2013 Hyundai Sonata Gls on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Insider trading ahead of Hyundai-Kia MPG debacle suspected

Reuters is reporting that large-scale insider trading may be at the heart of some particularly fishy stock-selling behavior, just prior to the original announcement about the Hyundai-Kia fuel economy ratings debacle.
On November 1st, Hyundai-Kia shares traded roughly 2.2 million times (the single highest-volume day of the year), and the stock price fell by about four percent. For reference, a standard daily trading volume for the stock in 2012 saw about 600k shares trading hands. On November 2nd, the company made public the bad news about the dropping fuel economy ratings for many of its models. In other words: No one outside of the company (and only a smallish group inside the company, we'd imagine) should have known anything about the impending bad news as of the first day of November. After the announcement, the stock price tanked, as you'd expect, and trading volume was way down as well.
Experts seem fully aware that the whole thing reeks of leaked information and subsequent insider trading. If chicanery on this sort of scale seems wacky to you, you'd be inline with the experts who report to Reuters that the level of trading is absolutely suspicious.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.

S. Korea to raise concerns about EV credits, battery sourcing in U.S. visit

SEOUL — South Korean officials will meet U.S. counterparts this week to express "concerns" about the Inflation Reduction Act, which restricts who can receive U.S. subsidies for the production of electric vehicles and where firms can source battery materials. President Joe Biden signed into law this month a $430 billion bill, seen as the biggest climate package in U.S. history. The law requires that EVs be assembled in North America to qualify for tax credits, ending subsidies for several EV models, and that a percentage of critical minerals used in batteries come from the United States or an American free-trade partner. Automakers like Hyundai Motor face short-term competitive disadvantage to manufacturers of EVs that receive tax credits in the United States, while industry sources said Korean battery makers must make changes to mineral sourcing routes, which could affect cost adversely. South Korean officials are expected to tell counterparts from the U.S. Trade Representative's office and the U.S. Treasury that the new law may violate trade norms such as the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement and the WTO agreement, the industry ministry said. Korean automakers will consider adjusting production plans to prioritize the construction of U.S. plants for example, the ministry said, while battery makers will seek to diversify where they source minerals from. Under new rules to kick in next year, at least 40% of the monetary value of the critical minerals in batteries will need to come from the United States or an American free-trade partner, with that proportion rising to 80% by 2027. Globally, the treatment of some 58% of lithium, 64% of cobalt and 70% of graphite goes through China, according to ministry data. FALLOUT The new rules are a major complication for battery makers LG Energy Solution (LGES), SK On and Samsung SDI, battery industry sources said. South Korea's LGES supplies Tesla and General Motors, while SK On and Samsung SDI supply Ford Motor and Volkswagen among others. The three battery makers together command more than a quarter of the global EV battery market, according to SNE Research. "It's become a huge headache ... Automaker clients said they didn't expect this new law would take effect this soon," said a South Korean battery industry source.