Zerohedge

Tesla sales in China fell -11.5% for the month of January, mainly due to increased saturation and competition in the Chinese market. 

Tesla sold 63,238 vehicles in January, an 11.5% drop from last year, pushing its shares down 1.5% in premarket trading. In contrast, Chinese rival BYD saw a 47% year-over-year jump, selling 296,446 EVs and hybrids, according to CNBC.

Chinese rivals like Changan Automobile and Xpeng reported sales growth, while Tesla has relied on price cuts and incentives to stay competitive.

The CNBC report said that the company slashed Model Y prices, extended a zero-interest five-year loan plan through January, and launched a revamped Model Y in China with 0% financing. Tesla hasn’t introduced a new model since the late-2023 Cybertruck, starting at nearly $80,000, leaving investors eager for a new mass-market vehicle, which may debut in early 2025.

Blog electrek, which has been critical of Tesla over the last year or so, called the sales “relatively fine despite the added complexity of managing the production switch to the new Model Y”.

They noted that the Model Y, Tesla’s top seller, is undergoing a design refresh at its Shanghai Gigafactory, leading to lower production this quarter.

While sales have dipped, the decline isn’t drastic given the changeover, the blog said. A bigger impact is expected in February due to Chinese New Year and planned production halts from January 22 to February 14, which will reduce inventory through March.

They admitted that politics likely didn’t play as big of a role in the sales dropoff as many thought: “The new Model Y is having an impact everywhere, but Elon Musk’s meddling in politics and subsequent drop in reputation also has an effect, except in China, where they don’t care about that as much.”

Via Remix News,

Ukraine has long stopped being a democracy and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky just made sure to keep it that way for another 90 days by signing a decree to extend martial law and continue general mobilization effort.

The measures in force so far were due to expire on Feb. 7. Parliament voted to extend the provisions on Jan. 15. Ukraine was supposed to have a new vote long ago, but due to the war, Zelensky argued that it was not possible.

Ukraine declared a nationwide state of general mobilization on Feb. 24, 2022, and has since extended it several times. Due to staffing problems in the army, a bill on tightening mobilization rules came into force on May 18, 2024.

Martial law and conscription come despite the majority of Ukrainians saying they want to end the war and are willing to accept territorial losses in order to do so, according to the independent Gallup Polling agency.

A majority of Ukrainians now want an immediate end to the war, according to Gallup Research.

Hungary is now calling for Europe to respect the will of the people.

“The European pro-war mainstream does not want to see that the people have made a decision They do not want war.” pic.twitter.com/Xf43tqgUbV

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) November 21, 2024

In recent months, mobilization efforts have increasingly involved the use of violence and forced conscription, leading men to attempt to leave the country, often at the risk of their lives. 

Zelensky, who fears losing power if the war ends, has an incentive to keep the conflict going. However, support for Zelensky has rapidly declined among the Ukrainian population.

Almost every week, reports are coming in about forced conscription in Ukraine being carried out using increasingly brutal means. Hungarian channel M1-Hirado recently ran a special compiling some of the latest footage of Ukrainians being beaten and shoved into vans in forced mobilization operations.

As Remix News has previously reported, desertion rates at the frontline are high, with many Ukrainians fleeing before they ever even enter combat.

To make up for shortfalls, authorities from the so-called Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCK) are using increasingly aggressive methods to meet monthly draft quotas. 

After morning briefings, officers split into teams and search various locations around the city – cafes, restaurants, and even nightclubs – for men eligible for military service.

Read more here…

Auto stocks jumped mid day on Friday after the Financial Times reported that the EU is prepared to reduce its 10% tariff on US car imports to align more closely with the USA’s 2.5% rate in a bid to prevent a trade war with Donald Trump.

Names like Ford and GM both saw a bump during afternoon trading, and before paring gains slightly heading into the last few hours of trading for the week. 

FT cited Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. As part of the deal, the EU would also increase purchases of American liquefied natural gas and military equipment.

The move aims to ease tensions over the EU’s trade surplus with the US, a frequent target of Trump.

During Trump’s first term, Brussels lowered tariffs on lobsters and boosted imports of US LNG and soybeans, which helped contain disputes largely to steel and aluminum.

The FT report says that while the tariff reduction would apply to all WTO members, including China, EU officials believe Chinese imports won’t spike due to existing tariffs of up to 35% on Beijing-subsidized electric vehicles.

Major automakers like BMW and Mercedes support the plan, and Germany is not expected to oppose it.

In 2022, the EU exported 738,436 vehicles to the US, importing only 271,476 vehicles in return.

Lange warned that if negotiations falter, the EU could retaliate with its new anti-coercion instrument (ACI), designed to counter economic pressure tactics. 

“Sometimes it’s important to have a gun on the table,” he is quoted as saying. 

The ACI could target US tech giants like Meta, Google, and X through measures such as suspending IP rights and imposing digital service duties. Deploying the ACI would take about six months, but Lange noted the EU’s economic clout exceeds that of previous US trade targets like Canada and Mexico, positioning it to defend its interests effectively.

The development is the latest in a decisive series of changes President Trump has implemented or affected, including further securing the border with Mexico and Canada, in less than a month of being in office.

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) unveiled on Thursday the first round of sanctions against Iran under President Trump’s second term, reinforcing his campaign pledge to ramp up “maximum pressure” on Tehran. The move targets Iran’s oil network, which supplies discounted crude to China, generating billions in revenue that Treasury officials say helps fund regional militant groups. 

“The oil was shipped on behalf of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff (AFGS) and its sanctioned front company, Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars (Sepehr Energy). This action includes entities and individuals in multiple jurisdictions, including the PRC, India, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as several vessels,” the Treasury stated in a press release, adding those “targeted” sanctions were designed to disrupt Iran’s “oil network” to ship to China. Three ships were sanctioned, including one very large crude carrier and two Aframaxes tankers. 

More color on Sepehr Energy via public records data… Upstream ownership might explain why this entity was targeted by OFAC. 

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated, “The Iranian regime remains focused on leveraging its oil revenues to fund the development of its nuclear program, to produce its deadly ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, and to support its regional terrorist proxy groups.”

“The United States is committed to aggressively targeting any attempt by Iran to secure funding for these malign activities,” Bessent noted.

The move from the Treasury follows Trump’s announcement on Tuesday in “restoring maximum pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, denying Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon, and countering Iran’s malign influence abroad.” 

Trump said he would “modify or rescind existing sanctions waivers and cooperate with the Secretary of Treasury to implement a campaign aimed at driving Iran’s oil exports to zero.” 

Under Biden’s first term, Iran turned on the crude oil export spigots, much of which was shipped to China (read: What Sanctions? China Imports Record Amount Of Iranian Oil).

Bloomberg quoted shippers and analysts following the Treasury’s announcement as overwhelmingly saying the targeting of a number of tankers carrying Iranian oil stopped short of “maximum pressure.”

The Biden-Harris era of loose enforcement of sanctions on Iranian oil exports to China is over. Trump and the Treasury’s move this week should serve as a clear warning shot to Tehran.  

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal program that granted funds to states to build a national electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure has been stopped, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program allocated $5 billion to states for building a nationwide, interconnected network of DC fast chargers. The program, part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, was a key part of the Biden administration’s push toward net-zero emissions by 2050. Biden had set a goal of having at least 500,000 publicly available EV chargers in the country by the end of this decade.

The FHWA, an agency under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), is suspending the commitment of funds under the NEVI program, the agency said in a Feb. 6 letter sent to directors of state departments of transportation.

The NEVI program mandates states to submit plans detailing how they intend to use the funds. The DOT secretary is required to approve each state’s plan before committing NEVI program funds.

In the letter, FHWA said that all current and prior guidance related to the NEVI program is rescinded.

No funds from the NEVI program will be committed unless fresh guidance is issued and new state plans are submitted and approved. Funds that have already been committed to various projects won’t be affected.

According to FHWA data, an estimated $4.15 billion in funds were allocated to several states under the NEVI program between fiscal years 2022 and 2026, out of which $1.77 billion is estimated for fiscal years 2025 and 2026.

FHWA said the decision was taken to align with current DOT policies, including a Jan. 29 agency order requiring that DOT policymaking be based on “sound economic principles and analysis supported by rigorous cost-benefit requirements and data-driven decisions.”

Trump’s EV Impact

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20 asking agencies to “immediately pause” all funds appropriated via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

This includes “funds for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program.”

According to a Jan. 23 post by environmental advocacy Natural Resources Defense Council, Trump’s plan to claw back EV charging funds won’t be “that simple.”

“Every state has already engaged with the NEVI program, and the foundation for a nationwide charging network is underway,” the group said. “The legal and practical safeguards built into these programs ensure that they will continue to deliver results, despite political headwinds.”

Trump’s executive order not only impacts the federal charging infrastructure support but also threatens federal incentives handed out for EVs.

Trump’s order calls for eliminating the EV mandate, including “considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies.”

At present, Americans who buy a new qualified plug-in EV or fuel cell electric vehicle are eligible for up to $7,500 in credits.

To be eligible, an individual’s modified adjusted gross income should not exceed $150,000, with the limit rising to $225,000 for heads of households and $300,000 for married couples filing jointly. The vehicle also needs to fulfill certain criteria, such as having a battery capacity of at least seven kilowatt hours and being assembled in North America in the final stages.

The new EV policies come as American interest in electric vehicles appears to be waning.

A September 2024 survey from IT consulting company EY showed that only 34 percent of Americans planned on buying an EV as their next car. This is down 14 percent from the 48 percent in the 2023 EY survey.

“Despite a focus on infrastructure and EV education, consumers cite expensive battery replacement (26%) and concerns about public chargers (25%) as major deterrents to buying an EV,” the survey said.

Bill Ackman, the billionaire CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, wrote on X on Friday morning that his team has acquired a 30.3 million share position in Uber since early January. 

“I have been a long-term customer and admirer of Uber beginning when Edward Norton showed me the app in its early days. I was also fortunate to be a day-one investor in the company through a small investment in a venture fund,” Ackman wrote. 

He continued: “While a great business, Uber suffered from erratic management. Since he joined the company in 2017, Dara Khosrowshahi CEO has done a superb job in transforming the company into a highly profitable and cash-generative growth machine.” 

Ackman said the ride-hailing app is “one of the best managed and highest quality businesses in the world,” adding shares can “still be purchased at a massive discount to its intrinsic value.” 

Beginning in early January, we began acquiring a position in @Uber. Today, we own 30.3 million shares.

I have been a long-term customer and admirer of Uber beginning when Edward Norton showed me the app in its early days. I was also fortunate to be a day-one investor in the…

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) February 7, 2025

After Ackman’s post, shares jumped as high as 7.5%. Bloomberg data showed volume for this time of day was about triple the average. Shares topped the $75 handle and were at their highest level since late October. 

Earlier this week, Uber reported fourth-quarter results that beat analysts’ expectations for revenue but underwhelmed on EPS and delivered softer guidance.  

Goldman’s Eric Sheridan, Ben Miller, and others provided clients with the positives and negatives from 4Q24 earnings:

Positives: a) Uber exhibited solid growth in Trips, Gross Bookings, and Adjusted EBITDA in Q4, with accelerating growth across MAPCs, Trips, and Gross Bookings, and shared expectations for 1H’25 Mobility GBs to grow 20%+ FXN and Delivery GBs FXN growth to remain relatively stable; b) Q4 was the seventh straight quarter of Delivery MAPC YoY growth accelerating with particular strength in the US, UK, Canada, and Mexico; c) Platform & new initiatives continue to be a tailwind to reach and penetration, including Uber One (30m+ members, up ~60% YoY), Uber Teen (now live in >50 countries), Uber Share (>$2bn annualized GBs), and taxi partnerships (up to 20k incremental vehicles in Japan); d) Progress on Autonomous Vehicle opportunity with recently announced Nvidia partnership, inaugural international AV launch with WeRide in Abu Dhabi, and deployment with Waymo in Austin expected to begin in March (Atlanta slated for this Summer); & e) Announced $1.5bn accelerated share repurchase in January against previous $7bn repurchase authorization ($4.25bn remains unused post-ASR).

&

Negatives: a) GBs guide for Q1’25 (mid-point of $42.75bn) came in below prior GSe/Street by 1-2%, albeit embedding a ~550bps FX headwind; b) Q4 incremental Adj. EBITDA margins of 8.4% (% GBs) was below mid-point implied in Q4 guidance (& step-down from Q3 level), with investors looking to better understand achievability of improving incremental margins in Q1 embedded in guidance; & c) Freight Revenue missed GSe/Street expectations, remaining ~flat YoY and down -3% QoQ, driven by a decrease in revenue per load as a result of the challenging freight market cycle, partially offset by an increase in volume.

The analysts maintained their “Buy” rating with a 12-month price target of $97. 

Responding to Ackman’s post, All-In Podcast’s Jason Calacanis said, “And imagine what the world will look like when TSLA, AMZN, or Google buy $UBER for a modest 10-20% of their market caps.”

By Philip Marey, senior US strategist at Rabobank

The Bank of England’s MPC cut the benchmark rate by 25 basis points to 4.50%. This move was fully expected by analysts and markets. The vote split was 7-2, with the dissenters pushing for a 50 basis point cut, which was a big surprise. The near-term growth outlook was revised down, while the inflation outlook was revised up. When choosing between protecting growth and controlling inflation, the Bank of England clearly opted for the former. Today’s decision reveals their preferences. The MPC continues to guide the market towards gradual cuts but now emphasizes a careful approach. We suspect this is intended to soften the market impact of today’s decision. We expect the next cut to take place in May. We forecast three cuts this year to bring the policy rate to 3.75% this year, with downside risks. For more details, please read Stefan Koopman’s BoE post-meeting report.

The Bank of Mexico (Banxico) cut the policy rate 50bp from 10.00% to 9.50% on at the February 6th meeting. This is the fifth consecutive cut since the August meeting and the sixth cut since the cutting cycle began in March 2024. The decision was split, with Jonathan Heath voting in favor of a 25bp cut. The new Deputy Governor, José Cuadra Garcia, who was only approved by the Senate on Wednesday, voted with the majority to cut 50bp. The Bank’s inflation projection remained largely unchanged, though short term expectations in the headline and core were tweaked. Risks to the Bank’s inflation projections remain skewed to the upside. We are now forecasting five more cuts from Banxico this year. We expect the decision at the next meeting, on March 27th, to be a 50bp cut, followed by four 25bp cuts. We still see the terminal rate at 8.00%. Despite recent volatility, we expect USD/MXN to remain range-bound throughout most of 2025, but the risk to this outlook is skewed towards MXN weakness. If the one month delay to Trump’s tariff plans prove to in fact be just a delay and they are implemented and enforced, then we see the risk of USD/MXN rising to the 23-handle. For more details, please read the Banxico post-meeting report by Christian Lawrence and Molly Schwartz.

While in Mexico City, Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan said that interest rates may already be near the neutral level, potentially removing the need for further cuts even if inflation continues to cool. She said: “What if inflation comes in close to 2% in coming months? While that would be good news, it wouldn’t necessarily allow the FOMC to cut rates soon, in my view. Inflation falling toward the central bank’s target in an environment marked by strong demand and a stable labor market would suggest the Fed’s benchmark policy rate may be close to neutral.” She added that there wouldn’t be “much” near-term room for cuts if this were to continue. However, she said the Fed would likely lower rates if the labor market deteriorated.

Further South, Panamanian President Molino called the US State Department’s post on X on Wednesday that Panama had agreed to give US government vessels free passage through the Panama Canal full of lies and falsehoods and he said there was no deal. US Secretary of State Rubio later said the US had made its expectations clearly understood, although he admitted that Panama had a legal process to work through. Trump and Molino are expected to have a phone call later today. Clearly Trump can intimidate Molino into accepting his terms. Panama does not even have a real army, instead the country has a paramilitary security force of about 30K active personnel. Is the Fuerza Publica de la Republica de Panama going to board a US destroyer when it wants to use the Panama Canal without paying its regular fee? 

• US destroyer to Panama Canal authorities: “This is the USS Intimidator and we want to enter the canal”

• Panama Canal authorities: “That’s OK, but you first have to pay the usual fee”

• US destroyer: “No, we don’t and what are going to do about that?”

Back in the US, a judge paused the deadline – originally yesterday – for federal government workers to decide whether to take a buyout offer (by replying ‘resign’ to the fork-in-the-road-email from DOGE). Officials from the Office of Personnel Management earlier confirmed that more than 40K federal workers have already accepted the buyout, so this number could still increase. In fact, it seems DOGE expected a higher response rate.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House is preparing an executive order to cut thousands of federal health workers in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The executive order could come as soon as next week, but Trump could still decide against it. Yesterday, the White House  denied that there is an executive order related to HHS coming.

House Republicans met at the White House yesterday and it is reported that they could announce a budget deal as soon as today. An important point of disagreement was whether the extension of the expiring tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would be permanent or not. House Majority Leader Scalise suggested a compromise may have been reached that some portions would be permanent while others wouldn’t be.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

This one will stick. The courts will uphold this. I expect Trump will win.

Pam Bondi Begins Crackdown on Sanctuary Laws

A Department of Justice lawsuit asserts that sanctuary laws in Chicago, Cook County and Illinois have obstructed federal efforts to enforce immigration policy.

On this score, I expect the courts will side with Trump.

RedState reports There She Goes: Brandon Johnson, JB Pritzker Hardest Hit As Pam Bondi Begins Crackdown on Sanctuary Laws

Newly minted Attorney General Pam Bondi has wasted no time, issuing directives that call for “aggressively enforcing criminal laws passed by Congress” and “vigorously defending presidential policies and actions on behalf of the United States against legal challenges.”

And on Thursday, Bondi made another big move, filing a lawsuit against Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois related to their so-called “sanctuary” laws.

“The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago, is one of the first major cases brought by the new administration’s Justice Department.

Bondi’s move follows a request from House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) for four sanctuary city mayors to testify at a hearing in March, with the goal being to assess if new legislation would be needed.

The mayors who were urged to appear before the committee were Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, Boston’s Michelle Wu, New York City’s Eric Adams, and Denver’s Mike Johnston. Comer confirmed on Wednesday that all of them had agreed to appear at the March 5th hearing.

I should note that both Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker were practically daring the Trump administration to come after them, and clearly they’ve taken them up on the insinuated offers.

Trump Administration Sues Illinois

The New York Times reports Trump Administration Sues Illinois Leaders Over Immigration Enforcement

The lawsuit names Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago and Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, both Democrats, along with Superintendent Larry Snelling of the Chicago Police Department and other local elected officials in the nation’s third-largest city. It is believed to be the new Trump administration’s first legal action against state and local officials to try to make them provide more assistance in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit asserts that local and state officials’ lack of cooperation with federal enforcement of immigration laws has resulted in “countless criminals being released into Chicago” who should have been subject to deportation.

Illinois and Chicago have laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal agencies’ efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. The Illinois Trust Act, which prevents local law enforcement from holding immigrant prisoners without a court warrant, was signed into law in 2017 by former Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican.

Toni Preckwinkle, the president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, said that the county’s policies “reflect our longstanding values and ensure that local resources are used to promote public safety and community trust. We will review the complaint and respond accordingly.”

Several immigration advocacy groups in Illinois filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement last month in an effort to block the agency from conducting certain immigration operations in Chicago.

Trump DOJ Slaps Illinois, Chicago with Lawsuit

Fox News reports Trump DOJ Slaps Illinois, Chicago with Lawsuit Over Sanctuary Laws.

The lawsuit filed in Illinois, against Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and others, claimed that several state and local laws are “designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border on day one of his administration as part of a slew of moves to crack down on illegal immigration and increase border security. The lawsuit claims there is a national crisis of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. and presenting “significant threats to national security and public safety.”

“Further exacerbating this national crisis, some of these aliens find safe havens from federal law enforcement detection in so-called Sanctuary Cities where they live and work among innocent Americans, who may later become their crime victims,” it says.

“Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing—and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting—federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States,” it says.

Pritzker said that “unlike Donald Trump, Illinois follow the law.”

“The bipartisan Illinois TRUST Act, signed into law by a Republican governor, has always been compliant with federal law and still is today. Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals,” he said. “Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump Administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted January 6 violent criminals. We look forward to seeing them in court.”

See You in Court

“We look forward to seeing them in court,” said Pritzker.

I asked my constitutional law expert friend about this case, and he responded:

This will be an interesting case. I would place big money on the DOJ winning. It’s just very clear that the feds own immigration policy. 

A lot of people hate Trump to the point of blind range.  But by the time this gets to the 7th Circuit – the federal Court of Appeals that governs Chicago, the DOJ will win. The 7th Circuit has some very good judges.

Perhaps it’s a little complicated due to the strange decision on Texas, but if it gets to the Supreme Court, I think Justice Roberts will just bury it.

Very Clear

That is what I said when the courts prevented Texas from enforcing immigration policy.

And I took a lot of flack for that call, but that’s what happened.

Now, guess what? Biden is no longer running the border, thank God, so the shoe is on the other foot.

When I make a court case call, it’s not based on what I want to happen, it’s based on what I think will happen.

I am sure Trump will lose on birthright citizenship, and I correctly thought the court would strike down, at least temporarily, Trump’s executive orders on USAID, but this one looks solid.

But this is different. Biden got to do what he wanted with immigration policy (and he made a damn mess of it to say the least).

Now Trump gets his way.

That said, I still hope for some common sense. Deport them all will be very costly. And if Democrats were smart they would cooperate with Trump and opt for a reasonable deal.

If you want to know what kind of dreamer deal I hope for, please see my November 7, 2024 post The New Home for Hispanics is the Republican Party

Goldman Sachs analysts highlighted three key themes emerging from this earnings season that are top of mind for corporate America: the impact of tariffs and an escalating trade war, the strength of the US dollar under the Trump administration, and the developments in artificial intelligence on their businesses.

Analysts led by David Kostin identified the first major issue facing company management teams this earnings season was the growing uncertainty surrounding President Trump’s trade war and the risks of tit-for-tat tariffs with China.

“Tariffs were top of mind during this quarter’s earnings calls as companies were focused on their plans to accommodate potential policy changes under the new administration,” Kostin wrote, adding those companies already discussed “a wide range of plans related to tariffs,” such as “pre-ordering items to get ahead of the tariffs.” 

Trade war fears resulted in nearly half of all SP500 companies discussing tariffs during earnings calls. Tariff discussion is back to levels not seen since Trump’s first term. 

US stocks with elevated overseas exposure have faced downward pressure. 

The second concern with corporate America, according to the analysts, is a strong dollar: 

Companies grappled with a stronger US dollar during 4Q, as the trade-weighted US dollar strengthened by 6% during the quarter. The combination of strong US economic growth, solid US asset returns, and the threat of tariffs have supported dollar strength in the later part of 2024 and the beginning of this year (Exhibit 3).

A stronger dollar weighs on the non-US sales of companies, acting as a headwind to overall sales and earnings estimates. Alongside recent US dollar strength, the share of S&P 500 companies mentioning FX has risen across 4Q earnings calls (Exhibit 4). Recent management commentary noted the negative impacts of the stronger US dollar on sales results (TEL, PCAR, AZO) and some companies expect FX headwinds to persist (AAPL, DECK, TDY). Our FX strategists forecast the trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 3% over the next twelve months. We recently highlighted potential solutions for corporates to mitigate the headwinds from a stronger USD including FX hedging and reporting results in constant currency.

The last theme the analysts found that continued to dominate earnings calls was enthusiasm over AI:

Managements continued to express enthusiasm over AI on 4Q earnings calls, with some noting that AI has led to improvements in efficiency internally and for their customer base (C, T, SLB, UNH). The share of companies mentioning AI during this quarter’s earnings calls reached a new high at 50%. After last Monday’s news about DeepSeek, commentary from mega-cap tech companies (GOOGL, MSFT, META) highlighted the potential benefits of recent developments in AI.

The AI trade has continued to broaden, particularly to companies with the potential to monetize AI and boost their earnings from widespread AI adoption. Since the start of Q4 earnings season, our basket of Phase 2 AI infrastructure stocks (GSCBAIP2) have outperformed the equal-weight S&P 500 by 2 pp, whereas stocks with AI enabled revenues (GSCBAIP3) have outperformed the equal-weight S&P 500 by 6 pp. Phase 3 companies (e.g. ACN, ADBE, META) are starting to capitalize off their AI investments, deploying tools internally and into their products, allowing employees and customers to benefit.

To recap, the three big themes that the analyst found during this earnings season were tariffs, strong dollar, and AI.

We suspect these themes will dominate well into the second half of the year. 

Authored by Ben Bartee via PJMedia.com,

If ever you needed proof that X Community Notes is vastly superior to corporate “fact checks” as a way for real journalists to do real work countering “misinformation” rather than as a bludgeon to suppress dissident narratives, this is it.

Lying about being a Native American for DEI leg-ups, it turns out, isn’t the only dishonesty Elizabeth Warren peddles.

This lie, however, is much more consequential in terms of policy impact: 

 “I don’t take contributions from Big Pharma executives. I don’t take any corporate PAC money,” Elizabeth Warren says in the Senate hallway when confronted over her smears of RFK Jr.

Nervous Elizabeth Warren: “Check my website, I don’t take contributions from Big Pharma executives. I don’t take any corporate PAC money.”pic.twitter.com/dSaNck5C2x

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) February 4, 2025

But the contradictory proof is all right there in the X Community Notes window, just under the lying pharma tool, with links and links and links, rendering my job as a journalist exposing her blatant lies far easier:

“Elizabeth Warren has in fact received donations from both Pharmaceutical companies and PAC organizations in the combined tune of millions of dollars.”

Warren, in fact, is the second-biggest beneficiary of cash from pharma employees and/or PACs in the entire Congress, next to Bernie Sanders.

Via TIME, 2020 (emphasis added):

In an ironic twist, that now makes Warren, who along with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been the strongest opponent of super PACs in the 2020 campaign, the biggest beneficiary of such a group heading into Super Tuesday — the most prominent reversal yet among the candidates on the issue of high-dollar donations. At one point, nearly every candidate decried the practice, before realizing it may be a necessity for survival.

Under campaign finance laws, donors can give unlimited amounts to a super PAC as long as the groups do not directly coordinate with the candidates they are supporting. Since launching her campaign, Warren has prided herself on her refusal to accept money from political action committees or federal lobbyists, and she has promised to disavow any super PAC that formed on her behalf.

That pledge is still publicly available on her campaign website, but Warren has not distanced herself from Persist PAC. Instead, her rhetoric on the issue started to shift in the past month, as her once-promising campaign underperformed its expectations in the first three states to vote. “If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in, I’ll lead the charge,” she told reporters on Feb. 20 in Nevada when asked if she would disavow Persist PAC. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”