As reported by the Financial Times, Apple plans to move all of its US iPhone production to India.

More than 60 million iPhones are sold annually in the US. Apple plans to source this from India in its entirety by the end of 2026. 

This is a significant pivot away from China, where Apple has established its production over decades. An estimated nine in 10 iPhones are made in China – accounting for nearly 200 million devices – and approximately 150 of Apple’s top 187 suppliers had factories in China in 2024.

India is subject to a baseline levy of 10% by the US; the 27% ‘reciprocal’ tariff which it was set to face has now been put on hold until 9 July. 

On the other hand, China has been hit by import taxes of up to 145%, and China has hit back with a 125% tax on American products. Although developments this morning show promising signs of de-escalation – US President Donald Trump told reporters, “We may reveal it later, but they had meetings this morning, and we’ve been meeting with China” – relocating to India may instil more confidence amongst investors.

After Apple entered China in the 1990s, the relationship between the company and the country has been one of reciprocal benefit. As China opened up to the world, Apple grew more entrenched in its manufacturing sector.

In an interview last year, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said, “There’s no supply chain in the world that’s more critical to us than China.” Both in practice and in threat, tariffs have forced U-turns in manufacturing strategies for many large American businesses.

The post Apple to move iPhone production from China to India by 2026 appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

Tanzania has blocked all agricultural imports from Malawi, its southern neighbour, and South Africa, Africa’s largest economy. 

Since Malawi is landlocked, it relies on Tanzania’s ports for international trade. Therefore, its top exports – raw tobacco, tea, legumes, soybeans, and sugar – will suffer, particularly since its top trading partners are international (with Germany and India as leading destinations).

The export of fertiliser to Malawi will also be suspended.

South African exports which will be hit include various fruits, including apples and grapes. While relatively muted compared with the impact of Tanzania’s move on Malawi’s economy, South Africa is heavily reliant on exports. Already weakened by 31% tariffs from the US ($500 million worth of South Africa’s $13.7 billion in agricultural exports go to the US), the country may now struggle in the intra-regional reorientation which many other economies are enjoying.

Tanzania has also halted the transit of any agricultural goods through its territory to either country, stymying Malawi’s international importing capability in particular.

Tanzanian Minister of Agriculture Hussein Bashe has justified this policy as retaliatory. Both Malawi and South Africa have embargoes on Tanzanian produce. 

This refers to Malawi’s ban on the import of certain produce, which was apparently designed as a temporary measure: a “strategic move to create an environment where local businesses can thrive without the immediate pressure of foreign competition,” according to Malawi’s Trade Minister, Vitumbiko Mumba at the time.

Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa are all members of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) regional economic bloc. This may grow fraught with Bashe’s emphasis that Tanzania will begin to act in defence of its national sovereignty.

The post African trade war escalates as Tanzania bans all agricultural imports from South Africa, Malawi appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

An ITFA working group has recently developed a template for financial institutions (FIs) granting short-term trade loans via the SWIFT MT799 format. 

The SWIFT MT799 is commonly used by banks to communicate non-binding information on trade finance transactions. While widely used, this system has historically lacked the uniformity to operate across multiple jurisdictions. This has led to difficulty for banks seeking to obtain foreign currency financing, contributing to the barriers to finance which many emerging markets face.

The new template aims to enhance this accessibility for both borrowing and lending banks. It offers clear guidance on topics from floating rate loans with periodic interest resets to different governing laws, and is designed to be concisely focused on practicality. 

Paul Coles, chair of ITFA’s Market Practice Committee, led the working group, which included experts from Sullivan and FCMB Bank (UK).

Geoffrey Wynne, a partner at Sullivan and part of the ITFA working group which developed the template, said, “This template is important because, by provides a starting point for banks to document short term trade loans using SWIFT, it should reduce the time needed to negotiate and finalise the relevant trade loan agreement. 

“While it provides a starting point, the template also allows for the customisation of the documentation to meet the specific needs of individual transactions. We hope this will be key to its success.”

ITFA has emphasised that this template exists to complement other comprehensive frameworks, but focuses on standalone, one-off loans that are solely documented through SWIFT messaging.

The standardisation of this format is intended to provide a benchmark of “what good looks like”. 

The template and accompanying guidance notes are now available to ITFA members through the association’s website, though users are advised to seek legal advice before implementation.

The post New trade loan template to standardise and guide trade finance transactions launched by ITFA appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has just published its World Economic Outlook as of April 2025, portending a fall of global GDP growth by 0.5%, to 2.8% for the year. 

This is largely the result of the “major negative shock” that US President Donald Trump’s tariffs have imposed on the global economy.

The report is structured in three chapters, covering global policy, demographic impacts (including of an ageing population), and the impact of refugee and migration policy on economic growth, particularly within developing economies.

Since February, the US has announced multiple waves of tariffs against trading partners, culminating in near-universal levies on 2 April, which triggered historic drops in equity markets. Though markets partially recovered following pause announcements after 9 April, uncertainty—especially regarding trade policy—has surged to unprecedented levels.

The impacts of tariffs, IMF reports, vary considerably across countries. In the US, where demand was already softening, growth projections have been lowered to 1.8% for this year, with tariffs accounting for nearly half the reduction. China’s growth forecast has been cut to 4%, reflecting weaker external demand. The eurozone faces a more modest reduction to 0.8%, with stronger fiscal stimulus providing some offset.

Source: IMF

Global trade growth is expected to decline more severely than output, dropping to just 1.7% in 2025. 

The report presents several forecast scenarios reflecting differing policy paths. A pre-April 2 forecast (excluding the most recent tariff escalation) would have yielded 3.2% global growth in both 2025 and 2026. A model-based forecast incorporating announcements after 9 April suggests that even with temporary halts to some tariffs, global growth prospects remain similar to the reference forecast due to elevated US-China tariffs and continued uncertainty.

Despite the slowdown, global growth remains above recession levels. The IMF recommends restoring trade policy stability and forging mutually beneficial arrangements to address longstanding gaps in international trading rules. 

Domestic imbalances contribute to uneven growth, with high consumption in the US, weak demand in China, and subdued manufacturing activity in many economies. Addressing these underlying issues could help offset economic risks and close external imbalances whilst building a more inclusive trading system.

Interestingly, the IMF’s inflation forecast has been relatively stable. Emerging and developing markets in Asia, in particular, are expected to see more muted inflationary pressures. Yet this outcome is a likely result of the negative demand shock which tariffed countries are experiencing as export demand diminishes. Furthermore, rising import prices from a trade war could increase already tentative inflationary pressures.

In this vein, the IMF notes that since over 80% of trade invoicing is conducted in US dollars, this projection could be reversed if the USD appreciated. 

Source: IMF

To doubt is to waver

Trade policy uncertainty has become a major impediment to economic growth, with the prolonged elevation of this uncertainty causing investment distortions and market volatility. 

Trade uncertainty, the IMF emphasises, weighs adversely on supply- and demand-side indicators, creating a cycle of negative wealth effects. 

The impact of this trade uncertainty manifests in financial market volatility, supply chain disruptions, and dampened investment.

To mitigate these impacts, the IMF recommends international cooperation through regional and cross-regional groups to sustain global growth and tackle common problems. It suggests that a stable and predictable trade environment could be achieved through pragmatic cooperation and deeper economic integration, including non-discriminatory unilateral reductions of trade barriers or expanded trade at regional, plurilateral, or multilateral levels.

The IMF also cautions against broad subsidies as a response to trade distortions, noting they generate large fiscal costs and additional distortions. While targeted industrial policies may alleviate specific sectoral market failures in certain cases, they should be subjected to a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and narrowly focused on well-identified market failures to minimise distortions.

Reducing policy-induced uncertainty would at least go some way in working against the bubble of uncertainty which global trade currently doesn’t seem capable of bursting.

“Power hungry”: The impact on commodity markets

The future of commodities markets appears to be characterised by this same increasing volatility and changing dynamics across different sectors, as geopolitics and technology developments prove a double-edged sword: but also pose room for opportunity. 

The report highlights some key metrics influencing their conclusion:

• In energy, oil prices declined 9.7% between August 2024 and March 2025, with further plummets in early April amid escalating trade tensions.
• Natural gas prices rose until March 2025 but reversed course in April, with futures suggesting declining prices through 2030.

• The IMF’s metals price index increased by 11.2% between August 2024 and March 2025, driven mainly by gold, aluminium, and copper.
• Gold prices have repeatedly set new records amid policy and geopolitical uncertainty, hitting $3,500 today.

• The IMF’s food and beverages price index increased by 3.6%, driven by higher beverage prices.
• Coffee prices jumped 33.8%, reaching historic highs due to weather-related supply concerns; on the flip side, rice prices fell 26.0% as crop conditions improved in India and other parts of Asia.

Trade war fears are adding to the “already-bearish outlook” in these markets, and a major structural shift is occurring with AI-related data centres dramatically increasing electricity demand. By 2030, AI-driven global electricity consumption could reach 1,500 TWh, comparable to India’s current total electricity consumption.

The future outlook appears to be one of continued volatility, with balanced risks for energy markets but significant structural changes due to technological developments like AI, which will reshape energy demand patterns and potentially impact all commodity markets through their effects on economic growth and costs.

—

The report comes as many world economies seek to reroute supply chains, creating an environment in which decades-old alliances are being rethought. The IMF report has forecasted relatively more stable economic growth, which fell just 0.3% to 6.2% in 2025; yet US Vice President JD Vance’s recent visit to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has highlighted the paradoxicality of cutting China out while relying on their materials for manufacturing.

This, and similar contradictions, are what has led the IMF to call for “prudence and improved collaboration” across industries and national boundaries. Fiscal authorities face particularly difficult choices amid high debt levels, rising financial costs, and new spending demands, including increased defence expenditure in some regions. 

The IMF highlights that the global economy needs a “clear and predictable trading system, addressing longstanding gaps in international trading rules, including the pervasive use of non-tariff barriers or other trade-distorting measures.” Countries must remain agile to stay afloat.

The post IMF warns of tariff impact, calls for “improved collaboration” appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

An automotive parts manufacturer based in the Gumi National Industrial Complex in North Gyeongsang Province, South Korea, filed for court rehabilitation yesterday, on 31 March, after failing to honour promissory notes.

In spite of its £17.3 million annual turnover, and holding innovation certification, the company cited a “sharp decline in order volumes” as the primary cause of its distress.

This case exemplifies broader challenges facing Korean manufacturers, with two automotive parts suppliers in the country declaring bankruptcy in March alone. The sector’s troubles come before US President Donald Trump’s tariffs have fully taken effect – a 25% levy on imported vehicles starts 2 April, with component tariffs following in May.

Manufacturing production had already contracted by 4.2% year-on-year in January, with the Business Survey Index (BSI), which measures the economic sentiment of the top 600 South Korean companies, remaining below the 100-point threshold for thirteen consecutive months. 

The Business Survey Index (BSI), which measures the economic sentiment of the top 600 South Korean companies, is at 92. A BSI below 100 means companies have a negative outlook on the economy. The BSI currently stands at 92, indicating that many businesses are pessimistic about future growth and economic conditions. 

“Exports are expected to fall from April,” said Chun Kyu-yeon, an economist at Hana Securities, as a result of reciprocal tariffs on automobiles. While South Korea’s total March exports increased by 3.1% in March, this fell short of the expected 3.5% growth.

South Korea’s steel exports dropped 10.6% in March, in correlation with the US imposition of a 25% tariff on steel last month.

This extends beyond automotive parts: after Trump unveiled a 25% tariff on automobiles last Wednesday on 26 March, shares in Korean imported vehicles were rattled. Hyundai Motor lost 11.2% in the three sessions following the annonucement, and Kia Corp fell more than 3% after Trump’s announcement. South Korea’s Industry Minister Ahn Duk-geun warned of the “considerable difficulties” this uncertainty would bring.

The stakes are significant: South Korean automotive parts exports to the US reached £6.3 billion last year, representing 36.5% of the nation’s total component exports. South Korea’s exports of automobiles to the United States stood at $34.7 billion in the same period, accounting for 49% of its total auto exports. South Korean brands (Hyundai and Kia) also make up two of the eight top car brands in terms of auto sales in the US. 

The Korean government plans emergency measures for the automotive sector in April, with further initiatives for petrochemicals and component manufacturing to follow.

Industry representatives are calling for subsidies and tax relief comparable to those offered by competitors such as the US and Japan to weather what they describe as an “unprecedented crisis” for key industries.

While a significant share of media attention is diverted towards the rhetoric and ideological implications of tariffs, such cases reiterate that tariffs will harm the businesses – often small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – which make up the foundation of international supply chains. As such, these bankruptcies portend a far weakened structure upon this foundation.

The post South Korean auto manufacturing sector faces bankruptcies as US tariffs loom appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

This closure has instigated concern surrounding supply chain resilience and risk management, particularly on overdependence on single transit points.

According to Parcelhero, the airport’s closure disrupted the supply of over £5.43 million worth of goods. This includes losses from spoiled perishable goods, aircraft rescheduling costs, idle production lines, and the complex logistics of rerouting freight through alternative airports like Gatwick and Stansted.

Key exported products such as salmon, books, and medicines, along with critical imports like chemicals, plastics, and perishable goods, were significantly impacted by the airport’s closure.

The closure was particularly impactful for European and transatlantic trade, given Heathrow’s crucial role as the UK’s primary international airport.

Cargo companies and logistics providers quickly adapted to the crisis. Some, like PML Seafrigo, offered collection services from alternative airports and worked to reroute goods. Despite the airport reopening, cargo facilities at Heathrow and alternative London airports continued to face significant scheduling and volume challenges in the aftermath of the closure.

In 2024, Heathrow Airport handled 1.5 million tonnes of cargo, valued at £216 billion, which is 70% of all UK cargo.

The event elucidated how vulnerable these crucial supply chains are to gridlock. Heiko Schwarz, Global Supply Chain Risk Advisor at Sphera, said: “Whether it’s this fire, the Icelandic ash cloud in 2010, or the Suez Canal blockage in 2021, these incidents underscore the need for end-to-end visibility, scenario planning, and supply chain diversification.”

The post Heathrow Airport closure raises concerns about supply chain resilience appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

Just weeks after the two countries resumed talks, Nidhi Tripathi, economic minister in India’s High Commission in London, reported on Thursday 20 March that the UK and India are “very close” to agreeing on an FTA. This agreement will bring a degree of stability, as both countries look to reroute around tariffs from key trading partners, in particular the US.

Bilateral trade between the UK and India was valued at £40.9 billion in 2024, an increase of 8.6% from the previous year. In this period, India was the UK’s 11th largest trading partner; the UK was India’s 16th largest trading partner.

The negotiations with New Zealand, while smaller in scale, are equally strategic.

After a decade-long impasse, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon launched a five-day diplomatic tour in Delhi and held bilateral talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 16 March.

The two nations have agreed to commence the first round of negotiations next month, with Luxon describing the restart as a “major breakthrough” that could potentially double New Zealand’s exports within a decade. 

Currently, bilateral trade between the two countries stands at under $2 billion, but both sides see significant potential for expansion across multiple sectors. It provides India with enhanced access to agricultural and dairy markets while offering New Zealand improved entry into India’s burgeoning technology and services.

The negotiations, which originally began in 2010 but stalled over market access issues—particularly New Zealand’s desire to enter India’s traditionally protected dairy market—reflect India’s recent shift towards more open bilateral trade agreements, particularly in the context of countering China’s influence in the Indian Ocean region and diversifying its international economic partnerships.

The post India pushes ahead with free trade agreements with UK and New Zealand appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

StoneX Group, the New York-based financial services company, has announced a strategic partnership with Bamboo Payment Systems to strengthen its cross-border payment capabilities in Latin America.

The company will make an undisclosed investment in Bamboo as part of the deal. The partnership aims to improve foreign exchange pricing, settlement reliability and cash flow efficiency for global merchants and financial institutions operating in the region.

StoneX Payments, which offers settlement options in more than 140 currencies across 180 countries, will combine its foreign exchange (FX) expertise with Bamboo’s proprietary platform, which connects to over 600 local banks and financial institutions throughout Latin America.

Bamboo’s proprietary payment platform is connected to more than 600 local banks and financial institutions, across 11 countries in the region. 

Thiago Vieira, global head of StoneX Payments, said the partnership would “set a new standard in global payment services” by combining the companies’ respective strengths.

In reciprocal benefit, StoneX will gain immediate access to this regional foundation, while Bamboo will benefit from enhanced international banking relationships. Revenue can be unlocked regarding FX pricing and settlement efficiency.

The partnership remains subject to regulatory approval, with financial terms undisclosed.

The post StoneX forms Latin American payments partnership with Bamboo appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

The PSR, which oversees payment networks such as Faster Payments and Mastercard, will see its responsibilities consolidated into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), in order to make the regulatory landscape more coherent by reducing the number of bodies that payment firms must engage with.

“For too long, the previous Government hid behind regulators – deferring decisions and allowing regulations to bloat and block meaningful growth in this country,” Prime Minister Starmer said in a statement. “And it has been working people who pay the price of this stagnation.”

Payment system firms had to engage with three different regulators, which has raised complaints, particularly regarding the disproportionate burden of this complexity on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Chancellor Rachel Reeves highlighted the SME impact, stating, “The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth. We will free businesses from that stranglehold, delivering on our Plan for Change to kickstart economic growth and put more money into working people’s pockets.”

The PSR, with 160 employees and a £28 million annual budget, is already housed in the same east London headquarters as the FCA and shares senior staff, including its leader David Geale, who is an FCA director. Primary legislation will be required to enact the merger, with the FCA set to retain the payments agency’s powers after consolidation.

However, some officials question whether formally scrapping the PSR is worth the disruption, given it already functions essentially as an FCA subsidiary. Charles Randell, former FCA chair, cautioned that merging regulators “might be a crowd-pleasing thing to do” but doubted it would “produce payback in the life of this parliament.”

The PSR came under fire last week by Visa and Revolut, who argued that the regulator had overstepped by proposing a cap on international transaction fees. This is the latest in a string of controversial decisions made by the PSR in recent years, including its approach to introducing a mandatory refund system for payments fraud.

Responses from the payments and fintech industries have been mixed. Kamran Hedjri, CEO of PXP, welcomed the potential for simplified compliance but expressed concern that progress in areas such as Open Banking could stall if the FCA does not prioritise payments with the same focus as the PSR. On the other hand, Jonathan Frost, Director of Global Advisory for EMEA at BioCatch, downplayed the significance of the change, describing it as “little more than a branding exercise” given the existing integration between the two bodies.

The government has emphasised that the regulator will continue to have access to its statutory powers until legislation passes parliament; change will be incremental rather than immediate.

The initiative follows other deregulatory measures, including lifting the onshore wind ban, introducing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and setting financial services regulators on a growth agenda, as part of a wider government review of Britain’s estimated 130 regulators.

The post UK plans to scrap Payment Systems Regulator appeared first on Trade Finance Global.

Within hours of US President Donald Trump’s 25% global tariffs on steel and aluminium taking effect, the EU has announced it will match the US tariffs on European exports.

American tariffs affect around $28 million worth of goods; the European Commission said its countermeasures will affect American goods worth €26 billion ($28.3 billion). These “strong but proportionate” tariffs, as described by the European Commission’s president Ursula von der Leyen, will go into effect from 1 April.

Brussels has so far reinstated measures on America-made products that were initially introduced during Trump’s first term. These include €4.5 billion worth of bourbon whiskey, peanut butter, jeans, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, which will face levies of up to 50%.

EU member states have planned a second tranche of tariffs to come into effect in mid-April, which would target even more US goods, in industrial and agricultural sectors.

In the recent past, Canada’s retaliatory tariffs have gone further than targeting necessities (including energy and gas): conventionally American products, such as nachos, wings, and beer, have come under fire, and must now be made with either local Canadian or Mexican/European ingredients.  

The UK and Australia, historically some of the US’ closest allies, have not yet enacted any retaliatory measures – UK Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds is focussed on a “pragmatic approach”. Nonetheless, both governments seem disappointed by Trump’s tariffs, and neither have ruled out countermeasures. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he will “keep all options on the table”, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued that the tariffs went against “the spirit of the two nations’ enduring friendship”. 

The acrimonious dispute between the US and its allies has disrupted stock markets. Once bullish forecasts for stocks have been significantly scaled back after the S&P 500 index lost 2.7% on Monday; similarly, the Nasdaq Composite lost 4%. Bank stocks have sunk significantly, but one of the biggest to suffer has been Tesla, which fell 15.4%. Since December, Tesla has fallen more than 50%, giving up its post-election gains in swathes.

The post “Tariffs are taxes” – EU retaliates to US tariffs taking effect appeared first on Trade Finance Global.