"Patience is a Super Power" - "The Money is in the waiting"

Sunday, February 9, 2025

Self Driving Vehicles, IOT, Ai, Space Technology. Hiding behind the curtain of these cutting edge technologies is Swiss multi national, STMicroelectronics (STM)



 
STMicroelectronics (STM) Investment & Business Report

Company Overview

  • Ticker: STM (NYSE, Euronext Paris, Borsa Italiana)

  • Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

  • Founded: 1987 (Merger of SGS Microelettronica and Thomson Semiconducteurs)

  • Industry: Semiconductors

  • Market Cap: ~$40 billion (as of recent data)

  • Key Customers: Tesla, Mobileye, Apple, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Bosch, Continental, SpaceX


Financial Overview

  • Revenue (2023): $13.27 billion (23.2% YoY decline)

  • Gross Margin: 39.3% (down from 47.9% in 2022)

  • Operating Income: $1.68 billion (Operating Margin: 12.6%)

  • Net Income: $1.56 billion (63% YoY decline)

  • Cash Position: $3.16 billion net cash as of December 31, 2023

  • Capital Expenditures (2023): $2.53 billion

  • Free Cash Flow: $288 million

STM has revised its long-term revenue goal from 2027 to 2030, aiming to exceed $20 billion in annual revenue, reflecting industry-wide challenges in semiconductor demand.


Manufacturing Facilities & Expansion Plans

  • Current Plants: Italy, France, Malta, Singapore, China

  • Expansion:

    • New Silicon Carbide (SiC) facility in Italy for EV and self-driving tech

    • 300mm wafer production expansion in France

    • China Partnership: STM is collaborating with Hua Hong to ramp up MCU production for automotive customers, particularly in EVs and autonomous systems (Expected 2025)


Technological Leadership & Business Segments

1. Self-Driving Car Technology & Automotive Leadership

STM is a critical supplier of chips and sensors for autonomous vehicle technology, providing microcontrollers (MCUs), power electronics, AI processors, and sensor fusion technology.


Key Self-Driving Partnerships:

  • Tesla: Supplier of MCUs, power electronics, and SiC chips for Tesla’s self-driving EVs.

  • Mobileye (Intel): STM provides AI-enhanced camera sensors for Mobileye’s ADAS and self-driving systems.

  • NVIDIA: Collaborates on low-power AI processing chips for autonomous vehicles.

  • Geely & Volvo: Supplies ADAS and powertrain chips for Chinese and European autonomous vehicle projects.

  • XPeng & BYD: Provides LiDAR signal processing chips for leading Chinese EV makers.

Silicon Carbide (SiC) Leadership in EVs & Autonomous Cars:

  • STM is a top 3 global supplier of SiC power electronics, used to enhance battery efficiency and range in EVs.

  • SiC chips are essential for self-driving fleets, robotaxis, and AI-driven vehicle computing.

R&D Investments in Self-Driving Tech:

  • AI-powered microcontrollers with real-time neural network processing

  • Next-gen LiDAR and radar signal processing chips

  • Edge AI processors for in-vehicle computing

  • SiC-based power solutions for energy-efficient autonomous platforms

2. Internet of Things (IoT) & Edge Computing

  • Broad portfolio of MCUs, MEMS sensors, and connectivity chips for IoT applications.

  • STM’s chips are integrated into smart home devices, industrial automation, healthcare, and wearables.

3. Space Business & Aerospace Applications

  • STM provides radiation-hardened semiconductors for satellites and spacecraft.

  • Partnerships with SpaceX and European space agencies ensure a growing presence in the space sector.


Competitive Positioning

STM faces competition from Infineon, NVIDIA, and ON Semiconductor, but differentiates itself through: ✅ Leadership in automotive microcontrollers & SiC chipsStrong AI and sensor fusion R&D investmentsExpanding partnerships with Tesla, Mobileye, and top Chinese EV makersDiverse applications in space, IoT, and AI-driven computing


Investment Outlook & Growth Potential

  • Self-Driving Boom: Autonomous vehicle sales expected to surpass $2 trillion by 2040.

  • Silicon Carbide Market Growth: Projected to hit $10 billion+ by 2030—STM is a major player.

  • AI-Enabled Vehicles: STM’s AI-enhanced MCUs and Edge AI processors position it for long-term success.

  • Expansion in China & U.S.: Ongoing investment in next-gen automotive and industrial chips.

Key Risks:Tesla’s in-house chip strategy may reduce reliance on STM in the long term. ⚠ Competition from NVIDIA and Infineon in high-performance ADAS chips. ⚠ Cyclical semiconductor demand could cause revenue fluctuations.


Final Verdict: A Key Player in the Future of Self-Driving & AI



STM is a leading semiconductor supplier for the self-driving and EV revolution, with strong positioning in ADAS, power electronics, and AI-driven automotive chips. Despite short-term revenue challenges, its SiC leadership, Tesla partnership, and investments in AI microcontrollers make it a high-potential long-term investment in the autonomous vehicle market.

ED Note:

For now, we are placing STM on our watch list as it's share price has been slipping recently due to some market turbulence and some financial re-adjustments.  We will look to take a position as these conditions improve in 2025 and beyond. 

Reasons why:  STMicroelectronics (STM) has recently adjusted its financial projections due to ongoing challenges in the semiconductor industry, particularly in the automotive and industrial sectors. The company now aims to achieve annual revenues exceeding $20 billion by 2030, a target previously set for 2027. An intermediate goal has been established, with revenues expected to reach approximately $18 billion and an operating margin between 22% and 24% in the 2027-2028 timeframe.

In the self-driving technology domain, STM continues to innovate, focusing on advanced microcontrollers (MCUs) and silicon carbide (SiC) power devices. The company has expanded its automotive MCU roadmap to support next-generation vehicles, emphasizing reduced complexity, improved efficiency, and enhanced safety and security standards.

Additionally, STM has introduced its fourth generation of SiC MOSFETs, which offer higher efficiency and are critical for electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous driving applications.

Despite these advancements, STM has faced a downturn in demand from automotive clients, leading to a downward revision of its 2024 revenue forecast to $13.27 billion, marking a 23% decrease from the previous year. This adjustment reflects the broader challenges in the automotive semiconductor market, including high inventory levels and fluctuating demand.

In summary, while STM is actively developing technologies to support the self-driving car industry, it is also navigating significant market challenges that have impacted its financial outlook.

Robots and Automation - From factory bots to Robo Taxis and Humanoids. Who are the leading companies?

Thursday, February 6, 2025

Today we added to an "anchor stock" Royalty Pharma (RPRX) as it monetizes more assets and announces it will buy it's own shares!

 Since September 2024, when we bought RPRX shares, (see our initial post next)

We bought shares of Royalty Pharma plc (NASDAQ: RPRX) to both earn Alpha and as a stable anchor stock!

Royalty Pharma (RPRX) has undertaken several significant initiatives:

Financial Transactions and Investments:

  • November 4, 2024: Entered into a $350 million synthetic royalty funding agreement with Syndax Pharmaceuticals, based on U.S. net sales of Niktimvo (axatilimab-csfr).

  • November 7, 2024: Agreed to acquire a synthetic royalty on U.S. sales of Geron Corporation’s Rytelo for $125 million in cash upfront.

  • January 29, 2025: Monetized the remaining fixed payments on the MorphoSys Development Funding Bonds for $511 million in upfront cash.

Corporate Developments:

  • January 10, 2025: Announced the acquisition of its external manager and initiated a $3 billion share repurchase program, marking a transformative step in the company's evolution.

Financial Performance:

  • November 6, 2024: Reported third-quarter 2024 financial results and raised full-year 2024 guidance for Portfolio Receipts.

  • January 28, 2025: Scheduled to announce fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 financial results on February 11, 2025.

Dividend Announcement:

  • January 9, 2025: Declared a first-quarter 2025 dividend of $0.22 per Class A ordinary share, reflecting a 5% increase over the previous quarter's dividend.

These actions underscore Royalty Pharma's commitment to strategic investments and shareholder value enhancement.

Chargepoint is trading today as a penny stock!

 


Feb 11th 2025

We have been "Stopped out" of Chargepoint shares.

O U C H !!!  Speculation can hurt, even if it is only 1% of your portfolio!

Who might be interested in Acquiring Chargepoint's EV charging network?

Tuesday, February 4, 2025

Takeover Targets: As 2025 rolls out and acquisitions begin to take hold, we list (speculatively) 12 possibilities of acquisitions in the Tech and Healthcare sector!


 Below is a high‐level informational look at potential suitability as a takeover/acquisition targets, along with a very rough ranking from “most likely” down to “least likely.” Obviously, no one (outside of insider circles) can say for sure which deals will happen; M&A activity depends on broader market conditions, valuation swings, regulatory climate, and the acquiring company’s strategy. Think of this as a conversation starter, not financial advice.


1. CHPT (ChargePoint)

Sector: EV Charging Infrastructure

Why it could be acquired:

  • One of the largest independent EV charging plays in North America, with a recognizable brand and fairly extensive charging footprint.
  • Strategic fit for an energy major (e.g., BP, Shell) or a large automaker aiming to own more of the EV ecosystem.
  • EV charging is a fragmented space with many smaller players; consolidation is inevitable as the market matures.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Valuations in the EV/clean tech sector can be volatile and may deter acquirers if the price is too high.
  • Some large corporations may opt to build their own charging networks instead of buying.

Still, ChargePoint stands out as one of the more “obvious” names if a big fish wants immediate scale in EV charging at a bargain basement price!


2. ENVX (Enovix)

Sector: Next‐Gen Battery Technology

Why it could be acquired:

  • Innovative silicon‐anode battery design promising higher energy density and better safety.
  • Potential synergy for consumer electronics giants (Samsung, Apple), EV OEMs, or battery incumbents (Panasonic, LG, CATL) looking for a technological leap.
  • Battery tech is notoriously difficult—an acquirer might see value in simply scooping up Enovix’s IP and manufacturing processes rather than starting from scratch.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Must demonstrate a clear path to mass production; sometimes advanced battery startups stall if they can’t scale.
  • If the technology proves out, Enovix may want to remain independent until valuation is higher.

Given the wave of EV/battery investments worldwide, Enovix is a prime candidate for a strategic purchase.


3. IONQ (IonQ)

Sector: Quantum Computing

Why it could be acquired:

  • IonQ is widely viewed as a leader in trapped‐ion quantum computing, which (so far) has shown significant promise for scalability and error reduction.
  • Big Tech (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM) have quantum ambitions and might prefer to acquire proven teams and IP rather than build everything in‐house.
  • Corporate interest in quantum is growing, and the sector remains fairly small, which makes M&A more feasible.

Potential roadblocks:

  • IonQ’s partnerships with various cloud providers might complicate a takeover by one specific hyperscaler.
  • The company could also choose to remain independent while quantum valuations continue to climb.

Still, among public quantum players, IonQ is often cited as the top near‐term takeover possibility.


4. PATH (UiPath)

Sector: Robotic Process Automation (RPA)

Why it could be acquired:

  • UiPath is a leader in RPA software, a segment central to enterprise digital transformation and hyperautomation.
  • Large enterprise software vendors (e.g., Microsoft, SAP, Salesforce, Oracle) all have some automation offerings. Acquiring a dominant RPA platform could solidify market share.
  • UiPath’s stock and valuation took some hits in prior years, making it more approachable from an M&A perspective.

Potential roadblocks:

  • UiPath still has substantial market share and cash, and it may see itself as a platform play with runway for independent growth.
  • Tech giants may continue improving their in‐house automation (e.g., Microsoft with Power Automate).

Overall, UiPath is one of the more established, brand‐name midcaps in enterprise software—very plausible as an acquisition target.


5. EDIT (Editas Medicine)

Sector: Gene Editing (CRISPR)

Why it could be acquired:

  • Editas is one of the earliest CRISPR/Cas9 gene‐editing platform companies.
  • Big pharma and large biotech are always on the lookout for next‐gen therapeutic platforms, especially gene editing.
  • If Editas shows promising clinical data in areas with high unmet need, an acquisition could be straightforward.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Competition in gene editing is fierce (CRSP, NTLA, BEAM, Prime, etc.). Acquirers might wait to see definitive clinical proof before pulling the trigger.
  • Current biotech valuations fluctuate with trial data and FDA updates; the timing of a deal can be tricky.

Nonetheless, Editas sits in that sweet spot—recognizable IP, possible proof‐of‐concept data, and not too large for a big pharma to swallow.


6. BEAM (Beam Therapeutics)

Sector: Gene Editing (Base Editing)

Why it could be acquired:

  • Pioneered base‐editing technology, a potentially more precise and versatile approach than traditional CRISPR/Cas9.
  • If Beam’s pipeline matures or shows strong clinical data, large pharma could move in.
  • The entire gene‐editing field is ripe for consolidation as these technologies inch closer to commercial reality.

Potential roadblocks:

  • As with Editas, valuations depend heavily on clinical milestones; large swings in the share price can disrupt M&A dealmaking.
  • Base editing might still be considered “early stage,” so risk‐averse acquirers might wait.

If big pharma wants to corner advanced gene editing, Beam is near the top of the conversation.


7. DNA (Ginkgo Bioworks)

Sector: Synthetic Biology / Bioengineering

Why it could be acquired:

  • Ginkgo has a large “organism engineering” platform and a broad base of corporate partnerships in pharma, agriculture, and industrial biotech.
  • Synthetic biology is attracting interest as companies look to produce chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and materials more sustainably.
  • A conglomerate or large pharma might acquire Ginkgo for its established foundry and IP.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Ginkgo is fairly high profile and has historically commanded a hefty valuation, which can scare away suitors.
  • Its model (partnering across many domains) might be more valuable to remain standalone rather than fold into a single large parent.

Despite that, Ginkgo consistently comes up in speculation about platform biotech acquisitions, especially if valuations become more attractive.


8. AEVA (Aeva Technologies)

Sector: LiDAR / Sensing for Autonomous Vehicles

Why it could be acquired:

  • Specialized FMCW (frequency modulated continuous wave) LiDAR technology that claims long‐range performance.
  • Automakers and Tier 1 suppliers are consolidating the LiDAR landscape to secure next‐gen sensing IP.
  • While LiDAR market hype has cooled, it’s still strategic tech for ADAS/autonomy, and bigger players may want to snap up promising smaller teams.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Fierce competition (Velodyne/Ouster, Luminar, Innoviz, etc.), all vying for design wins in a market that remains uncertain.
  • Large OEMs sometimes favor multiple LiDAR suppliers or in‐house solutions, reducing the impetus to buy outright.

Given the wave of LiDAR M&A, Aeva is squarely in the conversation—especially if it can prove superior sensor performance.


9. VKTX (Viking Therapeutics)

Sector: Biotech (metabolic and endocrine disorders)

Why it could be acquired:

  • Viking focuses on metabolic diseases (NASH, obesity, etc.)—areas where big pharma has spent billions acquiring late/pre‐clinical assets.
  • If Viking posts strong results in key trials, it could attract interest as a complement to established metabolic portfolios.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Clinical risk is high, and some metabolic markets (like NASH) are littered with failed trials.
  • The company’s pipeline needs to stand out vs. competition from Madrigal, Intercept, etc.

Still, Viking is a prime candidate for a typical biotech “pipeline buy” scenario if data is compelling. 

(Q: What do Piper Sandler, Raymond James and Wainwright's analysts know that you don't know? Viking is trading today at $32 and they have a combined price target over $100 as recently as Feb 6th!)


10. CABA (Cabaletta Bio)

Sector: Biotech (cell therapy for autoimmune diseases)

Why it could be acquired:

  • Targeting B‐cell mediated autoimmune disorders with engineered T cells, a hot therapeutic area.
  • Smaller market cap relative to some cell therapy peers—makes it more digestible for a larger biotech or pharma.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Preclinical/early‐stage therapies can remain speculative; big acquirers often wait for proof‐of‐concept data.
  • Competition from other next‐gen autoimmune therapies, including gene editing approaches.

If Cabaletta can show strong early data, it could be a logical bolt‐on for a big immunology player.


11. QBTS (D‐Wave Quantum Inc.)

(Assuming “QBTS” is indeed D‐Wave; they re‐listed on the NYSE under “QBTS.”)

Sector: Quantum Computing (annealing‐based + gate‐model in development)

Why it could be acquired:

  • D‐Wave has longstanding expertise in quantum annealing, which is somewhat unique compared to gate‐based approaches (IonQ, Rigetti, etc.).
  • They hold valuable quantum IP and have partnerships with Fortune 500 companies exploring early quantum use cases.

Potential roadblocks:

  • D‐Wave’s annealing technology, while proven for certain optimization problems, is less generalizable than gate‐based quantum.
  • Larger tech players might see IonQ, PsiQuantum, or others as more future‐proof for universal quantum computing.

A takeover could happen, but D‐Wave may be overshadowed by gate‐based quantum leaders unless an acquirer has a specific interest in annealing.


12. MYNA (Mynaric)

Sector: Laser Communications for Aerospace

Why it could be acquired:

  • Specializes in optical communications terminals for airborne and space‐based platforms—an increasingly important technology for satellite constellations, UAVs, and secure comms.
  • Could be strategic for a defense contractor (Lockheed, Northrop Grumman) or a space/cellular network operator looking to integrate proprietary laser links.

Potential roadblocks:

  • Military/space contracts can be very lumpy and long‐cycle. Acquirers might wait to see major contract wins or proof of revenue scale.
  • Other laser comms startups exist; the field is still somewhat emerging.

If the sector consolidates or a prime defense contractor wants to lock in that IP, Mynaric is definitely a candidate, but less “top of mind” than more mainstream tech.


13. APLD (Applied Digital)

Sector: High‐Performance Computing / Data Center Services

Why it could be acquired:

  • Offers specialized data center hosting (sometimes aimed at crypto mining or HPC/AI infrastructure).
  • As data centers consolidate, a larger cloud or HPC player might pick up smaller operators—especially if they have strategic locations or cheap power.

Potential roadblocks:

  • The HPC/data center market is dominated by hyperscalers (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) who typically build out their own capacity rather than buy smaller operators.
  • If much of APLD’s revenue is tied to crypto mining, that niche has been volatile; some acquirers may see more risk than reward.

An acquisition isn’t out of the question, but Applied Digital is probably lower on the “imminent M&A” list relative to more mainstream tech or biotech names.


Putting It All Together: A Possible Ranking

Everyone’s criteria differ, but if forced to line these up from “most likely” to “least likely” (in terms of near‐ to mid‐term M&A buzz), here’s a sample ordering:

  1. CHPT (ChargePoint) – High EV infra consolidation interest
  2. ENVX (Enovix) – Next‐gen battery tech is a key M&A theme
  3. IONQ (IonQ) – Leader in quantum, prime for a big-tech grab
  4. PATH (UiPath) – RPA market leader, fits enterprise software giants
  5. EDIT (Editas) – CRISPR pioneer, plausible buy for big pharma
  6. BEAM (Beam Therapeutics) – Base-editing leader, also a strong biotech target
  7. DNA (Ginkgo Bioworks) – Synthetic bio platform, albeit large and pricier
  8. AEVA (Aeva) – LiDAR, a consolidation play in automotive sensors
  9. VKTX (Viking) – Promising metabolic pipeline, a classic biotech buy scenario
  10. CABA (Cabaletta) – Early-stage autoimmune cell therapy, smaller but appealing
  11. QBTS (D‐Wave) – Unique quantum approach; overshadowed by gate‐based players
  12. MYNA (Mynaric) – Laser comms for aerospace/defense; niche but possible
  13. APLD (Applied Digital) – HPC/crypto hosting; plausible but less top-of-radar

Again, the above is inherently speculative. Biotech M&A can happen very fast if clinical data shines (which might catapult something like VKTX or CABA up the list). Meanwhile, quantum deals could accelerate if a big platform player decides it’s time to “buy rather than build.” And of course, macro conditions—interest rates, regulatory climate, or shifts in capital availability—can greatly impact who acquires whom, and when.


Disclaimer

This overview is for general information only. It is not financial or investment advice, and it is not a guarantee that any acquisition will occur. Always do your own due diligence or consult a licensed financial professional before making investment decisions.

Chargepoint is trading today as a pennystock! It would not be a surprise if a major energy company acquired CHP in 2025!


Monday, February 3, 2025

In a heated and escalating trade war with Canada, how would an export tax levied by Canada on all it's natural resources entering the USA affect American business and society

 


Below is a high-level assessment of how a hypothetical 25% or 50% Canadian export tax on all Canadian natural resources—oil, gas, metals, minerals, lumber, agricultural commodities, and even fresh water or hydro power—could affect the U.S. economy. This scenario represents a highly escalated trade conflict that would likely be unprecedented given the integrated nature of North American supply chains and the long-standing Canada-U.S. trade relationship.


1. Immediate Price and Inflation Impacts

  1. Spiking Input Costs

    • U.S. companies reliant on Canadian resources (oil, gas, uranium, metals, potash, etc.) would face significantly higher costs.
    • These cost increases would ripple through numerous industries—energy, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture—ultimately raising consumer prices.
  2. Widespread Inflationary Pressure

    • The U.S. would see broad-based inflation if major raw materials become more expensive or scarce.
    • Higher costs for fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel), metals (steel, aluminum, copper), and agricultural inputs (wheat, potash fertilizer) would feed into nearly every segment of the economy.
  3. Potential “Price Shocks”

    • Resources where Canada is a top supplier (e.g., potash for fertilizer, certain heavy crude oil grades, certain rare earths) could experience short-term shortages in the U.S., causing severe price spikes until alternative sources are found (if feasible).

2. Sector-by-Sector Effects

  1. Energy Sector


    • Oil and Gas:
      • Canada is a leading oil exporter to the U.S., especially heavy crude from Alberta. A 25% or 50% export tax would sharply raise import costs for U.S. refiners.
      • Many refineries, especially along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest, are optimized for heavier Canadian crude—switching to lighter U.S. shale or other foreign supplies is not straightforward.
      • Natural Gas: Pipeline gas from Canada serves parts of the northern U.S.; higher import costs would raise heating and industrial process costs.
    • Hydroelectric Power:

      • Certain U.S. border states import Canadian hydro power. An export tax would raise electricity costs in those regions.
  2. Metals and Minerals

    • Canada is a major source of nickel, copper, zinc, aluminum, iron ore, gold, silver, and uranium for the U.S.
    • Canada is the worlds #2 producer of Uranium (nuclear energy) and, Canada has the world's largest deposits of high-grade uranium, with grades of up to 20%, which is 100 times greater than the world average.

    • A steep export tax could disrupt U.S. manufacturing (e.g., cars, aerospace, electronics) and defense (e.g., uranium for nuclear reactors, key metals for military equipment).
    • Prices of consumer products relying on these metals (from cars to electronics) would likely increase.
       



  3. Agriculture and Food

    • Wheat, Meat, Seafood, Maple Syrup, etc.:
      • If these exports faced a 25%–50% tax, U.S. wholesalers and consumers would likely pay significantly more for Canadian wheat, beef, pork, fish, and specialty items (e.g., maple syrup and Lobster).
      • Certain regional markets in the U.S. (e.g., northern states) rely heavily on cross-border supply for fresh or specialty goods (ie: Seafood).
  4. Fertilizer (Potash)

     


    • Canada is the world’s largest producer of potash, a key fertilizer ingredient. A hefty export tax could raise costs for U.S. farmers significantly, impacting crop yields and food prices.
  5. Lumber and Forestry Products


    • Canada is a major exporter of softwood lumber and other wood products.

      A steep export tax drives up construction costs in the U.S., affecting everything from homebuilding to renovation industries.
  6. Fresh Water Exports (in bulk) Canada has 9% of worlds fresh water supply


    • While large-scale bulk water exports are minimal or highly regulated, any new tax on water or hydro resources would raise utility costs in cross-border communities.(Also fracking, as in America's shale operations, requires massive amounts of fresh water)

3. Supply Chain Disruptions and Reconfiguration (USA)

  1. Search for Alternative Suppliers

    • U.S. companies would scramble to find replacement sources—domestically or overseas—for critical inputs (heavy crude, metals, potash, lumber).
    • This process can be time-consuming and may come with higher transportation/logistics costs.
  2. Retooling and Capital Investment

    • Refiners configured for heavy Canadian crude might face expensive refitting to process lighter oil or other blends from countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Mexico (all with their own geopolitical or supply constraints).
    • Manufacturers dependent on Canadian metals (like nickel or aluminum) might shift supply chains to other countries, though quality, reliability, and shipping costs vary.
  3. Trade and Policy Uncertainty

    • The fear of future escalations or shifting tariffs can freeze investment decisions, delaying expansion or hiring in affected sectors.
    • Multinational companies operating on both sides of the border might re-evaluate where to locate production facilities.

4. Impact on U.S. Consumers and Businesses

  1. Immediate Cost Pass-Through

    • Companies facing a sudden 25%–50% cost increase on Canadian resources will pass as much of that cost as possible onto consumers—leading to higher prices for energy, groceries, goods, and services.
  2. Potential Job Losses

    • While some U.S. resource producers might enjoy a temporary competitive edge, many businesses reliant on Canadian inputs could see profit margins squeezed or lose competitiveness (especially if they export finished goods to other markets).
    • Supply chain disruptions often lead to factory slowdowns, reduced output, and in some cases layoffs.
  3. Inflationary Pressure and Reduced Purchasing Power


    • As prices rise, American households and businesses have less disposable income to spend on non-essential goods, possibly slowing overall economic growth.

5. Geopolitical and Long-Term Consequences

  1. Severe Strain on Bilateral Relations

    • A blanket 25%–50% export tax on all Canadian resources is an extreme measure that signals a deep breakdown in trade relations. The resulting tension could spill over into defense, security, and diplomatic realms.
  2. Undermining USMCA (Formerly NAFTA)


    • This move would eviscerate the spirit of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and likely prompt complex legal battles.
    • Retaliation and counter-retaliation could spiral, damaging the integrated North American economy.
  3. Acceleration of Resource Self-Sufficiency or Alternate Sourcing

    • Over the long term, the U.S. might invest more heavily in domestic mining, energy production, or forging new trade deals with other countries.
    • Canada’s potential leverage is highest in the short to medium term, before U.S. producers scale up or alternative suppliers emerge.

Conclusion

A 25%–50% export tax on all Canadian natural resources would pose a significant economic shock to the United States:

  • Energy and industrial supply chains would face immediate cost inflation, especially for heavy crude, metals, potash, and lumber.
  • Consumers and businesses would encounter higher prices on everything from fuel and electricity to cars and groceries, fueling inflation.
  • Supply chain disruption would be severe, compelling U.S. companies to retool or seek alternative suppliers, processes that are costly and time-consuming.
  • The overall U.S. economy could face slower growth, job losses in industries reliant on Canadian inputs, and a potential inflationary spiral if retaliation escalates.

In short, while a few domestic resource producers in the U.S. might see short-term gains, the vast majority of the U.S. economy would feel pain from such a sweeping Canadian export tax—a drastic measure that signals a major breakdown in the traditionally cooperative Canada-U.S. trade relationship.

GOT GOLD?

Agnico Eagle Gold is a top 3 Gold miner on the world stage now, and, it's still growing!


GOT BOTS?

Sunday, February 2, 2025

Trump Tariffs - Canada - A lesson in how to curb growth, raise prices and strain relations and partnerships with your greatest Ally!

 


Overview

The United States imposes:

  • 25% tariffs on most Canadian goods.
  • 10% tariff on Canadian oil (instead of complete exemption).
  • 25% tariffs on all Mexican imports.

In response, Canada levies:

  • 25% tariffs on $140 billion of U.S. goods.
  • A possible extra tax on Canadian oil and gas exports to the United States.

Mexico also retaliates with significant tariffs on U.S. exports.

By applying broad, unilateral tariffs on Canada, the U.S. is in clear violation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (and subsequent NAFTA/USMCA protocols). These treaties were designed to eliminate tariffs and encourage frictionless trade in North America. Imposing tariffs (and extra taxes in retaliation) specifically contradicts the very basis of these agreements—especially when such measures are not part of a sanctioned dispute-resolution process.

As with most tariff wars, there is no clear winner. All three nations experience higher costs, supply chain complications, and inflationary pressures. Below is an expanded breakdown:


1. Effects on Trade Flows

  1. U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Goods (Non-Oil)

    • A 25% tariff on non-oil Canadian goods raises prices for U.S. importers, reducing competitiveness of Canadian exports.
    • Canada may lose market share or see profit margins squeezed in vital sectors like lumber, auto parts, and agriculture.
  2. U.S. Tariffs on Canadian Oil (10%)

    • Although this is lower than 25%, it directly contravenes the free-trade principles established under CUSTA/NAFTA/USMCA.
    • Certain Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries rely heavily on Canadian heavy crude, which cannot be easily replaced by lighter U.S. shale oil. They now face higher input costs and potential operational disruptions.
  3. Canada’s Retaliation and Potential Extra Tax on Oil/Gas Exports

    • Canada’s 25% tariffs on $140 billion of U.S. goods target high-profile exports (machinery, agriculture, consumer goods).
    • A new export tax on Canadian oil/gas to the U.S. would further compound energy costs for American refiners, especially along the Texas coast.
  4. U.S. Tariffs on Mexican Goods (25%)

    • Mexico is a top source of vehicles, electronics, and produce for the U.S.
    • These tariffs raise import costs significantly and violate the North American free-trade framework, undermining integrated supply chains.
  5. Mexican Retaliation

    • Mexico would impose tariffs on key U.S. exports, reducing competitiveness for American farm products, machinery, and consumer goods.
  6. Tri-National Supply Chain Disruptions

    • Many sectors (auto, aerospace, electronics) rely on cross-border component flows. Multiple tariffs at once create compounding costs, forcing supply chain adjustments and eroding efficiency.

2. Winners and Losers

  1. Winners

    • Protected Domestic Producers:
      • Some U.S. industries that directly compete with Canadian and Mexican imports (e.g., certain agricultural or manufacturing segments) see a short-lived boost.
      • Canadian and Mexican producers that compete with U.S. imports may see temporary gains in their home markets.
    • Government Revenues:
      • Tariffs and export taxes generate revenue, though this is often overshadowed by broader economic harm.
  2. Losers

    • Refiners Relying on Canadian Heavy Crude:
      • Gulf Coast and Midwest facilities optimized for heavier Canadian crude now incur tariffs on both sides (the U.S. import tariff plus a potential Canadian export tax).
      • These higher costs can lead to reduced refinery margins, potentially higher fuel prices, or even operational cutbacks.
    • Export-Focused Industries:
      • In the U.S., agriculture, machinery, and consumer goods see lost sales in Canada and Mexico due to retaliation.
      • In Canada and Mexico, producers of goods facing a 25% U.S. tariff lose market share in their single largest export market.
    • Consumers:
      • All three countries experience price hikes for food, consumer goods, and fuel.
    • Free Trade Agreements:
      • By imposing unilateral tariffs, the U.S. effectively breaks its commitments under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement/NAFTA/USMCA, risking legal challenges and a collapse of trust in existing trade frameworks.
      • Here are the States that will lose a ton of revenue from trade with Canada et all! Note how many states will lose Canadian business!




3. Impact on Inflation

  1. Higher Energy Costs

    • A 10% tariff on Canadian oil plus a possible Canadian export tax to the U.S. means refiners pay more and may pass these costs onto consumers in the form of higher gasoline and diesel prices.
    • This can have a knock-on effect on transportation and logistics, amplifying inflation.
  2. Broader Consumer Price Increases

    • Tariffs on a wide range of imports from Canada and Mexico raise costs for raw materials, components, and finished goods.
    • The more these goods factor into daily consumer products, the more inflationary pressure builds.
  3. Limited Substitution Options

    • While some imports could be sourced from elsewhere, specialized sectors—especially heavy crude refining, automotive, aerospace—cannot easily pivot without major capital investments and time.

4. Impact on Jobs

  1. Energy Sector Employment

    • Refinery Jobs in the U.S. may be at risk if higher input costs dent profitability.
    • Canadian Oil Sector may lose U.S. market share if demand shifts, affecting jobs in exploration, production, and related services.
  2. Manufacturing and Agriculture

    • In the U.S.: Export-oriented farms and manufacturers lose Canadian and Mexican market share due to retaliation. Possible layoffs result.
    • In Canada & Mexico: Industries reliant on the U.S. market also face reduced orders because of higher tariffs, with similar job losses.
  3. Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Losses

    • Some domestic producers in each country see initial gains as competition from imports declines.
    • Historically, trade wars have shown a net negative effect on employment once retaliation and ripple effects are considered.

5. Breach of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (and USMCA)

  1. Direct Violation of Tariff Elimination Provisions

    • The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA) eliminated tariffs between the two countries for most goods. NAFTA/USMCA expanded that framework to include Mexico and modernized many rules.
    • Imposing new tariffs without following the agreement’s dispute resolution mechanisms directly contravenes the deal’s core commitments.
    • By taxing Canadian oil—historically a key export exempt under free-trade provisions—the U.S. breaks a fundamental principle of “no tariffs on cross-border energy flows.”
  2. Legal Challenges and Uncertainty

    • Canada (and Mexico) can file formal disputes under USMCA’s dispute resolution system or even at the WTO, undermining confidence in North American trade.
    • Ongoing legal battles exacerbate unpredictability for businesses, likely delaying investments and expansions.
  3. Undermining North American Economic Integration

    • The success of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement laid the groundwork for NAFTA and its successor, the USMCA. These treaties significantly contributed to cross-border supply chains and energy trade.
    • Violating these pacts threatens the stability and cooperation that have been built over decades, risking a cascade of protectionist measures and retaliations.

6. Overall Economic and Political Consequences

  1. Strains on Established Trade Relationships

    • Canada, the U.S., and Mexico have deeply entwined economies. Comprehensive tariffs shatter that stability, introducing higher costs and mutual distrust.
    • Re-negotiations or legal disputes create policy uncertainty, discouraging investment and long-term planning.
  2. Increased Consumer and Producer Prices

    • Food, energy, cars, and consumer goods face price pressures, fueling inflation in all three countries.
    • Producers cope with higher costs for imported components and face restricted access to export markets.
  3. Geopolitical Tensions

    • Historically close ties between Canada and the U.S. (and, to a slightly lesser extent, Mexico) face new frictions. Cooperation on other issues—like security or environmental policy—may be hampered by the trade conflict.
  4. No Clear Winners

    • While a handful of protected industries see temporary relief from foreign competition, the net effect is likely negative for total employment, consumer welfare, and overall economic growth in each nation.

Conclusion

By imposing 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, 10% on Canadian oil, and considering a Canadian export tax on oil/gas bound for the U.S., the United States not only instigates a damaging tariff war—it also breaches the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (and USMCA/NAFTA commitments). Canada and Mexico respond with retaliatory tariffs, deepening the trade rift:

  • Higher energy costs loom for U.S. refineries reliant on Canadian heavy crude.
  • Lost export markets for U.S. farmers and manufacturers as Canada and Mexico retaliate.
  • Heightened inflation in all three nations, with consumers bearing the brunt.
  • Eroded trust in previously established free-trade frameworks, leading to legal challenges and further uncertainty.

Ultimately, this scenario underscores that no one truly “wins” in a tariff war. 

The cross-border economic integration painstakingly developed over 50 years, through the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and subsequent accords is jeopardized, curbing growth, raising prices, and straining once-stable partnerships.

Related Posts:

How would an export tax levied by Canada on all it's natural resources entering the USA affect American business and society