As the 2026 midterm elections approach, all three of those pledges are far from being fulfilled, and the reason is a collision between two of his own decisions. First is the decision to strike Iran, and the second is taxing imports at the highest rate in more than a century.

The consequences are showing up where voters feel them most directly, at the gas pump, in the grocery aisle, and at car dealerships. Surveys show consumer confidence at record lows. If the pain persists into November, Donald Trump’s Republicans could face a serious reckoning at the ballot box.

A war that reignited inflation

In late February, Donald Trump ordered joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Tehran swiftly responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel in the Persian Gulf through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes daily. That one decision triggered an enormous energy price shock that economists say has reversed much of the hard-won progress the United States made on inflation during 2024 and 2025.

Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, surged from about $70 per barrel before the conflict to over $110 at its peak after Iran shut the strait. When Tehran briefly signalled a partial reopening, prices fell below $90, only to climb back above $105 as tensions remained high. The US benchmark, WTI crude, approached $96. As a direct result, US inflation accelerated to 3.3% in March 2026, the highest rate in two years, driven largely by fuel.

The OECD now warns that US headline inflation could hit approximately 4.2% in 2026, up from a previous forecast of just 3%.

The IMF’s managing director, Kristalina Georgieva, has described the situation as a “reversal” of what had been a positive trajectory for prices. Simply put, two years of painful interest-rate increases to bring inflation under control have been significantly set back in a matter of weeks.

Gas prices as political poison

Since the Iran strikes began, pump prices across the United States have risen by roughly 50 cents per gallon, with station price boards changing numbers almost daily in some areas. In California, the average has already crossed five dollars per gallon.

Nationally, analysts expect average US gasoline prices to head toward three dollars fifty if oil stays above $100. The national average was already at $4.16 per gallon on April 8, up from $3.25 just a month earlier, according to AAA data.

Polling shows that voters are angry and anxious. A Reuters/Ipsos survey in early March found that 67% of Americans expect gas prices to get worse over the next year as a result of the Iran campaign.

That fear cuts across party lines. Over 44% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats share it. Only 29% of respondents approved of the strikes at all, and 64% said Trump had never clearly explained what the United States was trying to achieve.

A separate Pew Research survey later in March found that 69% of Americans were worried about rising fuel costs from the conflict. Nearly six in ten Republicans told Pew that gas prices were their biggest concern about the war, while close to eight in ten Democrats said the same.

That bipartisan pain matters enormously heading into November. When a President’s own supporters feel the squeeze at the pump every time they fill their tank, the political shelter that wartime solidarity usually offers starts to crack. Inflation, unlike foreign policy abstractions, is something voters experience personally and remember when they vote.

More than petrol

The disruption to the Strait of Hormuz has inflicted damage well beyond fuel prices. Oil is a raw material for plastics, fertilisers and chemicals, so when its price spikes, the cost of hundreds of everyday products rises in turn. Shipping routes have been disrupted, adding delays and costs throughout global supply chains.

Researchers at the Dallas Federal Reserve modelled the inflation impact depending on how long Hormuz stays restricted. If it remains closed for one quarter, it adds roughly 0.35 percentage points to 2026 inflation.

Two quarters of closure add 0.79 percentage points. Three-quarters would add approximately 1.47 percentage points on top of existing pressures. These figures translate directly into higher prices on goods ranging from groceries to building materials, even if the war itself ends.

OECD economists also note that because of the way prices ripple through supply chains, households will still be feeling the effects in rent, transport costs and consumer goods as they head to the polls in November.

The tariff tax

The Iran shock is not arriving in a vacuum. It is hitting on top of a separate cost increase that Donald Trump himself created. Namely, his sweeping tariff programme, which has imposed taxes on imported goods at levels the United States has not seen in over a hundred years.

When Trump’s second term began, the average effective tariff rate, the actual percentage tax paid on imports, stood at roughly 2.5%. By April 2025, it had jumped to an estimated 27%, the highest in more than a century.

Legal challenges and negotiated deals have since brought it down to approximately 11.8% as of early 2026, with CNN tracking the effective rate at around 16.8% by the end of 2026.

Even at those reduced levels, the tax burden on imported goods is vastly higher than anything Americans faced before Trump’s second term. Initially, companies absorbed most of the extra costs rather than passing them on to shoppers.

In 2025, the US government collected roughly $187 billion more in tariff revenue than in 2024, almost a 200% increase, and businesses covered an estimated 80% of those costs internally. But that cushion is being depleted.

JPMorgan analysts and industry consultants warn that the corporate share of these costs could fall to around 20% in 2026 as pre-tariff stockpiles run out and businesses begin repricing. The bill is now migrating to household budgets.

What does it cost a family

Research by the Centre for American Progress, drawing on Harvard Business School analysis, found that between October 2024 and March 2025, prices of everyday nondurable goods such as cleaning products and toilet paper rose approximately 5%.

Furnishings climbed around 8%. Clothing jumped roughly 14%. A Yale Budget Lab estimate puts the ultimate annual cost to the average US household at approximately $1,700 once tariffs are fully passed through.

Food is now entering the pressure zone as well. Tariff effects typically take 12 to 18 months to work through to consumer prices fully, meaning peak pressure will fall between April and October 2026, right in the heart of election season.

Food prices were already up 2.9% year-on-year in January 2026. Yale’s modelling implies an effective annual food cost increase of around $1,500 for a typical household once tariff effects are fully felt. Combined with higher fuel bills, those numbers become punishing for families already stretched thin after years of post-pandemic inflation.

The sharpest tariff increases fall on metals, vehicles, electrical equipment and computers, raising the cost of cars, appliances and new home construction. Consumer goods with thin margins and heavy import dependence, such as coffee and fresh produce, have seen particularly sharp price swings.

For a middle-income family, the combined effect feels less like an America-first economic strategy and more like being squeezed from every direction at once.

Collapsing confidence

The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment, one of the most closely watched measures of how Americans feel about the economy, fell to a record low in April 2026. The US dollar has also weakened to its lowest point in four years.

While a weaker dollar helps American exporters, it also makes imported goods more expensive, piling onto the inflation already generated by tariffs and the energy shock. JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon, writing in his annual shareholder letter on April 6, laid out the compounding risk in stark terms.

“Now, because of the war in Iran, we additionally face the potential for significant ongoing oil and commodity price shocks, along with the reshaping of global supply chains, which may lead to stickier inflation and ultimately higher interest rates than markets currently expect,” said the document.

Donald Trump’s standing on the Iran conflict itself remains fragile. The same Reuters/Ipsos poll showing only 29% approval for the strikes found that roughly two-thirds of respondents felt the administration had never given a clear picture of what military victory was supposed to look like. When people see their purchasing power shrinking without a clear benefit to offset that sacrifice, frustration tends to find expression in protest votes, especially in the tightly contested districts that decide control of Congress.

Running out of road

Donald Trump could still seek a diplomatic de-escalation with Iran, but after framing the military campaign as a defining test of American resolve, any visible retreat risks being labelled as capitulation.

He could roll back tariffs to ease household budgets, but that would contradict a central pillar of his economic philosophy and anger the constituencies that have benefited from protection.

The White House has already quietly delayed planned tariffs on some furniture and Italian pasta in early 2026, a move analysts read as political damage control rather than principled policy. Wall Street has coined the nickname “TO,” standing for “Totally Chicken Out,” for the administration’s pattern of pulling back from tariff threats whenever markets or polls react badly, suggesting investors see trade policy as more performative than strategic.

Piecemeal retreats like these, however, may not be sufficient to change how voters feel about their household bills by November.

The Dallas Fed’s research suggests that even a relatively brief Hormuz disruption will keep inflation elevated through the end of 2026. The 12-to-18-month lag for tariff pass-through means price pressures will be near their peak immediately before Election Day.

Independent analysts estimate that Donald Trump’s combined policies will cost typical households between $1,500 and $1,700 per year. Consumer sentiment is already at a record low. Neither has the conflict toppled Iran’s leadership, nor has it delivered the concessions the White House sought.

However, the combined arithmetic of oil shocks and tariff costs is already eroding Trump’s standing at home, and as November approaches, his most dangerous political adversary may not be a foreign one, but the monthly household budget.

The post Trump’s war, tariffs squeeze American wallets appeared first on International Finance.

Stating that smaller developers face higher pre-development costs due to the disruptions in the supply chains, amid the ongoing Strait of Hormuz blockade, Fitch also cited the rising debt costs across the GCC region as a threat to the industry. Not only has the ratio touched its five-year highs, but banks are now treating smaller projects as high-risk, thereby making the loans expensive and hard to secure.

“In the current scenario, there is liquidity in the market because real estate in Abu Dhabi and Dubai is heavily regulated, with funds held in escrow, based on completion,” said Paul Lund, Head of Corporate Ratings, Middle East & Africa, Fitch, while interacting with Zawya.

According to Lund, if the Iran war drags on further, the risk of committed investors cancelling or adopting a more cautious investment approach could eventually weigh on developers, forcing them to adjust their operational plans due to shrinking market opportunities.

“What that means is reducing the number of developments or extending project [deadlines] further into the future. But the big question on liquidity is the degree to which developers have committed to their land banks. The speed at which developers build on those land banks can eat into their liquidity,” Lund remarked.

Noting the existing practice of developers using land banks (often through partnerships) to unlock liquidity, improve capital efficiency and shift pre-development market risk, the senior Fitch official continued, “This is why I think developers like Binghatti are pushing more into villas, which are more horizontal and easier to manage timelines on.”

“We have effectively put a sector ratings watch on some Dubai home builders, including Binghatti and Omniyat. The starting position of those ratings is quite good. These companies have strong liquidity. They have large amounts of funds in escrow to support the new developments. Plus, both developers had a bond issuance to finance their build programmes,” Lund concluded.

The post Fitch raises liquidity concerns of UAE real estate players appeared first on International Finance.

Deployed over the 2026-2028 period, E-STAR will provide rapid, demand-driven support to help countries maintain essential services, secure critical imports, protect development progress and strengthen resilience against future shocks.

OPEC Fund President Dr. Abdulhamid Alkhalifa said: “Many of our partner countries are facing immediate pressure from higher costs, tighter financing conditions and disruption to critical trade flows. E-STAR is designed to respond quickly and where it matters most: helping countries keep essential services running, secure critical supplies and stay on track with their development priorities. At a time of uncertainty, this is about delivering practical support and reinforcing partnership.”

Recent developments in the Middle East are adding to pressures in energy and commodity markets as well as international trade flows, contributing to inflation, higher import costs and tighter financing conditions. For many developing economies, these pressures are already straining budgets, trade balances and growth prospects.

E-STAR initiative focuses on three priority areas:

Counter-cyclical support: Fast-disbursing financing to help governments manage rising import costs and tighter financing conditions, while keeping essential services running.

Trade finance: Support to secure the supply of key goods, including energy, food and agricultural inputs, by helping countries and businesses access working capital and keep critical trade flows moving.

Resilience building: Targeted investments in energy, transport and logistics infrastructure to strengthen supply chains, support continuity of essential imports and reduce exposure to future disruptions.

To date, the OPEC Fund has committed more than USD 32 billion to development projects in over 125 countries with an estimated total project cost of more than USD 240 billion.

The post OPEC Fund launches E-STAR to boost economic resilience appeared first on International Finance.

Artisanal mining has been a job generator on a global level, and in Africa, it often operates informally on or near company-run mines, hitting their profits, spreading pollution and depriving nations of revenue. To address this, the proposed “stakeholder prosperity bond,” according to Rob Karpati, Veridicor’s finance director, aims to professionalise artisanal mining.

The instrument will link investor returns to predefined social and environmental outcomes for workers, communities and host economies rather than output.

“The debut issuance would raise between USD 100 ‌million and USD 200 million by ⁠year-end to help ⁠Metalex Commodities integrate artisanal and small-scale miners through regulated offtake agreements as well as shared infrastructure and equipment investment,” Reuters reported.

“Potential investors include European sustainability bond funds, impact and ‌mining investors, banks and wealthy individuals focused on sustainability,” ⁠the firms said.

“Zambia, Africa’s second-largest copper producer, hosts tens of thousands of artisanal miners, including around Metalex’s northwestern permit. Large mines tend to be the anchor of these because it’s got to go on someone’s balance sheet,” Karpati said.

“They end up gaining financially because they get offtake from it, and the artisanal miners gain financially because it’s a fair price, not some predatory intermediate,” the official added.

“Industrial mines would sit at the centre of each bond structure to support repayment, while sustainability-linked terms would adjust interest rates based ‌on social and environmental performance,” Karpati remarked.

Metalex founder and chief executive Ayo Sopitan said the bond would allow the company to run large programmes that integrate artisanal miners into its supply chain.

“We plan to source around 30% of our ore from trained, licensed local miners. The bond lets us do that at a much ‌larger scale than our balance sheet alone would allow,” he said.

The post Africa’s first stakeholder prosperity bond: All you need to know appeared first on International Finance.

The goal was simple: securing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and semiconductor supply chains, with countries like the US, Australia, Greece, Israel, Japan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Singapore, the UAE, and the United Kingdom feeling the urge to derisk their supply chains in the coming years. In February 2026, the group saw a notable entry, with India, the world’s fourth-largest economy, joining the alliance.

When talking about the Pax Silica, Jacob Helberg, US Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs, told CNBC, “Pax Silica is really not about China, it is about America. We want to secure our supply chains.”

But then, the question remains: to secure from whom?

Let’s go back to October 2025, when the Xi Jinping-led China decided to tighten export controls for its critical rare-earth metals, effectively turning the global economy’s dependence upon these materials into a strategic leverage.

So, if we look at the developments that made the headlines since October 2025, we may be witnessing a phenomenon where globalisation is evolving into a pattern where it is picking sides, with supply chains getting reorganised along geopolitical lines. Is it going against the core principle of globalisation as a concept itself, which preaches the growing interdependence of the economies, cultures, and populations, facilitated by factors like cross-border trade in goods and services, technology, flow of investment, people and information.

Weaponised supply chain

Let’s go back to October 2025 again, when China announced its ’announcement number 61 of 2025’, increasing export controls for five rare-earth metals in addition to the seven the Xi Jinping administration announced in April in the same year.

Out of the 17 rare-earth metals in total, China put export restrictions on 12 of them. Not stopping there, it also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment required to refine rare-earth metals. Foreign companies were mandated to obtain special approvals from Beijing if they wished to export rare-earth magnets and certain semiconductor materials containing a minimum 0.1% heavy rare-earth metals from the world’s second-largest economy.

Citing the rationale of national security interests for the move, which has been in effect since December 2025, China made sure that foreign companies end up explaining the intended use of the product they wish to make using Chinese rare-earth metals, attacking the very basis of globalisation, which advocates unrestricted flow of cross-border trade in goods, services and technology.

The Xi Jinping administration, however, believes that since rare-earth-related items have dual-use properties for civilian and military applications, implementing export controls on them is an ’international practice’.

In October 2025, the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson told these exact things to the global media: “Certain foreign organisations and individuals have been directly transferring – or processing and then transferring – controlled rare-earth materials originating from China to relevant organisations and individuals directly or indirectly for military and other sensitive applications.”

Rare-earth metals are used in the production of electric cars, lithium-ion batteries, LED televisions, AI semiconductors and camera lenses. Most importantly, these raw materials are crucial for the US defence industry. According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank, rare earths are used to manufacture components of F-35 fighter jets, Virginia and Columbia-class submarines, Tomahawk missiles, radar systems, Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, and the Joint Direct Attack Munition series of smart bombs.

In 2023 alone, the United States emerged as the largest importer of Chinese rare-earth minerals and products, importing $22.8 million worth of products from the world’s second-largest economy, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). China, in total, exported $117 million in rare-earth metals and products that year. As per the US Geological Survey report, Washington sourced 70% of its rare-earth compounds and metals imports from China between 2020 and 2023.

Some argue that China’s weaponisation of its rare-earth supply chain is a strong response to the United States limiting Beijing’s access to semiconductors in 2022. The policy, formed under the watch of the previous Democrat administration, led by Joe Biden, hasn’t changed at all, even in 2026. And the approach has been a bipartisan one, with some American lawmakers even pushing for greater restrictions, warning that Beijing could reverse-engineer or independently develop advanced semiconductor technologies, with the bid to overtake Uncle Sam in both technological and military terms. The ongoing tariff conflict between the two sides has complicated matters since the start of Trump 2.0.

Pax Silica countering Chinese pressure?

Rahul Nath Choudhury, a Delhi-based economist specialised in international trade, trade policy, investment, advisory and research who has handled several economic and trade-related projects for the Government of India’s Ministry of Commerce, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, International Finance Corporation and Singapore government’s Ministry of Trade and Industry, told International Finance that globalisation has always been transactional and geopolitically inclined towards the countries that are politically and strategically aligned and share common interests.

“Inter-country blocks, such as BRICS, ASEAN, and the EU, all have some common features. The emerging incidents like trade war, political unrest, and civil disorder have further influenced the decision of various countries to align or tilt towards like-minded countries and reduce the impact of global uncertainties. This is evident as countries increasingly enter into trade, investment and strategic agreements, with those countries that are geopolitically aligned, rather than purely based on commercial efficiency,” he said.

On the other hand, Derek Scissors, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, whose research concerns the Chinese, Indian, Japanese and other Asian economies, and their connections to the American economy, commented, “Globalisation was initiated and led by the US. The Trump administration wants to partly reverse that, to make trade and investment more transactional. However, Trump administration agreements are being reached without approval from the US Congress, and may not last beyond 2028. The long-term path for globalisation is unclear. The global economy may fade somewhat in favour of regional blocs. It’s hard to see China’s goal of taking a dominant position in as many supply chains as possible being compatible with the goals of other large economies.”

However, there is no doubt that China is weaponising its supply chains. Given that it is the largest producer of rare-earth metals, mining at least 60% and processes about 90% of these resources (as per CSIS’s report in 2024), it is going to use this as a leverage to gain a position of dominance in global geopolitics.

This raises questions about the idea of a deeply connected global economy.

Stating that he doesn’t believe in a deeply connected global economy, Derek said, “All the connections and associations have always been among like-minded countries that share common interests. We are now experiencing the emergence of a bipolar/ multipolar world where power is no longer concentrated with one country. The entire concept of a deeply connected global economy is getting reshaped with the advancement of new developments. The idea of ‘Pax Silica’ also brings together like-minded nations, which, in turn, reflects a broader shift toward concentrated globalisation, instead of one integrated global system.”

The trend now is “China Plus One”

A new feature of the post-pandemic global order is the ‘China Plus One’ business strategy. Companies are now diversifying their supply chains and manufacturing bases beyond China, adding alternative locations in Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand or India. The reason: mitigate business and supply chain-related exposure to China, given the geopolitical tensions that crop up often between the world’s second-largest economy and the United States-led Western Bloc.

Tim Cook-led Apple has become the brand ambassador of this practice. The iPhone maker has been aggressively diversifying its supply chain in the last couple of years, placing its bets on Vietnam and India. Till COVID-19 showed up, China used to be at the centre of everything Apple used to do, especially in terms of manufacturing. Then, as the pandemic kicked in, lockdowns in key manufacturing hubs like Zhengzhou, dubbed ’iPhone City’, caused severe production bottlenecks and shipment delays for the American giant, ultimately impacting the global product availability.

Also, given that bilateral trade relations between the world’s two largest economies have been anything but normal, manufacturing and shipping products from China will always face the risk of being tariffed.

So, Apple wanted a resilient and future-proof manufacturing network and, in that pursuit, found their answers in Vietnam and India, with advantages like considerable lower labour costs, attractive government policies, and import tariff rates suiting high-tech manufacturing, and, most importantly, capturing the lion’s share of one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing smartphone markets (again India), while maintaining its sales and profits lead in the home market of United States.

Rahul Nath says, “The China Plus One strategy does not seem to be over. Companies in various parts of the world are still exploring the option of relocating their base from China to other locations, despite it being a very difficult task. I don’t see this ending in the near future, at least in 2026.”

Derek, however, had a nuanced view of the unfolding scenario.

“The China Plus One strategy is much more a response to predatory Chinese policies than US-China decoupling. The problem with American policy is its inconsistency, as with President Trump being extremely conciliatory to China prior to his trip to Beijing at the end of March 2025,” he noted.

Another trend, which is also likely to redefine the transactional nature of the neo-globalisation, is ’friend-shoring’, which is already happening in domains like technology and semiconductors, with politically allied nations (read Uncle Sam and his friends) strategically relocating supply chains in a way to gradually reduce dependence on China.

Initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act in the US, implemented by the Joe Biden administration, incentivise domestic semiconductor manufacturing while mandating that companies receiving federal funds restrict capacity expansion in China. While preventing access to high-end semiconductors for China, to maintain an edge over Beijing in the AI race, has been a consistent policy take in the White House, irrespective of the administration’s political alignment, ’Pax Silica’ in 2026, looks like an extension of a ’Minus China’ approach – building resilient, secure, and trusted networks for critical components without Beijing.

On this, Rahul Nath said, “Today, every major government is trying to reshape their supply chains in a way that insulates them from geopolitical risks. This is affecting big businesses in all areas and influencing their strategy and investment decisions. The semiconductor industry is particularly active in responding to these changes. According to a report by The Engineer, manufacturers from the EU and the US are increasingly moving their supply chains to North America, the UK, Mexico, Vietnam, India and North Africa to minimise geopolitical risks and increase proximity to key markets. Several major projects are underway in North America. Numerous new semiconductor factories are being built in the US and Europe to boost regional production and reduce dependence on Asian suppliers.”

Middle powers’ strategic cooperation path

Hurt by China’s rare-earth minerals’ export control in 2025, European policymakers have taken a new stance, which is basically a ’do no harm’ approach. Bilateral engagement continues, while carefully avoiding escalation. And Donald Trump’s maverick approach to the continent, especially in the garb of resetting trade ties, is forcing the European leadership to seek diplomatic and commercial reassurance from the Xi Jinping government, despite structural issues like widening trade imbalances, persistent concerns over industrial overcapacity, growing unease over economic coercion risks, and China’s continued alignment with Russia remaining firmly in place.

Canada, United States’ all-weather North American ally, too, has faced a tariff onslaught from the Trump administration, forcing Ottawa to reassess its economic ties with Beijing, which were marked by years of tension on account of tariffs, import restrictions, and diplomatic disputes.

In fact, India, the latest entrant to the Pax Silica, was another global player which got hurt by Uncle Sam’s strong-arming tactics. It resulted in the Narendra Modi-led government increasing its engagement with the BRICS (supposed rival of the G7), while increasing economic engagement with China and Russia.

So, even if we take into consideration the fact that the above-mentioned incidents were results of short-term policy blips from the White House, the fact remains, there are players like India, Canada and Europe, who believe in the concept of a ’multi-polar world’, where instead of overcommitting to one particular geopolitical block, interest-driven approach will rule foreign policy and diplomacy.

Scissors said, “India is big enough to stand on its own, but only if it pursues reforms much more aggressively. Labour laws continue to favour existing workers, with the result that new workers cannot contribute properly to the economy. The demographic boom is being repressed. Smaller, but still sizable economies, should place their long-term bets on the US. America has pulled away from China in GDP over the past decade, and has a history, at least, of being open to its partners. However, these countries should also protect themselves from US policy shifts over the next three years.”

“All these middle powers are aligning or re-aligning with one or other superpowers. Global South nations are forming new trade alliances and partnerships that sidestep the US and the EU. India’s changing approach towards FTAs and partnering with new economies, like Australia and the UAE, shows its participation in bloc-based trade realignment,” Rahul Nath concluded.

The post Pax Silica: The new global order appeared first on International Finance.

In the words of Daniel Sokolovsky, the co-founder and CEO of Warp, the start-up is always looking for ways to make shipping more efficient for its customers, which include large businesses like Walmart, Gopuff, and HelloFresh. As artificial intelligence (AI) has become the new norm in the 21st-century world economy, the company now believes there are opportunities through which supply chains can be further automated.

Sokolovsky told TechCrunch that while Warp can’t automate long-haul trucking or short-range delivery aspects of the supply chain, it focuses on what it can change: the workflows inside its warehouses.

Engineering Logistics At Scale

Warp started its journey by installing cameras in its test warehouse in Los Angeles, using computer vision to convert that data into a virtual warehouse for experimentation.

“We effectively made a digital twin, or simulation environment, for our LA facility. \[We] basically started just throwing stuff at the wall. Honestly, a lot of it was, ‘What happens if we do this? What happens if we do that? What happens if we do that other thing?’” Sokolovsky said.

One of the start-up’s first ideas was to train humanoid robots to use traditional pallet jacks, but it didn’t work. Then, Warp started to find success using off-the-shelf robots with additional tech retrofitted onto them.

“We’ve taken really, really complicated logistics problems, divided them into a lot of easily digestible, system-understood, and system-fed components. We are now using, whether it’s AI in the form of voice, text, email, phone calls, or robotics, \[to ensure] that we’re unloading, storing, and reloading freight. We actually think that we can continue this and really reach our goals as quickly as possible, without hiring more people,” Sokolovsky added.

Warp’s co-founder and CRO (Chief Revenue Officer), Troy Lester, said that these robots will help support Warp’s underlying warehouse partners (other than its Los Angeles test facility). The start-up doesn’t outright own the warehouses in its network, a move that helps reduce labour costs.

“They’re complaining to us about staffing issues all the time. The labour that’s doing the work in these facilities isn’t happy either. So, I think there is an opportunity to empower those businesses to have these robotic kits that would not only help make our network better but also improve their business with other companies,” Lester said.

Warp has raised USD 10 million in its latest Series A round, co-led by Up.Partners and Blue Bear Capital. The start-up is testing several different versions of the robots, with the goal of deploying them by the end of 2025.

The start-up has optimised everything from hyperlocal parcel movement to national freight networks. In doing so, Warp uncovered a massive flaw in the LTL (Less Than Truckload) system, finding that it’s not suitable for modern supply chains, as the mechanism is slow, rigid, and most importantly, blind to the precision today’s shippers demand. To address this, Warp has brought its digital hub-and-spoke network into play, aiming to transform the middle mile and move freight the way it should.

Meet The Solutions

Warp’s LTL solutions allow users to share trucks and cross-dock space, cutting costs without compromising the quality. The start-up consolidates freight with others, maximising efficiency and minimising clients’ transportation costs—all while keeping deliveries fast, reliable, and sustainable.

While conventional LTL methods have drawbacks like class-based pricing, reweighs, rebills, and hidden fees, which make invoices unpredictable and drive up costs, there are also issues such as inefficient transit with multiple touchpoints, long dwell times, and inconsistent routing that lead to delays and missed delivery windows.

Additionally, limited tracking and inconsistent scan data leave shippers in the dark about shipment status. Excessive handling at terminals often increases the risk of damaged or lost freight, while limited vehicle types, lack of temperature-controlled solutions, and inflexible scheduling often fail to meet diverse shipping needs.

Addressing these drawbacks, Warp’s LTL solution optimises smaller shipments into fuller loads, cutting costs and eliminating LTL inefficiencies, in addition to offering per-pallet rates that eliminate class-based pricing, reweighs, or rebills. The solution also provides tailored options for scheduled deliveries, on-demand pickups, and temperature-controlled freight to fit customers’ needs.

Clients can also choose from a range of vehicles, including cargo vans, box trucks with lift gates, drop trailers, and 53-foot temperature-controlled trucks for any load size. Lastly, live updates, scan-in/scan-out tracking, and POD confirmation ensure complete transparency from pickup to delivery.

Launched less than a year ago with 14 core lanes, the LTL network now spans over 500 digitally connected lanes, representing a 3,400%+ increase, as the company aggressively scales its alternative to traditional terminal-based freight.

Next is “Inbound Consolidation,” under which Warp consolidates its clients’ purchase orders and optimises appointment scheduling at the start-up’s digital cross-dock. The integrated process then delivers freight efficiently to the final destination. This solution boosts load efficiency by merging shipments, reducing empty space, while achieving measurable cost savings and speed.

Businesses can optimise their freight flow with consolidated deliveries, cutting administrative tasks while boosting efficiency and transit speed, in addition to cutting transportation costs by uniting shipments into one efficient delivery, lowering freight expenses and fuel consumption. Consolidated shipments reduce hand-offs and errors, ensuring dependable schedules and consistent deliveries.

Through “Pool Distribution,” Warp harnesses shared routes to consolidate similar shipments, reducing costs and transit times while providing real-time visibility and streamlining operations for efficient middle-mile logistics. The start-up’s digital routes optimise delivery speed and precision across all stops, while consolidating shipments via a digital network to reduce costs and improve delivery speed.

Smarter routing also results in fewer trucks on the road, reducing emissions and enhancing efficiency. Finally, smart shipment tracking and data-driven delivery scheduling make the whole solution cutting-edge.

Efficient, Reliable Delivery For Bulky Items

Warp has engineered a home delivery solution for oversized freight that avoids the usual pain points. Since products like saunas, furniture, and treadmills don’t fit into parcel or standard LTL systems, the start-up uses appropriately sized box trucks and cargo vans, routed directly from cross-docks to customers’ homes. This solution is also streamlined, ensuring efficient deliveries with fewer touchpoints and, most importantly, no inflated charges.

By bypassing congested sorting hubs, Warp eliminates bottlenecks and reduces transit times for parcel shipments. Combining real-time tracking, optimised routing, and a versatile fleet, Warp offers a seamless, efficient zone-skipping service for faster and more reliable deliveries.

Also, Warp reportedly helped an apparel retailer save over 27% by using the same trucks and cross-docks for inbound and outbound shipments, cutting costs and ensuring on-time deliveries. Cross-docking and zone-skipping also reduced delivery times by 20%, keeping shelves stocked.

The post Start-up of the Week: Warp streamlines supply chains with AI appeared first on International Finance.

The crisis has led to rising costs through various channels. With 90% of shipping traffic from the region diverted around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, shipping costs have risen by 15% to 30%, and journey times have increased by 6 to 25 days. While rerouting around Africa has a negligible delay effect on most routes, the Asia-Europe route is a notable exception. Redirecting also increases the risk of port congestion and cancelled shipments. For instance, due to shipping delays, several car manufacturers have temporarily paused production at their European plants.

The World Bank notes that, by the end of 2024, around a year after the crisis began, the strategic Suez and Bab El-Mandeb straits, which once carried 30% of world container traffic, had been cut by three-quarters. At the same time, trade diversions have transformed port activity along the Asia-Europe Corridor, changing the fortunes of key hubs. For example, South Asian ports, such as Colombo, have seized the opportunity to capture more regional cargoes, while Gulf countries have adopted alternative solutions, such as the newly established land link from the Gulf ports to Haifa, bypassing the conflict zones. Reduced traffic, however, led to a 50% drop in Suez Canal revenues.

The crisis in the region has also led to escalating trade costs due to increased war risk insurance premiums, which are often used for maritime insurance of ships navigating through high-risk areas during the conflict. According to the World Bank, war risk premiums for the Red Sea, which were reported at a meagre 0.07% before the Israel-Hamas conflict began in October 2023, had risen to almost 0.7% by December 2023.

The Middle East crisis also threatens to disrupt supply chains and affect the availability of goods, which, in turn, leads to price volatility in the concerned markets. Delays in critical components are disrupting global supply chains. Oil-dependent sectors are facing higher input costs, as countries heavily dependent on oil imports from the Middle East are running larger trade deficits. With a quarter of the world’s urea coming from the Middle East, the shortage of fertilisers raises the cost of food production as well.

Given that 80% of India’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the Middle East crisis continues to put the country’s energy security at risk. Further, with an estimated 9 million Indian workers in the region, the escalating conflicts pose a risk for the potential loss of jobs and the inflow of remittances from the region, which stood at around US$ 50 billion in 2023.

Since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect on January 19, 2025, disruptions to global maritime trade have been largely contained. The World Bank estimates that, if the crisis is resolved by May 2025, the growth of maritime trade in the Red Sea Neighbourhood will increase by about 6%, and by about 5% in the EU, compared to their baseline scenario, where the crisis was to last until October 2025.

Although the current situation is very different from the Suez Canal blockade of 2021, which caused an estimated $6-$10 billion in global trade losses, it underlines the potential intensity of the economic impact if the regional crisis continues. While the escalation of the Middle East crisis will continue to impact global trade volume, the nature of the global response is likely to be marked by a broad shift toward trade diversification—in terms of logistics strategies and markets—rather than trade reduction, with a shift in priority toward near-shoring.

The post Will global trade be impacted by Middle East crisis? appeared first on International Finance.

The economic impact of ongoing conflicts in this volatile region cannot be understated, and as recent events unfold, it becomes crucial to analyse what it means for the interconnected global economy. The conflicts involving Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran have resulted in significant loss of life and economic damage.

Moreover, the escalating tensions have raised concerns about the potential onset of a broader global conflict, with some experts warning that the current situation could spark World War III if regional actors and global superpowers are drawn into confrontation.

Clash of geopolitical interests

With Iran’s ongoing proxy warfare, Israel’s expanding occupation, and the involvement of Washington and Moscow in regional dynamics, the conditions are ripe for a scenario where a local conflict spirals into a full-scale global war. Such an outcome would have catastrophic economic consequences, plunging the world into recession and disrupting supply chains, global energy markets, and international trade.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has led to thousands of casualties. Lebanon, meanwhile, continues to struggle with economic collapse, worsened by clashes involving Hezbollah and Israel, which have caused hundreds of casualties and significant infrastructure damage.

The longstanding proxy conflict between Iran and Israel, on the other hand, has escalated into direct military confrontations, significantly altering the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. The international community is closely monitoring the situation, apprehensive about the possibility of a wider regional war.

This direct engagement underscores the fragility of Middle Eastern stability and the potential for significant geopolitical shifts resulting from the Iran-Israel confrontation.

These conflicts come at a time when fears of a global economic recession are heightened, exacerbated by the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, with Russia being one of the world’s biggest oil producers. The combined pressure from disrupted energy supplies and heightened geopolitical risk creates a precarious situation for the global economy.

World’s reliance on Middle East

The Middle East holds approximately 55.5% of the world’s proven crude oil reserves, with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) playing key roles in oil production. Whenever tensions escalate in this region, oil prices immediately react as uncertainty around oil supply chains heightens.

The most recent wave of conflict has already caused a sharp uptick in global oil prices The mere possibility of disrupted supply, or even the fear of a blockade in strategic choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 21% of global oil passes, sends markets into a frenzy react not only to physical disruptions but also to the perception of future threats, leading to price volatility, leading to inflation and increased costs across industries.

Industries ranging from aviation to plastics and logistics are all affected by rising energy costs. This, in turn, can slow down economic growth, as higher inflation usually prompts central banks to raise interest rates, making borrowing more expensive for businesses and consumers alike.

The Middle East’s geographic position is critical to global trade. The Suez Canal, for instance, is one of the world’s most important waterways, linking Europe to Asia. Any conflict that poses a risk to the security of this passage immediately impacts global shipping, causing delays and raising insurance costs for vessels navigating through the region.

In times of heightened tension, the risks for commercial vessels increase substantially, often resulting in surging insurance premiums known as “war risk” insurance. These additional costs get passed on to consumers, driving up the cost of goods globally. The longer these tensions persist, the greater the likelihood of shipping companies rerouting or slowing down operations, both of which contribute to supply chain disruptions and can cause shortages of goods, from consumer electronics to essential commodities.

Conflicts often lead to the imposition of economic sanctions, not just by countries directly involved but also by global powers like the United States, the European Union, or the United Nations. These sanctions can restrict trade, impact foreign investment, and limit access to international financial systems for those countries involved.

For instance, sanctions on Iran’s oil exports have historically caused significant shifts in the global oil market, reducing supply and causing price increases. Sanctions can also cause disruptions in the supply of other goods, such as petrochemicals, fertilisers, and metals, which are key exports from the region. As supply chains are disrupted, global industries dependent on these inputs, like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and automotive manufacturing, feel the pressure.

The secondary impact of sanctions also reverberates across countries that have significant trade relationships with the sanctioned nations. For example, European firms, which have substantial investments in Middle Eastern energy projects, often find themselves caught in the middle, unable to engage in their ventures without risking penalties.

Investor sentiment, market volatility and inflation

When war or conflict erupts, global stock markets often see heightened volatility, as investors flock toward safer assets like gold or American Treasury bonds. In October 2023, for instance, the price of gold rose by nearly 7% following escalations in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This movement of capital out of riskier markets can lead to temporary liquidity shortages and increased borrowing costs for businesses.

Emerging market economies, which are typically more vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment, are particularly impacted. In 2023, emerging markets saw a collective capital outflow of $15 billion during heightened tensions in the Middle East, leading to currency depreciations and potential economic instability in these regions.

Investors tend to pull funds out of these markets and place them in “safe havens,” such as US Treasury bonds. The global interconnectedness of today’s financial systems means that these effects aren’t isolated, economic slowdowns in emerging markets can have a cascading impact on global trade and investment flows.

Additionally, countries within the Middle East that are engaged in or adjacent to conflict zones often experience capital flight, where both local and foreign investors pull out their money due to fears of instability. For instance, Lebanon experienced capital flight amounting to nearly $5 billion in 2022 amidst ongoing instability. This diminishes growth prospects in these nations and further deters future foreign direct investment (FDI), leading to a vicious cycle of economic stagnation.

The global inflationary impact of a Middle East conflict extends beyond energy prices. The region is also a significant exporter of petrochemicals, fertilisers, and key agricultural products, accounting for approximately 25% of global petrochemical exports and 20% of global fertiliser supply. Disruption in the supply of these commodities can lead to rising input costs for agriculture around the world, driving food prices up.

For many developing economies, where a significant portion of household income (often more than 50%) goes towards food, this can exacerbate poverty levels and create social unrest. Rising fuel prices, which have increased by over 20% in the last year alone, also increase transportation costs, which further drives food inflation, creating a squeeze on both producers and consumers. The domino effect of higher food prices often forces central banks to adopt tighter monetary policies, potentially stalling economic growth and worsening income inequality.

The wider impact

The Israel-Palestine conflict has persisted for decades, and each resurgence brings with it a host of economic consequences. Israel is a significant player in technology and defence exports, and its robust economy often stands in stark contrast to the Palestinian territories, which face chronic underdevelopment and resource constraints due to political and military tensions. When tensions escalate into open conflict, the implications for the global economy can be severe.

One major impact is on investor confidence. Israel, a technology hub often compared to Silicon Valley, attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment annually. In 2022 alone, Israel attracted over $22 billion in foreign direct investment. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange can see significant fluctuations when conflicts flare up, leading to an outflow of capital and heightened risk premiums. For instance, during the May 2021 conflict, the Tel Aviv 35 Index fell by nearly 2.5%, demonstrating investor concerns. Additionally, Israel’s advanced military capabilities are both a source of tension and economic burden, as resources are diverted to defence spending, which amounted to over 5.6% of its GDP in 2023.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank also directly affects international aid flows. As conflict intensifies, countries and international organisations funnel significant resources into humanitarian aid, which could otherwise be used for development projects elsewhere. This dynamic redirects financial resources, creating inefficiencies in global economic development initiatives and placing additional burdens on donor countries.

Lebanon’s economic collapse is a critical facet of the broader Middle Eastern crisis, exacerbated by its involvement in regional conflicts, including the Israel-Hezbollah tensions. Lebanon’s financial system has been in a state of free fall for several years, with its currency losing over 90% of its value, unemployment surging, and banking restrictions preventing ordinary citizens from accessing their savings.

Lebanon’s instability has a ripple effect across the region, particularly affecting Syria and the broader Levant area. Hezbollah, a powerful political and military force in Lebanon, receives backing from Iran, and its conflicts with Israel lead to frequent military engagements that disrupt stability not only locally but also in Israel’s northern regions.

In recent years, there have been over 300 recorded skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, leading to dozens of casualties and significant damage to infrastructure in both Lebanon and northern Israel. These conflicts have impacted regional stability, contributing to widespread economic losses and infrastructure damage, including the destruction of residential buildings and energy facilities. Such disruptions often impact the wider energy markets, as the risk of conflict spilling over into neighbouring oil-rich countries raises the stakes for global energy supplies.

The inability of Lebanon to provide basic services has resulted in the mass emigration of its population, many seeking refuge in European countries. The refugee crisis puts economic pressure on neighbouring countries like Jordan and Turkey, which have accepted over 1.4 million and 3.6 million refugees respectively, as well as European nations like Germany, which has taken in around 1.1 million refugees. These countries have to redirect financial resources to deal with the social and economic integration of refugees, placing significant strain on public services and infrastructure.

Iran is a significant player in the Middle East, both politically and economically. Its influence stretches across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, making it a key stakeholder in regional stability. The long-standing sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies have significantly hindered Iran’s economy, limiting its ability to export oil and access international financial markets. Iran’s GDP has contracted by over 6% in certain years due to sanctions, and oil exports have fallen from 2.5 million barrels per day in 2017 to less than 500,000 barrels per day in recent years, resulting in an estimated financial loss of over $150 billion.

Despite sanctions, Iran continues to be a key regional player, and any conflict involving Iran has immediate consequences for global oil prices. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes, is a strategic chokepoint that Iran has threatened to block in times of heightened tension. In 2019, for example, Iran was accused of attacking oil tankers in the Strait, which led to a temporary spike in oil prices by nearly 4%.

Additionally, in July 2021, Iran seized a tanker in the Strait, which again raised concerns over oil supply security and caused market jitters. Any disruption here could lead to an enormous spike in oil prices, affecting economies worldwide. Countries that heavily rely on oil imports, such as China, India, and European nations, would feel immediate economic stress, potentially leading to increased inflation and stunted economic growth.

Iran’s influence over proxy groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen adds a layer of unpredictability to the regional dynamics. The country’s support for Hezbollah and its presence in Syria has put it in confrontation with Israel. Such a conflict would not only devastate the region economically but would also disrupt global financial markets due to the uncertainty it would introduce.

A multi-front conflict could lead to a significant economic downturn, impacting various sectors worldwide. For instance, the energy sector would face extreme volatility, with oil prices likely to spike due to potential supply disruptions from Iran and its allies targeting key infrastructure.

The risk to global shipping routes, particularly through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, would severely disrupt global trade. Insurance costs for shipping through these areas would skyrocket, raising the prices of goods worldwide. The resulting supply chain disruptions could lead to shortages in essential goods and exacerbate the inflationary pressures already being felt in many parts of the world.

Additionally, increased defence spending by regional powers and their allies would divert public funds away from crucial areas such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. For instance, the United States increased its defence budget by over $45 billion in 2023, largely attributed to rising commitments in the Middle East, while European allies have collectively raised their defence spending by approximately 10% over the last two years. This redirection of funds has led to reductions in public spending in areas like healthcare and education, exacerbating fiscal deficits and putting pressure on domestic economies.

Humanitarian costs would also rise, with millions likely displaced due to the conflict. This would necessitate large-scale international aid and assistance, putting additional strain on global humanitarian organisations and donor nations. The impact of these displacements would be felt globally, not only in terms of aid but also through increased refugee migration, which could exacerbate social and political tensions in host countries.

As the world watches the Middle East, the decisions made by global leaders, multinational corporations, and financial institutions will play a crucial role in determining whether we can navigate the turbulent waters of economic uncertainty or become swamped by the waves of conflict-induced challenges. The key takeaway is that stability in the Middle East is not just a regional concern, it is a critical factor for the health and growth of the global economy, and world leaders must work collectively to prevent escalation and promote peace.

The post Volatile Middle East ripple through global markets appeared first on International Finance.

“Heading into 2023, automakers were gearing up to invest USD 1.2 trillion by 2030 to move electric vehicles from niche products to mass-market models – many with batteries and software developed in-house,” Reuters reported recently.

However, as 2024 dawns, EV giants like Tesla and Rivian are throttling back investments and reworking product strategies.

Asia Emerges As The Bright Spot

The year 2023 was all about China’s rapid ascent into the global EV scene. The nationwide wholesale deliveries of EV and plug-in hybrids were expected to hit 940,000 units in November, up 29% year-on-year, while total sales in the first 11 months of 2023 are estimated to have reached 7.74 million units, up 35% year-on-year, as per the China Passenger Car Association.

While BYD’s rise as the rival of Tesla highlighted the year, Nio, Xpeng, Leapmotor, Great Wall Motor and Aito registered tremendous business growth in the Chinese market. Tesla, BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen too want the pie of the ‘China Success Story’.

As of 2023 Q3, China has become the world’s largest EV market with a 58% share, followed by the United States and Germany. Although South Korea is trying to keep pace up with Beijing, China has achieved a clear market edge due to its cost-friendly products. It is now eyeing the European and American markets for its overseas expansion.

As per the Counterpoint Technology Market Research’s latest ‘SE Asia Passenger Electric Vehicle Tracker,’ EV sales also grew by 894% during the 2023 Q2 in Southeast Asia. However, things have been different in other parts of the world.

Entering The Crisis Zone

EV sales are expected to hit a record 9% of all passenger vehicles in the United States in 2023, up from 7.3% in 2022, as per the Atlas Public Policy. It predicts over 1 million EVs are being sold in the world’s largest economy in one calendar year for the first time.

However, the latest Consumer Reports study found EVs losing out big time on the trust front, as almost 80% of such cars were having more issues than the ones with internal combustion engines.

Also, there is a lack of a well-nit charging infrastructure. As per Politico, the United States Congress, which in 2021, decided to spend USD 7.5 billion and build tens of thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the country, has not acted decisively so far.

“Not a single charger funded by the bipartisan infrastructure law has come online and odds are they will not be able to start powering Americans’ vehicles until at least 2024,” the report commented.

One respite in this arena has been Tesla’s supercharger infrastructure, which, apart from being widely available across the USA, is more reliable than rival charging network CCS (Combined Charging System). More automakers are lining up to access Supercharger.

“Early EV buyers were largely higher-income, willing to try unfamiliar technology, and more likely to be able to charge their electric vehicles at home. The auto industry needs to address disparities with these factors as it targets the next wave of EV shoppers,” commented Atlas Public Policy.

Demand Slowdown?

“While electric vehicle sales continue to grow, the pace is not aligning with the expectations of companies that have invested heavily in the EV sector. The anticipation of persistently higher interest rates has led to a revaluation of plans for 2024,” stated a WION report.

While Lee Chang-sil, the CFO at LG Energy Solution, expressed concern that EV demand in 2024 could fall short of expectations due to global economic uncertainty, Tesla CEO Elon Musk backed his industry peer by citing consumer worries like monthly payment and elevated interest rates.

Honda and General Motors (GM) had to cancel their USD 5 billion partnership recently. GM is now emphasising its focus on meeting near-term EV demand rather than specific volume targets.

Volkswagen has lowered its profit margin outlook for the year. China’s CATL, the largest battery maker for EVs, also faced challenges with a weaker market share in September 2023.

Ford in August 2023 added a third work crew at its historic Rouge assembly complex in Dearborn, Michigan, to triple the production rate of its Lightning electric pickup truck. In October, the company had to cancel the third shift, conceding that demand for electric F-150s was not enough to sustain the planned production pace. About 700 workers were laid off.

Finding The Silver Lining

“As EV demand slows, raw material prices have softened. For example, lithium prices have decreased by 67% so far in 2023, and cobalt prices have dropped 20% this year, more than halving since May 2022,” commented the WION.

The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, which increased tax credits for qualifying new and used EV purchases, also helped bring vehicle costs down for buyers. The Biden government wants the EV sector to account for two-thirds of US new vehicle sales by 2032.

Still, middle-income consumers may not find it enticing to buy an EV, given the fact that high interest rates will make the affair a costly one.

Western vehicle makers face the challenge of covering higher production costs and still yielding a profit. Their Chinese counterparts are now targeting the American market, as they have the edge in the form of ‘affordable pricing’, since they have their own indigenous supply chains of semiconductor and EV batteries.

Even though American consumers may want to buy ‘Made-In-China’ EVs, geopolitics spoils things here. While the US automakers are shielded to some extent from Chinese EV imports due to subsidies outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act, The Biden government has taken the protectionist game further by mandating EV manufacturers to build their cars with materials and components that do not have Chinese links. Only then, the vehicles will get a full USD 7,500 federal tax credit. Some of Tesla’s Model 3 cars are set to lose out from these credits.

While one may point out that the initiative will motivate American EV companies to build their in-house supply chains, they are running against the time, as the United States wants to have 50% of its new passenger vehicles as EVs by 2030.

While the EV sector is set to boom further in the coming days, challenges are also mounting for the sector. The year 2023 on the one hand saw tremendous growth in the EV arena, then it was offset by business setbacks faced by legacy automakers. What will 2024 bring for this sector?

The post IF Insights: From record-breaking sales to business setbacks, EV sector witnesses a mixed 2023 appeared first on International Finance.

Many big shots postponed important decisions, especially with respect to investments abroad as they did not know whether globalization was facing a blip or extinction.

But now years later, even as everyone are still battered over the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war, the people in governments and boardrooms are reinterpreting the impact it could have on global capitalism.

Across the globe, supply chains are being transformed. From USD 9 trillion in inventories, stockpiled as insurance against inflation and shortages. As there is a requirement for a large workforce, many firms have shifted from China to Vietnam.

The wave of globalization is not about work efficiency, but about security. The priority lies in people with whom you can rely and do business. This also indicates that your government needs to have friendly tie-ups with counties where you are doing business.

It could result in worsening inflation, protectionism and big government. But at the same time if the companies and politicians show restraints, it might lead to a change in the world economy for the better. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is one such prime example, where efficiency was key to globalization during those difficult times.

The companies initiated productions that were low in cost. The investors deployed capital which resulted in higher returns. The governments were keen on treating every firm equally regardless of which part of the world they were from. They also kept both democratic and autocratic counties on the same plate and struck deals with them.

As an end result, two decades later this gave rise to sophisticated value chains that accounted for 50% of all trade.

This kept the prices at a low cost for the consumers and also pushed one billion people out of extreme poverty, thanks to the industrialization taking shape across the world including China.

But globalization also had its own set of issues. Flammable capital flows led to the destabilization of financial markets, which ultimately results in blue-collar workers in rich countries losing out. Now, two others worries have also become a huge concern. The first one is that some lean supply chains do not have a good value as they appear. They end up kept at a low cost, but when they break, the bill can be adverse.

Today’s bottlenecks have ended up reducing the global GDP by at least 1%. Both shareholders as well as the customers have taken a hit. Since the production of cars has been stalled due to the chip shortages, there has been an 80% year-on-year drop in the cash flow of the carmakers.

Apple CEO Tim Cook stated that such disorder could reduce sales by up to USD 8 billion, or 10%, this quarter. The COVID-19 was unexpected but extreme weather, wars, or even another deadly virus could easily rattle the supply chains in the coming years.

The second problem is that the single-minded pursuit of cost advantage has led to a dependency on autocracies that abuse human rights and use trade as a means of coercion. There have been hopes that economic integration would lead to reform but that has been dashed as autocracies account for a third of world GDP.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has exposed Europe’s reliance on Russian energy. McDonald’s in Moscow which has been there since 1990 was restarted this week under local control.

Meanwhile, China has a trading footprint seven times as big as Russia and many counties rely on various products of theirs.

The fact that many firms are shifting from efficiency to resilience is an indication that there is a vast build-up in precautionary inventories. The biggest 3,000 companies in the globe have risen from 6% to 9% of world GDP since 2016. Many of them have been adopting longer-term contracts and sourcing.

In the multinational investment sector, the pattern has also changed. Companies, instead of sending their capital abroad, 69% comes from their local subsidiaries. This situation is similar to what happened during the 1930s when international firms decided to make subsidiaries abroad more self-sufficient.

The industries that are feeling the heat have already started reinventing their business models. Governments from Europe to India have put their weight behind these industries which are keen on ‘strategic autonomy’.

The car industry is also up for a new revolution as they have been heavily influenced by Elon Musk’s Tesla and are working towards vertical integration where one gets to have control over everything be it nickel mining or chip design.

Meanwhile, Taiwan’s electronics assemblers ended up downsizing their share of assets in China. From 50%, it has gone down to 35% since 2017 as prominent clients like Apple demand diversification.

In the energy sector, the West is seeking long-term supply deals from its allies instead of being dependent on spot markets dominated by rivals, which is a major reason why it is having close ties with gas-rich Qatar. With renewable energy, the power markets will become more regional.

The risk is that an objective quest for security will degenerate into widespread protectionism, job-creating programmes, and massive industrial subsidies costing hundreds of billions of dollars. This would increase volatility and fragmentation in the short term, driving prices even higher. US President Joe Biden’s consideration of additional solar panel tariffs, which he put on hold this month due to shortages.

If supply chains were to be randomly duplicated, there would be significant long-term inefficiency. The additional annual operating and financial expenditures required could surpass 2% of global GDP if you replicated a fourth of all multinational activities.

So, exercising restraint is essential. Governments and businesses must keep in mind that diversity promotes resilience rather than domestic concentration.

Based on their exports of items for which they have a dominant market share of over 10% and for which substitutes are difficult to obtain, autocracies control just around a tenth of world trade.

The solution is to mandate that businesses diversify their suppliers in these sectors, then let the market adjust. Will modern governments be able to handle the job? There is a lot of myopia and isolation.

However, if you are a consumer of global goods and ideas or a citizen of the globe, you should desire that the next stage of globalization has the highest level of openness. A new equilibrium between security and efficiency is a reasonable goal.

Mineral Shortages Could Disrupt Global Supply Chains
Vital mineral shortages received media attention last year after automakers revealed supply chain problems for semiconductors, which depend on critical minerals like lithium and cobalt.

Fewer automobiles were available for purchase as a result, and many consumers were forced to wait for automakers to finish their backlogs.

Over the ensuing decades, dependence on essential minerals is anticipated to rise, particularly as the globe moves toward renewable energy technology.

Companies Rethinking Their Supply Chain Networks
The global supply chains now need to be sourced from a variety of locations in order to reduce shipment and manufacturing disruptions during the COVID pandemic.

Over the past two years, port operations all over the world have been in disorder, with containers stacking up at terminals due to a lack of employees to reload them and truck drivers to transport them anyplace.

Shipping costs reached historic highs in 2021 as exporters in Asia competed for the limited ship space available to ship their goods to clients in the US and Europe.

Supply chain crisis continues to reverberate through global economies
University of Rochester economist George Alessandria during an interaction with Rochester Education pointed out how supply chain issues continue to reverberate through the American and global economies.

Regarding the current situation of supply chain shortages, he said, “This is the worst that it’s been in 50 years—and it’s probably getting worse, considering that China has been shutting down cities and production facilities. The massive lockdowns in Shanghai and Beijing will eventually ripple through the system again.”

He also blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for the crisis that the supply chain industry is facing now.

Alessandria said, “It all started with COVID-19 and the shutting down of ports and factories, which slowed down the movement of goods around the world. And then it just became hard to partially reopen the economy, since public health issues remained in play. That’s why we saw periodic closures of facilities and ports around the world all through 2021.”

Alessandria noted that the bounce-back in consumer demand was much stronger than what was anticipated.

“On top of that, the bounce-back in consumer demand has been stronger than what was anticipated. It’s like trying to push more and more stuff through a straw that shrank. It just doesn’t work well. While the supply chain shortages started with COVID, they’re also due to increased consumer demand, which was fueled by the federal stimulus checks that we probably didn’t need to keep the economy recovering. We just didn’t understand how consumer demand was going to shift, once the pandemic began to ease,” he added.

Vehicle shortages in US as supply chain woes deepen
Meanwhile, analysts have forecasted that there will be vehicle shortages in the US as supply chain woes deepen.

With analysts at Cox and Carmax-owned Edmunds.com indicating that supply chain problems will continue for the foreseeable future, Cox Automotive cut its projection for US auto sales in 2022.

Cox’s full-year projection was lowered from 15.3 million vehicles to 14.4 million vehicles, but still predicted a modest month-over-month increase in sales in June.

According to Edmunds, second-quarter US vehicle sales will be better than in the first quarter, but they will still fall short of the weak number from the previous year.

Edmunds’ executive director of insights, Jessica Caldwell, said, “A recovery in vehicle production in 2022 seems highly unlikely at this point (but) profit margins are staying high and pent-up consumer demand will only continue to build as shortages continue.”

Cox Senior Economist Charlie Chesbrough said, “Even though economic conditions have worsened in the past months, the lack of supply is still the greatest headwind facing the auto industry today.”

Lack of supply chain resilience the reason for inflation
Oliver Chapman, CEO of supply chain specialist and UK’s No.1 fastest-growing company OCI, blamed the lack of supply chain resilience and redundancy for the rise in inflation.

He said, “Supply chain shocks, possibly in combination with too loose monetary policy, are the underlying cause of the current inflation surge, but the worst effects of this crisis could have been avoided if organisations had put in place basic procedures in understanding and improving their supply chain.”

“Lack of resilience and redundancy embedded into supply chains, encouraged by too much complacency, helped make the supply-chain crisis much worse than it needed to be,” he added.

He stated that the supply chain operation was taken for granted and people assumed that things would turn out fine.

“For too long, the supply chain operation has been taken for granted and ran on the assumption everything would go just right, with every interweaving part of the supply chain fitting just right, all the time. Now we are paying the price for such complacency. If supply chains had seen more redundancy and resilience built into them in the first place, there would still be a rise in inflation, but it wouldn’t have been so severe. To defeat inflation in the medium and longer-term, we must avoid second and third round inflationary effects,” he concluded.

The post Restructuring global supply chains: Good, bad & ugly appeared first on International Finance.