Trump tax threats spook Harley investors, shares down again

FAN Editor

Shares of iconic American motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson on Tuesday extended the previous day’s decline as President Trump slammed the company’s decision to shift production out of the U.S. and threatened to tax them “like never before” on Twitter.

Continue Reading Below

Trump said a Harley-Davidson motorcycle “should never be built in another country” and if they follow through on the move, it “will be the beginning of the end.”

The president also claimed company announced plans earlier this year to move production to Thailand and was using the tariffs as an excuse to justify the decision.

The Twitter tirade irked investors, causing shares of the motorcycle maker to move lower again during Tuesday’s session – after falling as much as 7% on Monday.

Ticker Security Last Change %Chg
HOG HARLEY DAVIDSON 41.50 -0.07 -0.17%

The Milwaukee-based manufacturer on Monday said it would be significantly impacted by the United States’ tariffs on European Union products. To alleviate some of that financial burden, the company announced plans to shift production overseas to existing plants in Thailand, India and Brazil.

However, Harley said it was only moving production out of the U.S. that is to be sold in Europe. The company also said it is not building a new plant in Europe.

Harley-Davidson said tariffs on motorcycles exports have increased by 31%, hiking prices by about $2,200, on average, per motorcycle. It expects the tariffs to add an additional $100 million in costs on a full-year basis.

In 2017, Harley-Davidson’s retail sales in Europe were second only to the United States, and accounted for nearly 42% of the company’s international sales. In the first quarter of 2018, Harley-Davidson cited Europe as an area where it experienced “strong results.”

Free America Network Articles

Leave a Reply

Next Post

Supreme Court rules for anti-abortion clinics' First Amendment rights

The Supreme Court ruled California cannot require clinics that serve pregnant women to provide information about the availability of abortion services elsewhere in the state, a move in favor of anti-abortion clinics that claimed the state law violated their First Amendment rights. The case was brought by two “crisis pregnancy […]

You May Like