from 2.1 million children in 2023, shows economic growth is failing to benefit everyone, resulting in stark, widening inequality.

These failures are most clearly demonstrated when examining the key indicators of structural neglect, showing a distinct reversal of progress immediately following the temporary relief offered during the pandemic years.

How Ottawa hurt workers

The structural origins of this current catastrophe can be traced back to the deliberate economic restructuring that began decades ago, a political project rooted in the neoliberal dogma that crushed the manufacturing sector and enshrined labour precarity as the new normal, ensuring that wages would stagnate while the cost of living exploded.

We see this criminal neglect in the data on wages. Overall median household income increased by a paltry 14.6% over 41 years between 1976 and 2017 in constant dollars. This near-stagnation of pay, spanning generations, confirms that the rewards of national productivity have been systematically diverted away from the workers who generate them.

Income inequality has persisted at or near record highs over the past decade. It has been engineered through policy choices that systematically weakened collective bargaining power.

When policy analysts discuss precarious employment, they are talking about a quantifiable lack of security, low wages, income volatility, and little opportunity for career advancement. This is the changing nature of work dictated by economic policy, a deliberate erosion of worker protections.

Worse still, the Canadian state has actively constructed a system of legal exploitation through its Temporary Foreign Worker Programme, a scheme that privileges corporate access to cheap labour over the human rights of migrants.

The policy shift favouring temporary migration over permanent residency has created a vast, vulnerable underclass of workers who are denied access to federally funded settlement services and are often bound to single employers, subjecting them to abuse and limiting their mobility. The absence of systematic monitoring to ensure their rights are protected further cements their precarious status, making them highly vulnerable to mistreatment.

This structure is marketed as necessary for economic efficiency, but it functions as a wage suppressor, ensuring that low-wage firms retain talent without having to offer competitive wages or working conditions.

The expansion of the TFWP, as experts have shown, actively contributes to maintaining wider discrepancies in regional unemployment rates than would otherwise exist, preventing the structural adjustments necessary to raise wages for all low-income Canadians.

The system is creating a two-tier economy, which is precarious by design and ensuring that those who harvest our food and staff our services remain perpetually marginal.

The long-term wage stagnation, when directly contrasted with the explosive growth in housing prices, a phenomenon where home prices in major markets rose by as much as 460% over three decades, fundamentally proves that political decisions prioritised capital accumulation and speculative wealth over worker compensation, a moral betrayal that doomed millions to financial strain even while holding down jobs.

How US Power crippled Canada

Being a neighbour to the world’s richest country should be a blessing, at least on paper. But Canadians have, until very recently, held deep fear of being a satellite, or vassal state to the great American hegemon. The anxiety was so terrible that in 1957, the “Gordon Commission” rang the alarm bells about the US economic takeover. By the early 1960s, the US interests controlled roughly 60% of Canada’s manufacturing and 70% of its oil and gas.

It’s important to note that just 15 years prior, Great Britain was Canada’s number one customer. World War II had wrecked Britain, and the English population could no longer buy Canadian goods. The Arctic giant had come out of the Great War without any casualties to citizens or factories, but was losing to the economic imperialism of its exceptional neighbour. In 1955, Canada had the highest standard of living in the world. The US slowly and steadily captured the Canadian market. And Canadians embraced protectionism as a policy, much like how the US under Trump operates today. American companies had to manufacture in Canada if they had to sell in Canada. This made American goods in Canada slightly more expensive than in America, but it also meant Canadians had ownership, jobs and a robust economy.

All this came to an end in the late 60s when the “Clarence Decatur Howe” Strategy came into being under the Canadian Minister of Trade (C.D. Howe). He aggressively courted American investment. His view was, “Who cares if they own it, as long as the jobs are here?” This policy built modern Canada, but laid the foundation for the dependency that exists today.

In 1965, Canada took the first step towards the forfeiture of its economic servitude. A move that would enrich Canada temporarily at the expense of the future of working-class Canadians and children. The Auto Pact (1965) destroyed Canada’s automobile industry. Many domestic industries went bust and America brought its branch plants into Canada. Ottawa became an assembly line with no access to real R&D or innovation. Yet Canadians were happy to have jobs.

In 1989, a comprehensive free trade agreement was signed that included all sectors of the economy, not just automobiles. This led to factories shutting down and relocating to the United States, and later to Mexico. As a result, there was widespread unemployment, and poverty levels rose significantly. Social spending was also reduced, causing the standard of living to decline. This marked the beginning of the decline of the Canadian dream, sacrificed for the benefit of American businesses and facilitated by Canadian politicians working on behalf of American lobbyists.

Today, an astonishing 77% of Canada’s exports are sent to the United States. This dependency gives the US considerable leverage; if America alters its trade policies—such as imposing 10% tariffs on aluminium or enforcing “Buy American” provisions—the Canadian economy feels the impact. The Canadian people took a bad deal, and to top it all off, the Trudeau government started a massive migration campaign to protect the housing bubble. But Canada’s poor and working class are the ones who suffer at every turn. From a nation with the highest living standards to economic indenture, Canada has come a long way and might want to rethink its policies and allies.

The decades-long policy crime

Of all the policy decisions in Canadian history, none more clearly embodies political malice than the federal government’s calculated withdrawal from social housing in the mid-1990s. More than any other decision, it entrenched the structural divide between those who own property and those condemned to struggle without it.

The evidence is surgical in its precision. The federal government froze social housing investments in 1993, ended its co-operative housing programme in its 1992 budget, and by 1995, it ceased funding new affordable housing development entirely, ending a 50-year commitment to shelter the most vulnerable. This act of institutional cruelty was immediately followed by the devolution of existing social housing administration to provincial and municipal governments in 1999.

This devolution coincided with the replacement of the “Canada Assistance Plan”, which had provided open-ended, 50-50 cost-sharing for social programmes, with the fixed, inadequate block grants of the Canada Health and Social Transfer. This manoeuvre effectively starved the social housing sector of resources, ensuring that between 1995 and 2002 almost no new non-profit units were created, a historical failure that created the decades-long supply void and the affordability crisis we now face.

The gap created by the government’s withdrawal was eagerly filled by financial speculators, transforming housing from a fundamental human right into the primary means of wealth generation for the middle and upper classes. Policies that supported the securitisation of mortgages fuelled the financialization of the housing sector, completely disconnecting increases in housing prices from economic fundamentals and income levels.

The result is that in major urban centres like the Greater Toronto Area, home prices jumped over 436% between 1994 and 2024, while household incomes climbed only about 34.6% over the same period.

The tragic consequence of this policy crime is visible on every street corner across the country. Over 10% of Canadian households, equating to 1.5 million individuals, are currently in ‘core housing need,’ and Canada is experiencing the proliferation of unstructured encampments in large, medium, and smaller cities.

When vulnerable people are discharged from systems like hospitals, corrections facilities, or mental health facilities and find no exit housing, they are forced directly into homelessness, a system failure directly attributable to the decades-old policy of gutting affordable housing programmes.

This lack of non-profit and cooperative housing supply is a systemic factor, compounded by high inflation and rising interest rates, demonstrating that the market cannot be relied upon to solve the crisis created by the state’s retreat.

And let us not forget the green blunder. As per policy think tank Fraser Institute, the previous Justin Trudeau government introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives, and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the administration termed the “green” economy. However, the results were not encouraging.

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects, banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia, proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

“Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs. Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the ‘green sector,’ a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1%. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6% of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating,” the Fraser Institute remarked.

Ottawa’s initiatives failed to deliver the promised green jobs. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, which now represents less than 2% of total employment. Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation.

According to the Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP), lifestyle prosperity was recorded on the lower side as of Q2 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, Canadians are poorer today than they were six years ago. In contrast, the United States’ per-person GDP grew by 11.0% during the same period.

Cruel math of the safety net

The sheer, calculated cruelty of Canada’s current social safety net is evident in its outcomes. The system is fragmented, difficult to access, inefficient, outdated, inadequate, and is a bureaucratic maze meant to traumatise and deter those who seek aid.

The defining failure of this system is its persistence in keeping people in poverty. An annual report shows that 98% of household types receiving social assistance in Canada are below the country’s Official Poverty Line.

Furthermore, 73% of these households are trapped in deep poverty, defined as having less than 75% of the poverty threshold. This is clear evidence that social assistance is quite literally designed to be a poverty trap, normalising destitution rather than facilitating escape.

This calculated inadequacy is exacerbated by rapid economic erosion, particularly due to high inflation. Between 2023 and 2024, more than a third of welfare recipients, 36% of tracked households, saw their total incomes increase at a rate below inflation, meaning that in real dollars, they are becoming poorer every year, actively losing ground against the rising cost of living.

This real income decline occurred despite some provinces attempting to offer one-time cost-of-living supports, demonstrating that the underlying provincial social assistance benefit rates are simply too low and frequently stagnant. When provinces like Ontario fail to adjust basic social assistance benefits, it is a conscious decision to normalise destitution and push vulnerable citizens deeper into the deprivation abyss.

This systemic cruelty falls hardest on specific groups. The poverty rate among people with disabilities is drastically high, solely because the benefits provided are fundamentally detached from the actual, significantly higher costs of living with a disability. The increasing reliance on the “Ontario Disability Support Programme,” as shown in Ontario data, reflects the reality that people with disabilities are being failed by both the labour market and an inadequate social net, leading to their over-representation in the poverty statistics.

For new parents, the mandated drop in income resulting from “Employment Insurance” benefits during maternity and parental leave creates significant financial stress precisely when costs are highest, a structural contradiction that pushes middle-class families toward financial instability.

Furthermore, Canada remains the only G7 nation without a comprehensive national school food programme, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that such programmes are highly successful drivers of improved health, education, and economic growth internationally. International experience, notably programmes like the United States’ “National School Lunch Programme,” shows that school meals yield a massive return on investment. Yet Canadian policymakers prioritise corporate tax breaks and speculative wealth over ensuring that millions of children eat nutritious food. This is a policy of moral bankruptcy.

And what of the medical costs? The financial burden of necessary prescription drugs is a known structural driver of poverty, yet Canada maintains significant gaps in coverage, refusing to implement a national pharmacare plan that works like Medicare. This deliberate policy decision forces low-income families and workers to choose between medicine and food, increasing health disparities and driving up overall healthcare costs unnecessarily. The political resistance is rooted in fears over escalating costs, yet a national plan would save Canadian families money while expanding access.

Indictment of a nation

From the destruction of stable manufacturing jobs under free trade to the calculated withdrawal of social housing funding in the 1990s, from the institutionalisation of precarious migrant labour to the maintenance of a welfare system designed to keep people in deep poverty, every data point confirms this reality. The combination of various crises has increased the desperation of the population, resulting from these compounded policy failures.

The evidence presented by national bodies and academic experts is indisputable. The “Market Basket Measure” tells us that the working poor cannot afford a modest, basic standard of living. Statistics Canada confirms that food insecurity tracks peak inflation, and human rights advocates warn that the refusal to make the right to food justiciable is the ultimate mechanism of governmental evasion.

The “Poverty Reduction Strategy”, launched in 2018, while ambitious in its targets, has stalled dramatically, showing that good intentions without enforceable rights and structural economic correction are merely political rhetoric.

Canada must choose immediately between two futures, one where we continue this shameful path of structural neglect, managing poverty through ineffective charity and political platitudes, and one where we implement a rights-based, income-guaranteed system that recognises the dignity and inherent worth of every person.

The post The collapse of Canada’s promise appeared first on International Finance.

Physical technologies like solar panels and software for ESG performance management and reporting are examples of sustainable technologies.

Organisations may consider the resources used to develop the technology, the supplier of those materials, and possible adverse outputs throughout the technology’s life cycle, such as emissions or e-waste, when developing technology sustainably.

In this context, sustainable technology refers to an approach or philosophy that guides the development and application of technologies.

Businesses frequently aim to advance ESG-related goals when implementing sustainable products or technologies. For instance, organisations might develop technologies that use less fossil fuel, such as electric cars, or decarbonise waste.

Additionally, businesses can lower their carbon footprint by implementing sustainable technologies. They can use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform diagnostics and identify the parts of their company that generate the most waste, for example. Businesses can then use carbon accounting to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or promote the use of renewable energy sources after gaining these insights.

What is sustainability?

The long-term goal of enabling people to live together on Earth without consuming excessive natural resources is known as sustainability. The ultimate objective is to improve the planet’s and people’s futures. The three pillars or dimensions of sustainability, which are economic, social, and environmental, are widely acknowledged by experts.

Since the triple bottom line, a sustainability framework centred on the three Ps (people, planet, and profit), aligns with these dimensions, many business leaders are aware of them. Businesses are more likely to succeed in the long run if they maximise all three bottom lines.

Businesses are beginning to see that becoming sustainable and reducing their environmental impact doesn’t have to mean sacrificing their bottom line. In fact, by creating and implementing sustainable technologies, some businesses are seeing higher margins. As a result, they are evaluating risks in new ways and enhancing resilience while taking external factors into account.

The way we engage with the world around us is impacted by the pervasiveness of technology in our society and daily lives. At the same time, people and businesses are facing several significant, previously unheard-of challenges, such as the aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increasing impacts of climate change, the depletion of natural resources, and the growing demands on the world’s food and energy supplies.

The operations and supply chains that are essential to both large and small businesses, as well as the daily lives of people worldwide, have been increasingly disrupted by these challenges. Rethinking how we interact with current innovations to address environmental and societal issues is made possible by sustainable technology.

For example, businesses can optimise routes and improve fleet management sustainability by utilising technological solutions such as the Internet of Things (IoT). Likewise, an organisation’s procurement department may function more efficiently.

The role of software

Software is another category of sustainable technology. Software can be sustainable in several ways, such as during the design stage, which is thought to account for more than 80% of all product-related environmental effects. Designers can incorporate sustainability into their software development strategies by ensuring that the software’s positive impact on users, communities, and society outweighs any negative effects on the environment or society. Software can also be used to leverage data insights to make better decisions. Analytics dashboards, data harmonisation, and automated data collection are some of the tools that can assist businesses in finding ways to lower their carbon footprints and run more sustainably.

Industry leaders can certainly incorporate sustainable technology into their business plans since it enhances the triple bottom line and appeals to stakeholders. To build a more sustainable future, sustainable technology is employed in various impactful ways, as outlined below.

Scoring high on the environment front

Businesses can empower the circular economy and move away from conventional linear economic models that emphasise the use of raw materials by implementing sustainable technologies. Leasing, recycling, renovating, repairing, reusing, and sharing existing materials and products for as long as feasible are all prioritised by the circular economy. By adopting this perspective, businesses can create and implement technology that enhances human and environmental health while lowering their carbon footprint.

Organisations can also use sustainable technologies to monitor ESG metrics related to water use, emissions, energy use, and other areas. Through ESG scores, companies assess how their ESG initiatives align with broader sustainability trends and identify potential areas for improvement. Making decisions based on this information can enhance sustainability performance and ensure compliance with legal requirements.

The reputation of a business and, consequently, its financial performance are now inextricably linked to sustainability. Employers that prioritise ESG initiatives and are sustainable and socially conscious are more likely to attract employees seeking purpose-driven work. Employing sustainable technologies helps businesses attract and retain this expanding talent pool of socially and environmentally conscious individuals.

Investors are also more drawn to businesses that are driven by sustainability. According to a recent report, nearly 60% of CEOs say they observe strong investor demand for increased sustainability transparency. Businesses can measure, improve, and communicate to stakeholders how well they are doing in reaching sustainability goals with the use of sustainable technologies. For example, data on energy consumption can be collected on a factory floor using IoT devices, establishing a baseline that can guide the company’s energy strategy.

Meeting global standards

The regulatory environment today is constantly changing. Governments are likely to continue adding to laws such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), a European Union law requiring businesses to disclose the sustainable and environmental effects of their operations.

Although not required, businesses are encouraged to incorporate the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their operations.

In the context of a green economy, SDG 17 specifically calls for “the research, development, deployment, and widespread diffusion of environmentally sound technologies.”

By implementing sustainable technology solutions that continuously record, evaluate, benchmark, and report on ESG performance, organisations can stay ahead of the current regulatory landscape.

End-to-end transparency offered by sustainable technologies has the potential to revolutionise supply chains for businesses. For example, companies can track carbon emissions upstream using AI to identify ESG risks and opportunities. They can use machine learning to predict demand downstream and deploy their fleet more effectively and efficiently.

By applying the knowledge gained from sustainable technologies, businesses can improve and cover the full life cycle of goods and equipment by integrating circular design principles like recycling and refurbishment into their supply chain.

Additionally, businesses can use sustainable technology to examine their supplier and partner ecosystem. This can be useful when assembling ESG reporting metrics.

Businesses that use the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) or Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting frameworks are required to report on Scope 3 emissions, which are a type of greenhouse gas.

The future of sustainable technology

To align sustainability goals with financial performance, companies can reconsider their business models by leveraging sustainable technologies. For instance, financial services firms can utilise cloud solutions to reduce energy consumption in their data centres.

Robotic process automation can help consumer goods companies increase accuracy and reduce waste in their manufacturing processes. By storing encrypted patient data on a blockchain, healthcare institutions can replace paper health records with electronic ones, cutting waste and increasing security.

Leading companies in the sector are encouraged to invest more in ESG projects through examples of sustainable innovation. The companies are investing in and collaborating with startups in this direction.

The United Kingdom and Canada have collaborated on a research project to enhance the mining and supply chain of critical minerals, which are essential for national defence, renewable energy systems, and smartphones.

A new scientific collaboration will bring together scientists from both nations to tackle some of the most urgent issues in supply chain resilience, environmental sustainability, and critical mineral extraction. The collaboration will investigate cutting-edge methods through five projects, including advanced geological exploration, sustainable mining methods, and mine water cleanup.

Each project uses creative, environmentally friendly solutions to address a distinct part of the critical minerals supply chain. One project is dedicated to mine water cleanup, employing microalgae and calcium silicate to efficiently extract harmful metals like copper, nickel, and cobalt from tainted mine water. This economical, environmentally friendly method allows for the recovery and repurposing of these precious metals while also purifying the water.

The UK and Canada aim to achieve long-term access to essential resources while minimising environmental impact by investing in sustainable mining practices and adopting circular economy strategies.

This alliance facilitates innovation, economic growth, and job creation by enhancing scientific and industrial cooperation between these leading economies. Additionally, it supports national security objectives by reducing reliance on fragile supply chains and promoting more resilient and environmentally conscious systems.

The post Sustainable technology: A win for business & earth appeared first on International Finance.

Don Romano, who was president and CEO for more than ten years, is succeeded by Steve Flamand. Romano was elevated to the positions of advisor for Hyundai Motor Pacific and president and CEO of Hyundai Motor Australia. Romano made Hyundai Canada the second-largest import brand in Canada by leading the company to record retail sales and market share during his tenure there.

Randy Parker said he was confident Flamand could lead Hyundai in Canada because of his vast experience in a variety of international roles and his customer-focused approach.

“I can’t think of a better person to lead Hyundai in Canada than Steve. He brings invaluable experience through his numerous positions across the globe, matched with a customer-focused mindset and Canadian roots,” Parker said.

The appointment also comes amid the news of the 2026 Hyundai IONIQ 9, a fully electric three-row SUV and, most importantly, part of Canada’s most awarded lineup of EVs. It is redefining its segment with a range of 500 to 539 kilometres. The vehicle’s robust 110.3 kWh battery charges from 10% to 80% in just 24 minutes, offering both performance and practicality.

Hyundai Auto Canada, the Ontario-based subsidiary, was established in 1983 and was the first such expansion initiative of Hyundai Motor Company outside Korea. As of March 2025, the company provides a diverse range of technology-rich cars, SUVs, and electrified vehicles through over 250 dealerships across the North American country. Hyundai is also the official automotive partner of the NHLPA (National Hockey League Players’ Association) and NHL (National Hockey League) in Canada.

Who Is Steve Flamand?

Steve Flamand is an accomplished Canadian automotive executive who has worked in the field for more than thirty years. He moved to Ontario when he was a teenager, having been born in Blainville, Quebec. His degrees include an MBA from Queen’s University and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

At General Motors (GM), where he started his career, Steve Flamand held a number of executive roles in Canada, the United States, Europe, South Korea, and China. He has so far worked in fields like manufacturing, labour relations, product marketing, quality assurance, portfolio planning, corporate strategy, sales, service, and marketing for more than thirty years.

In February 2018, Steve Flamand became the executive director of sales and digital strategy at Hyundai Auto Canada Corp (HACC). He eventually rose to roles like executive director of sales and digital strategy, greatly advancing the company’s expansion. Flamand took over the management of the Hyundai and Genesis brands in Canada when he was named president and CEO of HACC in March 2025.

Steve Flamand’s new position will involve overseeing day-to-day operations for the Hyundai and Genesis brands in Canada. This involves managing 31 distributors for Genesis and 226 Hyundai dealers across the country. While directing the strategic vision for both brands, his main goal will be to improve customer experiences through digitisation in all facets of the company.

As the automotive sector changes due to the popularity of hybrids and electric cars, Flamand’s leadership is anticipated to spur innovation in Hyundai Auto Canada, apart from improving overall consumer experiences.

“Under Steve’s leadership, Hyundai has experienced remarkable growth over the past seven years, reaching record sales,” Romano said of Steve Flamand’s leadership during his time at Hyundai Canada. Flamand’s contribution to the company’s diversity initiatives was also emphasised by Romano.

Hyundai Auto Canada Starts 2025 On A Solid Note

Hyundai Auto Canada started 2025 on a solid note, as it witnessed a significant rise in sales in the month of January. With 9,200 units sold, the period marked a 30.3% increase compared to the previous year. This achievement represents the company’s best January sales performance to date. The TUCSON, ELANTRA, and KONA models were the top sellers, with the TUCSON leading at 2,286 units.

“The IONIQ 5 electric vehicle continued its strong performance with 1,375 units delivered in January. Hyundai’s electrified vehicles, including electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid models, accounted for nearly 40% of total sales. In total, 3,646 electrified units were sold during this period,” reported the DriveSpark.

Comparable year-over-year data also revealed substantial growth in electrified vehicle sales. The IONIQ 5 saw a remarkable increase of 244.6%, while the TUCSON PHEV experienced an impressive rise of 387.9%. However, some models like the KONA EV and IONIQ 6 saw declines of 55.3% and 67%, respectively.

“In terms of overall model performance for January, the TUCSON recorded a significant growth of 70%, while the ELANTRA increased by 17.2%. The SANTA FE also showed strong results with a rise of 114.6%. Conversely, the KONA experienced a decline of 32.3% in sales compared to last year. The SONATA model achieved an extraordinary increase in sales by 835.7%, albeit from a low base figure last year. Meanwhile, the SANTA CRUZ saw a decrease of 38.9% in its sales numbers,” DriveSpark noted.

Image Credits: Hyundai Auto Canada

The post Business Leader of the Week: Steve Flamand to lead Hyundai Auto Canada forward appeared first on International Finance.

In 2013, Danny founded an IIROC (now CIRO) investment dealership called Harbourfront Wealth Management, to bring pension-type investment vehicles such as private equity, private real estate, and private credit to Canadian retail investors.

Danny launched Harbourfront with an $11 million personal investment and within nine years, established a $425 million enterprise value when Boston-based Private Equity firm, Audax Group bought a stake in the firm.

In an exclusive interview with International Finance, Danny Popescu, CEO of Harbourfront Wealth Holdings, shares insights on the firm’s recent acquisition of KJ Harrison & Partners, emphasises the importance of transparency, discusses future acquisitions, and touches on other key topics.

What strategic factors made KJ Harrison & Partners the right fit for Harbourfront Wealth’s latest acquisition?

We look for like-minded, profitable wealth management practices that value independence and put the client first. KJ Harrison (KJH) has an exceptional reputation in the wealth management community, with a strong track record of performance and growth. Their business acumen and vision for the future aligned well with Harbourfront Wealth, making them an ideal candidate to join our firm.

With Harbourfront’s AUA nearing CAD 11 billion, how do you plan to maintain a personalised client experience at scale?

Our model is designed to support advisors in maintaining a personalised approach to their clients. We do not dictate their approach or offerings. One key way we support our advisors is with our advanced technology. We provide best-in-class solutions that make day-to-day tasks more efficient and free up advisors’ time to focus on serving their clients. Some examples of this include our integrated data lake and unified experience, digital onboarding, and straight-through processing (trading by the next day). We are also developing a client portal with automated reporting, which we are planning to launch this summer.

Recently, you spoke about the importance of independence and transparency. In what ways do these values influence how you choose and approach acquisitions?

We partner with advisory teams and wealth management firms that have been successful in building reputable and profitable practices. Each team has its secret to success, and we believe it is important to enable them to continue growing in a way that works for them. We give our advisors the freedom to recommend any security they determine is best for their clients, define their own brand, and communicate with their audience in their own voice. We believe independence is the key to succeeding on behalf of clients, and we look for advisors who will thrive in an independent environment.

What specific synergies do you expect between Harbourfront and KJH, both culturally and operationally?

The KJH operating model is unique, and this acquisition will not disrupt their model. In fact, our goal is the opposite. We will look for additional advisors to join and benefit from the KJH model. From an operational standpoint, we are assessing common systems, applications, and vendors to take advantage of additional scale in our pricing models.

How does this acquisition position Harbourfront to compete with larger, bank-owned wealth management firms in Canada?

The industry recognises the benefit of independence in wealth management, and the KJH acquisition further emphasises this trend. KJH is an established and recognised High Net Worth and Family Office boutique, and choosing to partner with Harbourfront deepens our clout in the industry. Wealth management advisory practices are seeing the advantage of joining an independent firm instead of the more bureaucratic, less flexible, bank-owned firms.

What innovations or investment solutions can clients expect to see emerge from this new partnership?

Harbourfront has developed a robust platform of multi-asset solutions across both public and private asset classes. KJH broadens the Harbourfront Wealth expertise into bespoke portfolios built for private clients.

How will the integration of KJH’s CIRO-registered dealer enhance Harbourfront’s compliance and regulatory capabilities?

Both KJH and Harbourfront have strong compliance resources and oversight capabilities, and now we will be able to leverage both.

Can you share how your leadership approach has evolved as Harbourfront grows and completes major acquisitions like this one?

We have developed and grown a leadership team with deep operational knowledge, which gives us the expertise to know what to look for in potential acquisitions and how to avoid surprises post-acquisition. The strength of my team and their ability to absorb growth and scale our business is what sets us apart.

What trends are you seeing in the independent wealth management space, and how is Harbourfront positioning itself to lead?

We are seeing a large move toward private market investing. Institutional investors have been investing in private markets for decades, but this space has been inaccessible to everyday investors due to regulatory hurdles, high minimums, low liquidity, and lack of expertise. We have led the way in the industry, in bringing private market-related investments to everyday investors (starting in 2018), and we are seeing other firms starting to follow our lead. Our private markets expertise is one of the key reasons advisors choose to join Harbourfront.

Another trend that is resonating with advisors is the move toward firm ownership. When we partnered with Audax Private Equity in 2022, our advisors received handsome cheques through a partial monetisation event. In a couple of years, we will do it again, and four to five years after that, we will be on our third partial exit. Historically in Canada, independent shops often sold to banks or other conglomerates. No advisor desires that in today’s environment, which makes our model refreshing. Given that private equity investors are not operators, we will continue to maintain our independence while creating periodic liquidity events for our advisor shareholders.

Looking ahead, do you anticipate further acquisitions, and what qualities will you seek in future partners?

We are looking to close on a fourth acquisition in July and continue to explore others where cultural alignment exists and the deals are economically accretive.

What factors make Harbourfront an attractive acquirer for so many wealth management firms?

Harbourfront is unique in the industry, with a collegial and supportive culture and leading-edge technology that makes it easier for advisors to serve their clients. We are also extremely efficient from an economics point of view, which makes us highly profitable—and advisors get to share in those profits.

Why is Harbourfront making these acquisitions?

We want to be the independent wealth management firm of choice in Canada. These acquisitions enable us to accelerate growth and scale effectively.

The post Acquisitions accelerate growth effectively, says Harbourfront Wealth CEO Danny Popescu appeared first on International Finance.

The method behind the tariffs is reportedly based on dividing trade deficits by import values, which defied conventional economic logic. As nations scramble to respond, critics warn that Trump’s bold strategy could backfire, raising prices at home and straining diplomatic ties abroad. The world is watching, and the stakes are high.

What puzzled economists and analysts alike wasn’t just the scale of the tariffs, but the math behind them. Observers, including journalist James Surowiecki, noticed a curious pattern: the White House appeared to calculate tariffs by dividing the US trade deficit with a country by the value of imports from that country. For instance, the US trade deficit with China in 2024 was $295.4 billion against $438.9 billion in imports, resulting in a 67% tariff rate. This same logic seemed to apply to other nations like Vietnam.

Critics were quick to point out that such a method ignores the broader context of trade, especially the role of services, and does not align with traditional economic theory. The Office of the US Trade Representative later confirmed a similar rationale, stating that this formula was designed to offset “combined effects” of trade barriers, regulatory policies, and currency practices.

By tacking on an additional flat 10% tax on countries with a surplus, the Trump administration has stirred both concern and confusion globally. Economists argue the plan might hurt low-income nations that already struggle with American price points. While some suggest the vagueness of the policy gives the US leverage in negotiations, many warn that it may undermine American credibility in the long run.

Trade history before the tariff war

Though not without occasional conflict, especially over energy and softwood lumber, trade ties between the US and Canada have largely been solid and cooperative. Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced NAFTA, the nations revised their trade laws in 2020. This agreement revolutionised areas including internet commerce, worker standards, and automobile production needs. Particularly oil and gas, the energy industry remains a major link between the two economies.

Political unrest arose from the Biden administration’s decision to abandon the Keystone XL pipeline; however, overall economic cooperation between the United States and Canada remains robust. Key imports from Canada include crude oil, automobiles, machinery, and plastics, while the US primarily exports vehicles, machinery, electrical equipment, and mineral fuels to Canada. Thanks to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada maintains an average tariff rate of about 0.8% on American imports.

To counter China’s growing influence in Latin America, the United States has been increasing its trade involvement in the region. Since the USMCA took effect, trade with Mexico has surged significantly, making Mexico the top trading partner of the US in 2023. Emphasising sectors including agriculture, energy, and minerals essential for green energy transitions, the US has also increased trade with Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Long-term trade projections have been further muddled, nevertheless, by erratic politics and protectionist policies in some nations.

While imports include agricultural goods, coffee, copper, oil, and cars, American exports to the region include refined oil, machinery, medical supplies, and electronics. While Brazil keeps average rates of 10%–12% on US goods, tariffs vary greatly; Mexico and Chile typically grant duty-free access.

Following Brexit, the United States and the United Kingdom have entered a transitional period. Though political and legal differences have caused obstacles in negotiations, both sides have expressed a desire for a full-scale trade accord. Still, commerce between the two has expanded, and the United States is still the top individual trading partner of the United Kingdom. Even without a formal agreement, key joint projects in financial services, defence, and technology are still in progress.

American exports include aircraft, drugs, machinery, and optical technologies; imports from the UK include alcohol—especially Scotch whisky—cars, and tools. British tariffs on American goods range from 0% to 10%; most industrial imports see either little or none at all.

The US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) has helped to drive a notable increase in trade between the two countries. The two countries have recently enhanced their cooperation in areas such as semiconductors, electric vehicles, and battery technologies. Their ties have strengthened further due to shared concerns about North Korea and the growing economic influence of China.

The Indo-Pacific policy of the Biden government has underlined the significance of South Korea in trade as well as in security. The United States imports autos, electronics, and machinery; it exports semiconductors, aircraft, medical equipment, and cattle. More than 95% of traded items under KORUS are tariff-free; the rest are on a phased reduction schedule.

Trade between the United States and the European Union has seen both conflicts and instances of cooperation. Key issues include digital service taxes, tariffs on steel and aluminium, and subsidies for aeroplanes, particularly in the ongoing competition between Boeing and Airbus. Despite these conflicts, both parties have managed to ease tensions by agreeing to suspend certain duties and by collaborating on trade policies related to climate change.

Particularly in view of the Ukraine crisis and the drive to lower reliance on China and Russia, the EU and the United States are also coordinating efforts on supply chain stability and export restrictions. While imports comprise autos, industrial machinery, and wine, US exports to the EU include aircraft, medications, medical instruments, and liquefied natural gas. Food and autos face higher charges up to 10%–12%; average EU tariffs on US imports are roughly 3% for manufactured goods.

Growing US-China tensions have given the trade dynamic between the United States and Taiwan fresh importance. Emphasising customs procedures, regulatory standards, and anti-corruption initiatives, both sides signed the first section of the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade in 2023. A deeper US interest has been sparked by Taiwan’s central importance in the global chip supply chain. Although the US does not formally acknowledge Taiwan politically, trade ties keep developing behind structures meant to avoid upsetting Beijing. US goods sent to Taiwan range from machinery to aircraft to foodstuffs like corn and meat. Taiwan then supplies the United States with semiconductors, electronics, and machinery. Though particular agricultural items suffer more steep rates, average Taiwanese tariffs on American commodities range from 5% to 7%.

Despite occasional hiccups, US-India trade has been growing. Over import taxes, data security policies, and intellectual property, the two nations have disagreed. But more general agreement on strategic goals, such as balancing China’s influence, defence cooperation, and digital commerce, has driven the alliance ahead.

Under the “Generalised System of Preferences,” the United States has restored some trade rights for India and negotiated pacts emphasising semiconductor collaboration. Particularly in supply chain restructuring, India is now increasingly important in American goals for Indo-Pacific economic resilience.
American goods sent to India range from aircraft to crude oil to machinery to medical equipment. From India, the US imports textiles, IT services, drugs, and jewels. On US goods, particularly on vehicles, agricultural products, and wine, India’s import taxes are among the harshest worldwide, ranging from 10% to 60%.

Key takeaways

Following Donald Trump’s announcement of customised tariffs that appear to be the catalyst for a worldwide trade war, nations from all over the world are scrambling to adopt the new method of conducting business with the US.

Trump has made it plain that he intends to use the tariffs to generate tax revenue, address unfair trade practices from other nations, encourage crackdowns on migration and drug trafficking, and bring manufacturing back to the United States. However, South Korea has pledged an “all-out” response, while the EU and China have announced countermeasures. As billions of dollars are lost in economic growth, the political harm done to friends like the UK may also have a cost. Businesses are preparing for the meaning of “liberation.”

In keeping with his pledge on the campaign path to free the country from rising prices, the US President pitched the idea of international tariffs with a joyous air. Anyone who has been to a food shop in that time may disagree with the president’s assertion that “prices are way down” since he returned to office.

Additionally, US businesses are concerned about the broader ramifications of this decision, stating that increased expenses will be passed on to their clients. Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the US Chamber of Commerce, the corporate lobby group, said, “We have heard from businesses of all sizes, across all industries, from all around the country that these broad tariffs are a tax increase that will raise prices for American consumers and hurt the economy.”

The additional tariffs, which raise the overall duty on Chinese imports to above 50%, have disproportionately hurt China and struggling South-east Asian countries, such as Myanmar, which has been devastated by earthquakes and war. One notion that has been proposed is that the target countries are those associated with significant Chinese investments. Dr. Siwage Dharma Negara, a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said, “The Trump administration believes that by targeting these countries, it can target Chinese investment in countries like Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Indonesia.

Targeting their products may have an impact on the economy and exports from China. The country is the actual target, but since this investment generates jobs and export income, it will have a huge impact on those nations.”

The levies are imposed at a time when many Southeast Asian nations are already dealing with the consequences of the cuts to USAID, which supports pro-democracy activists fighting oppressive governments and provides humanitarian aid to a region at risk of natural disasters. Important trading partners, Mexico and Canada, are exempt, but they will still suffer. Although these two countries are not subject to the most recent round of tariffs, as business leaders and Prime Minister Mark Carney reminded everyone, 25% duties on Canadian steel and aluminium, as well as autos, went into force within hours after the announcement.

Although Trump had maintained important aspects of the bilateral relationship, Carney cautioned that the worldwide tariffs that were announced earlier in the day “fundamentally change the international trading system.” According to a White House fact sheet, the two nations have been subject to previously announced 25% tariffs on a variety of items due to border control and fentanyl trafficking concerns. Claudia Sheinbaum, the President of Mexico, stated that her nation would prefer to unveil a “comprehensive programme” rather than engage in a “tit-for-tat on tariffs.”

Trump previously stated, “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big,” suggesting that he is ready for the announcement to trigger significant market volatility worldwide. Countries all across the world now have a very small window of time to decide their course of action, as the universal tariffs go into effect on April 5 and the reciprocal ones on April 9. There will always be uncertainty, whether some attempt to reach an agreement with Trump or retaliate with tariffs.

Despite being among Australia’s “external territories” that are classified separately for a 10% tariff, Heard Island and McDonald Islands are among the most remote locations on the planet, home solely to a variety of species. Australia’s Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, stated that “I’m not quite sure that Norfolk Island, with respect to it, is a trade competitor with the giant economy of the United States, but that just shows and exemplifies the fact that nowhere on earth is safe from this” after the island, located just off the country’s east coast, was hit with a tariff of 29%, which is 19 percentage points higher than the rest of Australia.

Art of the deal

Some analysts propose that Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy could primarily be a pressure tactic designed to force key trading partners back to the negotiating table to secure more advantageous trade deals for the US, as Trump himself stated in his book “The Art of the Deal,” “The worst thing you can do in a deal is seem desperate to make it.” His history of negotiation, such as real estate transactions in New York City, often involved bold initial demands followed by strategic concessions to reach favourable agreements. In this view, the tariffs are not meant as a long-term economic policy but rather a short-term negotiating lever.

The ultimate objective may be to achieve improved terms that favour American economic interests without permanently damaging global trade relationships. Economists warn that maintaining such aggressive tariff practices as a long-term strategy could trigger prolonged global economic instability, harming American businesses and consumers.

President William McKinley, whom Trump calls the original “Tariff King,” championed protective tariffs through the “1890 McKinley Tariff,” imposing historically high tariff rates to protect American industries. Initially, these tariffs benefited domestic manufacturing by providing significant market protection against foreign competition. However, the economic consequences soon became apparent. Consumer prices rose sharply due to the lack of affordable foreign alternatives, burdening average American households and lowering their purchasing power. This led to widespread dissatisfaction among the working class and middle-income citizens, fuelling intense political debates and backlash against the Republican Party.

Politically, McKinley’s tariff policy had profound implications. His high-tariff stance solidified his support among industrialists and business leaders who benefited directly from reduced foreign competition. Conversely, it alienated large segments of the electorate, particularly farmers and labourers who faced higher living costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs on American agricultural exports. Consequently, this shift in public sentiment contributed significantly to Democratic electoral gains, influencing future legislative agendas and reshaping American politics.

Economically, the long-term consequences of McKinley’s tariff policies proved detrimental. The retaliatory tariffs imposed by other nations severely limited market access for American exporters, particularly in the agricultural sector. Farmers faced significant economic hardship as their products became less competitive internationally, leading to surpluses, declining revenues, and widespread rural economic distress. Furthermore, the restrictive trade environment hindered overall economic growth by reducing trade volumes and disrupting international economic relationships.

McKinley’s tariff policies also triggered international diplomatic tensions, as many trading partners viewed the tariffs as hostile economic aggression. These strained relationships complicated US diplomacy and impacted America’s global standing. Ultimately, while McKinley intended his tariffs to protect domestic industries, they instead created economic disruptions, diplomatic challenges, and political volatility that persisted long after his presidency.
Tariffs as political theatre

The way the United States determined its new tariff amounts under President Trump wasn’t based on traditional economic models or standard international trade practices. Instead, it appears Uncle Sam took a more symbolic, even provocative route—one that was driven by a political narrative rather than a purely economic rationale.

By reportedly dividing the trade deficit by total imports from a given country, the administration used an unconventional formula that ignored services, nuanced trade dynamics, and existing agreements. The move was pitched as a way to correct trade imbalances, retaliate against what the White House called unfair practices, and bring jobs back home. But in doing so, it shook the global economic order. The numbers didn’t just reflect policy; they sent a message. In truth, the formula seemed less about precision and more about leverage. This was classic Trump: start with a dramatic opening move, stir the pot, and then force your counterparts to the negotiating table.

The goal wasn’t just revenue or protectionism; rather, it was dominance. But the risk is real. Higher costs for consumers, angry trade partners, and a potential trade war that could hurt not just American exporters but the global economy at large. This strategy may succeed in getting the world’s attention, but whether it delivers long-term economic gains without lasting damage is a gamble history will have to judge. One thing is certain: trade policy just became a lot more personal and a lot less predictable.

Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, has raised the odds of a US recession to 45% in the next 12 months, joining other investment banks in revising their forecast as fears of a trade war grip markets. The financial services giant foresees a sharp tightening in monetary conditions, along with a rise in policy uncertainty that is likely to depress capital spending by a great margin.

The global economy, meanwhile, is preparing for the next menace, namely, Trump strong-arming trading partners in getting favourable deals, while wea-ponising the US position as the ‘world’s largest economy’. Senior Reuters scribe John O’Donnell said, “As the epicentre of the financial world and the issuer of the global reserve currency, the United States has several levers that Trump can pull to coerce other countries, from credit cards to the very provision of dollars to foreign banks.”

While deploying these unconventional weapons would come at a high cost for Washington itself and may even backfire altogether, observers, given Trump’s volatile personality, don’t rule out such possibilities.

The post World braces for trade war appeared first on International Finance.

Donald Trump is correct when he says that tariffs can help achieve most, if not all, of those goals. When applied correctly, tariffs can increase domestic output by raising the cost of imported goods. The United States could use tariffs to seriously harm other nations’ economies without entering a recession, as America’s economy is vast and diverse and does not depend as heavily on trade as its neighbours. Some of its deficits could be partially mitigated by the revenue generated from tariffs.

However, as the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true, it generally is.

Donald Trump’s strategy is flawed because tariffs cannot accomplish all of these objectives simultaneously. This is due to Trump’s often incoherent goals.

For example, if tariffs are part of a pressure campaign, they must end as soon as the countries agree, so there will be no more tariffs to balance the trade. Tariffs cannot increase revenue to offset deficits if they are intended to support America’s manufacturing sector. If Americans choose to purchase items made in the US, then who will be responsible for paying the tariff on imported goods?

Furthermore, Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs may hurt the US economy more than they will benefit. Recently, Trump admitted that tariffs would create a “disturbance.” Additionally, equities fell on Monday when Trump refrained from predicting that his trade policies would prevent America from entering a recession.

For several reasons, Donald Trump seems committed to enacting massive tariffs on goods manufactured abroad, starting on April 2, despite repeated postponements and withdrawals.

Increasing Income And Jobs In Manufacturing

During his joint address to Congress last week, Donald Trump declared, “We will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before. The goal of tariffs is to restore America’s wealth and greatness.”

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China would generate roughly $120 billion annually and $1.3 trillion over a ten-year period.

One of Donald Trump’s main arguments for tariffs was highlighted in his joint speech to Congress: “We want to cut taxes on domestic production and all manufacturing,” he stated. However, under the Trump administration, “you will pay a tariff and, in some cases, a rather large one if you don’t make your product in America.”

Donald Trump claims that this trade policy, which uses rewards and penalties, would revive the manufacturing sector in the United States.

Extended tariffs have significant consequences for American businesses, consumers, and the US economy as a whole. Investor concern about the possibility of tariffs slowing down economic development is reflected in the latest market selloff. Tariffs can lead to lower investment, higher consumer prices, and strained international relations by increasing costs for companies reliant on imported goods.

These factors combined increase the likelihood of a recession. Businesses depending on global supply chains could see their production costs rise due to levies on imported parts.

Higher consumer prices, reduced competitiveness of American goods overseas, and potential job losses in sectors unable to absorb the higher costs could follow. Tariffs are essentially taxes on imports, and firms typically pass these expenses on to consumers. This leads to higher prices for a range of products, thus limiting customers’ purchasing power and possibly slowing down overall economic growth. Strong tariff rules can sour relations with important trading partners and allies, fragmenting the global trade landscape. Such fragmentation can complicate global cooperation on broader geopolitical and economic concerns.

Trump’s Tariff Plan And Its Potential Impact On Revenue

President Donald Trump’s tariff plan is expected to generate so much revenue for America that income taxes will no longer be required of its citizens.

The issue, however, is that America imports around $3 trillion worth of goods annually and collects about $3 trillion in income taxes annually. Therefore, for tariffs to replace income taxes, they would need to be at least 100% on all imported items. This would be an excessive amount that would shock American consumers with higher prices.

Accusation Of Unfair Practices

President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that numerous nations use unfair trade policies that harm the United States. To assess these assertions, it’s important to examine trade balances and practices with key partners.

With a trade deficit of $310.8 billion in 2020, the US trade imbalance with China has long been a source of concern. China’s industrial policies, currency policies, and market access limitations have all been blamed for this disparity.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico grew notably. Although the United States has trade deficits in some areas with both nations, these deficits are relatively small. While opinions on fairness remain unresolved, the renegotiated United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) sought to address some of these issues.

At $23.8 billion in 2020, the US had a trade imbalance with India. Points of dispute have included issues such as intellectual property rights, market access, and tariff and non-tariff barriers.

In 2020, the US trade deficit with the European Union came to $184 billion. Disputes over tariffs on certain goods, regulatory rules, and subsidies have led to ongoing talks and occasional trade conflicts.

Although trade imbalances exist, they are shaped by many factors, including variations in savings and investment rates, currency values, and comparative advantages. Calling these disparities the result of unfair behaviour oversimplifies complex economic linkages.

Donald Trump has stated that his 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, which have been mostly postponed, and his 20% tariffs on China are intended to pressure those nations to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the United States.

Most economists agree that trade imbalances are neither losses nor subsidies. In fact, they may indicate a strong economy.

However, Donald Trump may not be trying to destroy the global economy through protectionism but rather seeking to bring all parties to the table to renegotiate long standing terms using economic threats. As someone who takes pride in his negotiation skills, there is a good chance that he might not follow through with his threats if he can secure deals that are even slightly better for the US.

Regardless, the great powers will reluctantly have to comply with Donald Trump, as he controls the world’s wealthiest economy (which everyone wants access to) and the US Navy, which protects merchant vessels on maritime routes worldwide. This is an expensive exercise that the US has been conducting almost exclusively since World War II, and without it, the global economy would likely collapse.

But if taken at face value, tariffs are unlikely to reduce the US-foreign trade imbalance. If this occurs, America’s purchasing power may decline.

The post IF Insights: Analysing the fairness & effectiveness of Donald Trump’s trade war appeared first on International Finance.

Venessa Yates began working for Walmart in 2016. Most recently, she oversaw Walmart+, the company’s membership programme, as its Senior Vice President and General Manager.

Thanks to her extensive retail experience, Venessa Yates has taken on several leadership roles at well-known retailers worldwide, including Walmart, Woolworths, and ALDI Stores.

“I’m thrilled to be joining the Walmart Canada team. The Canadian business, with its 100,000 associates and impressive 30-year history, has always been a source of pride. We’re currently in growth mode, and I’m excited about our future,” Venessa Yates said.

The company announced that Gonzalo Gebara, the current Walmart President and CEO, will be leaving the company at the end of February to return to Argentina to be with his family and pursue other interests after a remarkable 25-year career at Walmart. Throughout his tenure at Walmart Canada, Gebara was instrumental in propelling the company’s transition into the nation’s preeminent omnichannel retailer.

The company also announced that Steve Schrobilgen, subject to authorisations, will be joining the company as Chief Operating Officer, End to End, handling Operations, Supply Chain, Real Estate, and Format. Since 2023, Schrobilgen has been with Walmart in the Western United States, where he is currently the Senior Vice President and Business Unit Leader.

In his 35 years at Sam’s Club and Walmart, Schrobilgen has proven to be an outstanding leader with a wealth of operational knowledge. His dedication and results-oriented methodology have helped him advance through progressively more senior positions at Sam’s.

Since joining Walmart US in 2023, Steve has led with an emphasis on fostering operational excellence, building dynamic and productive teams, and achieving financial outcomes in key business areas. Well-known for his honesty and high standards, he encourages colleagues to embrace change and innovation while building credibility and trust.

Walmart Canada serves 1.5 million customers daily through its more than 400 locations across the country. More than 1.5 million customers visit Walmart.ca, the company’s flagship online store, every day. One of the biggest employers in Canada, Walmart Canada employs over 100,000 people and is among the top 10 most powerful brands in the nation. Supporting Canadian families in need is the main goal of Walmart Canada’s extensive philanthropy programme. Since 1994, Walmart Canada has raised and given more than $750 million to Canadian charities.

Walmart Canada In Recent News

Walmart Canada will sell its fleet business to Canada Cartage as it focuses on expanding its stores and improving its supply chain across the country.

According to Canada Cartage Chief Administration Officer David Zavitz, Walmart Canada’s fleet business ships deliveries from distribution centres to over 400 stores across the country.

Canada Cartage will operate the fleet unit as a dedicated operation, with all Walmart fleet employees offered employment at their existing wages and comparable benefits.

“Canada Cartage has operated for 110 years, providing fleet services, such as DC-to-store network deliveries, to Canadian retailers, grocers, manufacturers, and distributors,” Zavitz said.

“Through Canada Cartage, we can serve customers even better and more flexibly and provide fleet employees with exciting growth opportunities at one of Canada’s largest and most trusted supply chain service providers,” Matt Kelly, VP of supply chain for Walmart Canada, said in a January 30 press release.

Meanwhile, Canada Cartage expects to strengthen its fleet outsourcing capabilities and accelerate its growth in Canada through the move. Walmart’s decision to sell its Canadian fleet business comes nearly a year after the retailer sold its intermodal assets to JB Hunt Transport Services. The intermodal deal, announced in February 2024, was intended to increase both companies’ volume and capacity.

Walmart Canada is also investing about 6.5 billion Canadian dollars (USD 4.51 billion) to build new stores and expand its supply chain, marking its biggest investment since opening its first store nearly 30 years ago.

The venture will involve building dozens of new stores, starting with five new supercenters in Ontario and Alberta by 2027. The retailer also plans to invest in modernising its distribution centres.

Walmart Canada COO Joe Schrauder said, “Across the country, we’re making strategic investments in our online and in-store offerings to be more relevant to more customers than ever before.”

The company joins a list of other retailers, including Target, in making efforts to add new locations to gain more market share, following the increasing popularity of free and curbside delivery services.

Image Credits: Walmart

The post Business Leader of the Week: Venessa Yates takes over leadership at Walmart Canada appeared first on International Finance.

Professor Reed teaches FIN 40640 Applied Investment Management (AIM) and FIN 40610 Security Analysis. He has recently been awarded the Rev. Edmund P. Joyce, C.S.C., Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching (2023), the James Dincolo Outstanding Undergraduate Professor Award (2023), and the James Dincolo Outstanding Undergraduate Finance Professor (2018).

Reed’s research focuses on the integration of behavioural economics into the fields of macroeconomics and finance. His papers have been published in the Journal of Macroeconomics, and his comments have been cited in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News Business, and The Guardian.

In an exclusive interview with International Finance, Professor Jason Reed discusses a range of topics, including the US economy, the job market, proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the Fed’s recent policies, and more.

Recent reports indicate that the US economy could face new inflationary pressures if the administration fully implements tariffs on Chinese imports. How do you assess the potential impact of these tariffs on consumer prices and overall inflation?

President Donald Trump’s economic agenda recently included another 10% tariff on Chinese imports, set to go into effect on March 4th. For products that can’t be easily reshored, American consumers will bear the burden of higher prices. We must remember that tariffs are simply taxes on imported goods, and like a sales tax, the cost falls to consumers, not businesses. The Tax Foundation recently estimated the long-term impact would be a decline in GDP of 0.1% per year, or $374 billion over 10 years. American families are expected to see reductions in their income of 2.2% through 2026, compounding the impact.

Despite low unemployment rates, securing jobs has become increasingly difficult, especially for young college graduates. What factors do you believe are contributing to this “Big Freeze” in the job market, and what measures can be taken to address it?

American firms have resorted to eliminating open positions, reducing hiring, and shrinking labour hours before laying off workers. New entrants into the labour market are considered frictionally employed, adding to what economists view as the natural unemployment rate. Young college graduates and MBA alums alike are finding it harder to gain employment. Typically, there is an ebb and flow to employment, where new workers slot into jobs that were left voluntarily; however, workers aren’t confident in the labour market and are staying at their jobs longer than in recent history. This has been a trend since the middle of 2022 when the labour market saw a record high of over 12 million job openings. The unemployment rate has remained relatively low and constant because of the excess supply of openings. Recent data shows that we’re almost back to pre-COVID levels, suggesting that if current trends continue, the unemployment rate may begin to tick upward. Another fiscal layer putting upward pressure on the unemployment rate is the efforts of D.O.G.E. and their reduction of the federal workforce. It’s not clear what the full ramifications of austerity will be, but I believe it will profoundly impact the growth and health of the economy.

The administration is considering imposing fees on Chinese-built or Chinese-flagged ships visiting US ports to counter China’s dominance in global shipbuilding. What are the potential economic implications of such fees on US retailers and manufacturers?

In the best-case scenario, imposing fees on Chinese-built or Chinese-flagged ships will immediately increase shipping costs, adding another price increase, borne by consumers. The most likely scenario, however, is that not only will we see prices increase, but we will also see short-term congestion in ports and shifts in global trade patterns, likely compounding the price increases. Estimates suggest that this import tariff will impact about 80% of cargo ships calling at US ports, which may lead to containerships porting in Mexico and Canada, further impacting consumers. This proposal seems to be driving more imports through Mexico and Canada, which runs against President Trump’s goal of reducing imports from these nations.

Some market analysts have become more cautious about US stocks, citing weak economic data and policy uncertainty. How do you interpret the current stock market trends, and what advice would you offer to investors?

Throughout the second half of 2024 and into 2025, economic data has mostly come in better than expected, according to Citigroup’s economic surprise index, with the S&P 500 trending up over this time until reaching all-time highs in December 2024. Since then, President Trump’s inauguration and the flurry of executive orders that followed, US and global equity markets have reflected the volatility in fiscal policy and are in a holding pattern right now, trading sideways year-to-date. Markets are waiting to see if the Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese tariffs go into effect on March 4th or if there will be another round of delays and negotiations. Long-term investors can take advantage of this situation to invest capital back into this asset class, as long-term average returns have outpaced most other available asset classes. Short-term investors will continue to find attractive risk-adjusted returns in US Treasury bonds, taking advantage of short-term mispricings in UK and EU equity markets.

Recent surveys indicate that inflation fears, partly due to tariffs, are affecting consumer confidence. How do you perceive the current state of consumer confidence, and what steps can be taken to restore it?

Consumers are acutely aware of grocery store and gasoline prices and use those price changes as their inflation gauge. Since last year, consumers have seen a 53% increase in the price of eggs versus an overall 2.5% increase in food prices. The avian flu continues to contribute to pricing pressure, with the Trump administration outlining fiscal relief for farmers. Over the same time, consumers are struggling to unwind long-term inflation expectations, with expectations reaching roughly 3.5%, a 30-year high, which significantly outpaces the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate of 2%. With new tariffs thrown into the mix, consumers are likely bracing for the worst. For consumers to regain confidence in the economy, the White House would have to peel back inflationary efforts, especially the stimulus refund that D.O.G.E. is planning.

Proposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico are expected to impose significant costs on the US economy, potentially driving up prices for essential goods. What is your stance on these tariffs, and how do you anticipate they will affect the broader economy?

I think these tariffs will be inflationary in the short run. There’s almost no economic theory that suggests otherwise. In the long run, however, the broader impacts are yet to be seen. If businesses believe that tariffs will be repealed after President Trump’s term, they may choose to weather some revenue declines rather than reinvest into lower-returning reshored production. Another likely outcome will be that businesses will use countries’ production capabilities that bypass the import taxes. The Trump administration is already planning for these changes by proposing taxes on Chinese-owned and operated cargo ships. I think customers will be worse off overall. We’ve already heard from some tech CEOs, and businesses, indicating consumers should expect price increases in the coming months. As these price increases begin to compound, voters will begin to question the choices of the current administration.

Despite recent challenges, the US economy has shown resilience with a 2.3% growth in the October-December quarter. What is your outlook for the US economy in the coming months, and what factors will be most influential?

Businesses almost surely will have expected President Trump’s tariff message, as it was a key campaign goal for his term. Firms that are dependent on imported inventories will likely get ahead of the March 4th deadline, while those that cannot will just have to price in the expected taxes. Current estimates for Q1 2025 suggest steep declines in real GDP, a sharp departure from the growth the US economy has seen in recent years. Part of this may be due to an import imbalance, as firms pull forward inventories ahead of the tariffs, but the larger factor will be consumers feeling the pinch and deciding to forgo purchases.

The Federal Reserve has been actively involved in managing inflation and economic stability. How do you evaluate the Fed’s recent policies, and what role do you see it playing in addressing current economic challenges?

The Federal Reserve, our nation’s central bank, is committed to stable prices, targeting a flexible average inflation rate of 2% and maximum employment. In response to recent inflationary pressures, Jerome Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) have decided on a series of hikes to the federal funds rate, which helps to determine mortgage and credit card rates, among others. Hiking from March 2022 to August 2023, until rates reached the target range of 5.25 to 5.5%, it wasn’t until a year later that rates began to decline by 100 basis points. The Federal Reserve still sees inflation as its primary concern and believes the labour market can withstand persistently higher rates. The Federal Reserve aims to act independently from the White House. Jerome Powell and the Fed are committed to being reactionary to changes in fiscal policy rather than proactive in their approach to managing rates and will take a wait-and-see approach. If inflation materialises, as I and many economists predict, the Fed will likely delay rate cuts. The market is still pricing in about three rate cuts in 2025, even with inflation looming. If the Fed cuts rates, it won’t be until the second half of 2025 when more inflation data has landed. Treasury yields falling by 50 basis points from January 2025 should provide some slack for the Fed having to make immediate policy decisions. The market expects rates to remain steady at the March FOMC meeting. The Fed will continue to be data-dependent but is certainly cautious of the inflationary fiscal policy measures taken by President Trump.

The post Consumers will bear the burden of new tariffs: Professor Jason Reed appeared first on International Finance.