Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), set for release on Tuesday, is expected to show that wage growth, excluding bonuses, has dipped to 5.4 percent in the three months leading to April, down from 5.6 percent. Additionally, unemployment is projected to rise to 4.6 percent, up from 4.5 percent.

Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, addressed the Treasury select committee last week, indicating that a continued decline in wage growth is crucial for potential reductions in interest rates, which have recently decreased to 4.25 percent from a high of 5.25 percent.

Bailey expressed his belief that wages will decrease this year and noted, “at the moment I think that path is intact.”

Ruth Gregory, the deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics, anticipated that wages would increase by 5.3 percent in the three months to April but suggested that it might not be long before wage growth aligns more closely with the 2 percent inflation target.

There are significant concerns regarding the reliability of the ONS’s labor market data, particularly due to a significant decline in survey response rates that inform these statistics. Recently, the ONS acknowledged that the inflation estimate of 3.5 percent for April was overstated by 10 basis points due to erroneous car tax information supplied by the government.

Research released by BDO, an accounting firm, on Sunday highlighted a recovery in business output and confidence in May, largely driven by the services sector. However, BDO’s employment index, which gauges labor market sentiment, remained at a near 13-year low.

Analysts predict that on Thursday, ONS figures will indicate a 0.2 percent contraction in the economy for April, primarily impacted by sluggish industrial production following President Trump’s tariff announcements at the beginning of the month. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects that the UK economy will grow by 1.2 percent this year.

Sanjay Raja, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, remarked, “After a strong start to the year, we anticipate some signs of moderation in GDP growth.”

The composite purchasing managers’ index (PMI), a vital indicator measuring private sector activity, improved to 50.3 in May, up from 48.5 in the previous month, surpassing the 50-point benchmark that distinguishes growth from contraction, suggesting that the economy will continue to build on its 0.7 percent growth from the first quarter into the second quarter.

While many individuals routinely compare energy, broadband, auto insurance, and phone providers to save money, the potential savings from changing investment platforms are much greater.

Charlotte Ransom, founder of the advisory firm Netwealth, emphasized the need for investors to reassess their financial assets. She stated, “We readily embrace the switch-and-save philosophy for utilities and insurance, yet we neglect to consider the significant assets we hold in pensions, ISAs, and investments, which are typically the largest after property.”

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) suggests that investors usually incur an average annual advisory fee of 2.4%. For a portfolio valued at £250,000, reducing this fee by a mere one percentage point to 1.4% could save £2,500 annually.

If these investments grow by 5% annually over ten years, this could amount to savings of approximately £34,084. With an annual growth rate of 7%, the savings could increase to around £40,488, enough to cover two years of private school fees at an average of £20,000 each year or fund an additional 18 months of retirement living, based on estimates from the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which states that a moderate retirement lifestyle costs approximately £31,700 annually.

Despite these attractive savings figures, there is a surprising resistance to switching investment platforms. Research from St James’s Place (SJP), one of the largest advice networks in the UK, indicates that 62% of UK investors have never switched their financial adviser or investment service. This figure rises to 72% among those aged 35-54 and 74% for individuals aged 55 and older.

Why You Should Consider Switching

Iain Solly, who had been a client of Hargreaves Lansdown for ten years, chose to switch to Interactive Investor last year. The 56-year-old from Tunbridge Wells transferred his £650,000 pension, reducing his annual fees from £1,625 to just £264. He stated, “As I was contemplating retirement at 59 or 60, I needed to re-evaluate my investments and the costs associated with managing them.”

Transferring investments requires careful consideration and planning. First, ensure that the new platform offers the same investments, as some may have limited options. Ideally, you should transfer “in specie,” meaning that your investments remain intact during the transfer, avoiding selling and repurchasing that could incur trading fees or taxes.

To initiate the transfer, open an account with your new provider and provide details of your existing account; they will typically handle the majority of the process for you. It is also advisable to notify your current platform of your departure and to inquire about any exit penalties.

The transfer duration will vary based on the types of investments. Cash and equities generally take up to six weeks, funds can take up to eight weeks, and overseas holdings may take up to 12 weeks, according to AJ Bell.

In Solly’s case, the entire process was completed in about three weeks. He is pleased with his decision, not only due to the reduced fees but also because it prompted him to reassess his portfolio and choose more income-generating funds. He remarked, “The cost savings were much more substantial than I anticipated. I’m regretting that I didn’t make this change sooner.”

For DIY Investors

For those who prefer a hands-on investment approach, selecting platforms that offer a diverse range of low-cost products is essential. Additionally, prioritize platforms known for good customer service and user-friendly apps or websites.

Understanding the cost structure is crucial and includes considering four major factors: the platform fee (charged for using the investment platform), product fees (associated with the investments themselves), trading costs (for executing buy/sell transactions), and advisory fees.

Be mindful of potential hidden costs such as exit fees, initiation fees, and elevated charges for trades made via phone.

IWeb, under Halifax, is noted for having no platform fees, focusing instead on a flat £5 per-trade fee for shares and funds. Classic investment product fees vary, with tracker funds charging less than 0.1% and managed funds from 0.6% to over 1%.

AJ Bell is also a strong choice, especially for smaller portfolios, featuring a 0.25% platform fee and £1.50 for fund trades. For those focused solely on shares, there’s a monthly fee capped at £3.50, although individual share trades can cost £5 (which reduces to £3.50 for frequent traders).

Hargreaves Lansdown charges up to 0.45% on funds without imposing a trading fee. For shares, there’s no platform charge, but trading fees can be as high as £11.95 per transaction.

As your portfolio expands, your optimal platform may shift. Generally, percentage-based fees benefit smaller investments, while fixed fees become more attractive as investment amounts increase.

Interactive Investor, for instance, imposes a £4.99 monthly platform fee for amounts up to £50,000, which works out to approximately 0.12% annually based on that level. Share transactions usually cost £3.99 each.

Vanguard, while more costly for those investing under £32,000—with a flat fee of £4 monthly—offers a lower expense structure above this threshold, charging an annual platform fee of 0.15% with no trading fees and investment costs of roughly 0.2%, albeit only for its own funds.

Considering Financial Advice

Hiring a financial adviser can be pricier, yet it may be beneficial for those with complex financial situations or those who prefer professional management of their investments.

When choosing a wealth management advisor, consider crucial aspects such as the variety of products offered, the quality of service, and whether the adviser is independent or tied to a particular firm. Independent advisers are typically favored since they can recommend a broader range of products. Beware of firms hesitant to disclose their fees upfront, insisting instead on in-person meetings before sharing cost details.

Determine the level of advice needed, as advisory fees are typically charged in addition to platform, fund management, and trading fees. The FCA notes that advisers generally charge around 2.4% for an initial consultation and 0.8% annually for continuing assessments, although you may choose to forgo ongoing reviews.

Robo-advisors like Nutmeg, Moneyfarm, and Wealthify are worth exploring as lower-cost alternatives, offering standardized guidance instead of personalized recommendations. These platforms provide ready-made portfolios tailored for different investor types, with fees varying; for instance, Nutmeg charges between 0.7% and 1.15% depending on the service level selected.

At the premium end of the market are fully managed discretionary portfolio services, where an expert oversees extensive aspects of your wealth. For example, Quilter often levies an initial fee ranging from 1% to 3%, along with an ongoing advisory fee of 0.6% to 0.95%.

Additionally, there can be a platform fee of up to 0.3% and charges of 0.75% to 0.97% for their actively managed fund portfolios, potentially totaling an annual fee of around 2.17%, not including the initial advisory fee.

Shareholders of Alphawave will receive 183p per share, nearly double its market price prior to Qualcomm’s announcement of interest in April.

This cash offer increased Alphawave’s stock price by 24%, or 35p, reaching 185p on the London Stock Exchange, surpassing the proposed takeover amount.

In light of acquisition interest from firms including Arm Holdings, Alphawave engaged with its financial advisors to assess strategic sale opportunities.

The Canadian firm, which was once the largest North American company to list in London during the so-called “class of 2021” at 410p per share, has seen its value decline by more than two-thirds since its debut.

Alphawave specializes in designing chips for semiconductors produced by companies such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Samsung.

Recently, the firm has pivoted towards creating custom chip designs and is transitioning to offer complete chip solutions directly to American tech firms for use in their expansive data centers. Its technology facilitates quicker and more efficient data transmission while consuming less power.

Qualcomm, a San Diego-based entity valued at around $163 billion on the Nasdaq, specializes in semiconductor intellectual property and primarily earns revenue through licensing its chip designs. Its share prices remained stable during pre-market trading.

Qualcomm previously put forth two alternative all-share offers to Alphawave’s shareholders after being granted extensions by the UK’s takeover panel. As part of the agreement, shareholders have the choice to exchange their shares for newly issued Qualcomm stock instead of the cash option.

Under the guidance of Jan Frykhammar, Alphawave’s board has endorsed the acquisition to its shareholders. Tony Pialis, CEO and co-founder, mentioned in March his objective to develop a leading semiconductor enterprise akin to Arm’s leadership.

Pialis commented that this acquisition signifies an important milestone and a chance to collaborate with a highly regarded industry leader. He expressed optimism that the merger of resources and expertise will enhance their product range, broaden their customer reach, and strengthen technological capabilities.

Alphawave was supported by Goldman Sachs and BMO during the acquisition process, while Qualcomm partnered with Evercore Partners.

Cristiano Amon, CEO of Qualcomm, stated that the integrated teams aim to innovate advanced technological solutions and advance connected computing capabilities across various rapidly growing sectors, including data center infrastructure.

Facing challenges of profitability, Alphawave has previously released performance warnings, with short-sellers heavily betting against the company just before interest in the takeover surfaced. Short-seller activities have since diminished.

The acquisition is anticipated to conclude in the first quarter of next year, pending regulatory approvals from the US, Germany, South Korea, Canada, and the UK.

The announcement of the Qualcomm deal coincided with Alphawave’s completion of selling its stake in WiseWave, a joint venture with Wise Road Capital, back to existing state shareholders.

Analysts from Jefferies indicated they foresee minimal regulatory issues arising from this acquisition, especially following Alphawave’s divestiture from WiseWave, predicting a successful conclusion at the proposed bid price within the anticipated timeline.

In a concerted effort, more than a dozen states proposed legislation last year aimed at tackling the issue of harmful chemicals present in food. However, regulatory attempts to manage unhealthy UPFs have faced obstacles due to the absence of a specific UPF definition from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA has acknowledged a “clear link between UPFs and negative health outcomes.” They noted that ultra-processed items are typically mass-produced and contain various additives—such as flavors, colors, and essential nutrients—that enhance their appeal, often including saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars.

During a Senate health committee meeting last December concerning the FDA’s initiatives to combat diabetes and obesity in the U.S., agency representatives expressed, “There is still much to be learned about UPFs.” They further pointed out the necessity of comprehending how UPFs negatively affect health to inform effective policies and avoid misleading messages for consumers.

Bipartisan efforts at the state level to restore health in America pose a significant short-term challenge for large food corporations. In California, Democratic Representative Jesse Gabriel has introduced a landmark bill aimed at establishing the first legal definition of UPFs in the nation, mandating the state’s environmental health regulator to identify and phase out “particularly harmful” UPFs from school meals by 2032.

Legal experts at Jones Day warn that California’s creation of a legal UPF definition could set a precedent, leading other states to pursue similar restrictive laws targeting the food and beverage sector.

Simultaneously, in Pennsylvania, Republican state representative Natalie Mihalek has proposed a series of laws aimed at the food industry, including a ban on unhealthy ultra-processed foods within schools.

There is an emerging trend among personal injury lawyers, who see new opportunities in this waning support for Big Food. In December, the firm Morgan & Morgan initiated a groundbreaking lawsuit against 11 major food companies—such as Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, PepsiCo, and WK Kellogg—claiming they have manipulated ultra-processed foods to be highly addictive, employing sales strategies reminiscent of tobacco companies, which has led to UPFs overshadowing traditional food options.

The lawsuit, led by plaintiffs like 18-year-old Bryce Martinez from Pennsylvania, asserts that the actions of these food corporations contributed to his diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at just 16 years of age.

Hilliard Law, a Texas law firm, reports a surge of inquiries from individuals seeking legal recourse after linking their health issues to ultra-processed food consumption. This firm anticipates filing its first lawsuits by the end of this year.

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents U.S. packaged food manufacturers, contends that these companies adhere to stringent safety standards set by the FDA, aiming to provide safe, affordable, and accessible products for consumers. They have also launched a campaign to clarify misconceptions surrounding processed foods.

However, major food lobbyists find themselves losing support among policymakers. Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group—an organization advocating against food industry loopholes that threaten health—stated, “There is currently no issue that enjoys less partisanship than food.” She added that many traditional allies of food corporations in Congress are now advocating against ultra-processed foods and harmful food chemicals.

Despite this shift, she indicated that the Trump administration had not taken meaningful action against unhealthy food practices, having instead eliminated a significant number of food and health positions and overturned Biden-era measures aimed at reducing salmonella in poultry.

The future of the Trump administration’s stance on curbing unhealthy UPF consumption remains uncertain. A commission titled “Make America Healthy Again,” led by Kennedy, is expected to present policy recommendations to the president in the upcoming summer. Meanwhile, state legislators are proactively preparing to engage in their own battles against large food producers.

Louisa Clarence-Smith serves as the U.S. business editor.

An impact assessment report released by the Department for Work and Pensions suggests that the annual surplus could range from £153 million to £957 million.

This estimate contrasts sharply with the £160 billion in surpluses mentioned by Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves earlier this year, who claimed these funds could be utilized by employers for investments or increased pensions and wages.

Experts warn that even the £8.4 billion projection may be overoptimistic, as pension trustees are likely to be cautious about allowing cash withdrawals, preferring to maintain financial buffers against potential market downturns.

Employers are primarily interested in dismantling legacy schemes entirely, opting to use surpluses to fund buyout agreements with insurers, thereby alleviating ongoing risks rather than continuing with the schemes.

John Ralfe, an independent consultant, noted in a report for the Pension Insurance Corporation, “Disregard the notion of £160 billion in surpluses readily available for growth or enhancing workers’ pensions. The DWP’s figures reflect only a small fraction of this amount, primarily because many companies are seeking total buyouts through insurance contracts.”

The DWP’s estimate indicates that out of the £8.4 billion anticipated over the decade, approximately £4.2 billion would be allocated to employers, with an equal amount designated for increased pension payouts to scheme members.

One of the pivotal reforms proposed in the Pension Schemes Bill recently introduced aims to ease restrictions on accessing surpluses, a move touted by ministers as essential for stimulating growth in the UK economy.

However, some pension specialists are skeptical about whether the released funds will be directed toward capital investment. Neither of the two major firms, Schroders and Aberdeen, currently seeking to access their surpluses intends to use the funds for increasing capital investments or enhancing pension benefits.

There are concerns among pension fund members that imprudent employers could withdraw excessive cash, leaving insufficient resources to cover potential market downturns, although the government assures that protective measures will be implemented.

Rising bond yields have significantly bolstered the financial stability of many of the UK’s 5,000 defined benefit schemes in recent years, including those previously considered at risk. For instance, the Littlewoods scheme, once facing a £400 million deficit, recently announced a £16 million payout to shareholders of its sponsor, Very Group, after securing full benefits through buyout arrangements.

Additionally, the bill proposes initiatives to encourage the merging of defined contribution schemes to enhance their scale and promote investment in domestic private assets. The DWP report estimates that around 20 million individuals will benefit from these changes, which could lead to yearly financial gains of £34 million for businesses.

A statement from Downing Street earlier this year indicated, “About 75 percent of defined benefit pension schemes are currently in surplus, totaling £160 billion, but existing restrictions have hindered businesses from effectively investing these funds.”

Defined benefit pension schemes currently encompass about nine million members and hold approximately £1.2 trillion in assets, with most having closed to new contributions. The majority of private sector employees are now enrolled in non-guaranteed defined contribution plans.

A government representative remarked, “Our plans will unlock resources to stimulate the economy, eliminate growth obstacles, and ensure that both workers and businesses can benefit from these available assets.”

The announcement caused Spectris shares to skyrocket by over 60%, marking a significant turnaround for the company that has faced declining stock performance for the past year and a half.

Advent International’s offer stands at £37.35 per share, representing an increase of more than 80% from the £20.38 closing price of Spectris shares the previous week. In light of this generous offer, the Spectris board stated that it is “minded to recommend unanimously” the proposal to shareholders.

Advent International, which has a reputation for acquiring undervalued UK companies, has a history of restructuring them for profitability. Over the last six years, it has invested £6.6 billion in acquiring significant FTSE 250 firms, including Cobham and Ultra Electronics, leading to considerable divestitures.

In its market announcement, Spectris confirmed Advent’s cash offer of £37.35 per share and pledged to fulfill its existing commitment to pay a predetermined dividend of 28p to shareholders.

The company noted that the deal is contingent upon meeting various standard pre-conditions, such as the completion of due diligence and the finalization of transaction documentation.

As a leader in high-tech instrumentation and testing solutions, Spectris has already initiated the due diligence process for the potential acquisition.

In a previous attempt to expand, Spectris proposed a merger with Oxford Instruments four years ago to create a £5 billion entity specializing in magnetic resonance imaging scanners for healthcare. However, that deal collapsed amidst the market turbulence resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

At one point in late 2021, Spectris shares were valued above £40. However, dwindling revenues and profits over the past three years saw the stock halve in value. The shares plummeted to as low as £15 during the recent market fluctuations tied to trade conflicts.

As of Monday, Spectris shares ended the day up £12.26, or 60.2%, trading at £32.64. This figure still falls short of the Advent offer, suggesting there may be some skepticism among investors regarding the successful completion of the acquisition at the proposed price.

JP Morgan analysts remarked that many investors have increasingly viewed Spectris as a likely acquisition target, especially after the firm streamlined its portfolio while trading at a discount compared to its US counterparts.

Philip’s challenges began last November when the Legal Services Board (LSB) issued a critical report regarding the SRA’s handling of the Axiom Ince scandal, which implicated the firm in a £64 million fraud. Following this report, five individuals connected to the firm were charged by the Serious Fraud Office.

After a call for resignations from a former managing partner of a City law firm, Philip initially denied any intent to step down. However, it was later confirmed he would leave his position by year’s end.

In a recent development, the LSB has taken “enforcement action” against the SRA due to its inadequate response to the Axiom Ince situation, stating that it intends to ensure the SRA better identifies and addresses risks within the legal services market.

The severity of these issues is compounded by the potential for revelations surrounding the collapse of SSB Law, which went into administration at the start of last year with debts exceeding £200 million. Reports indicate that at least one creditor has alerted the Serious Fraud Office, prompting the LSB to initiate yet another independent review into the SRA’s management of this crisis.

Despite inquiries, the LSB has not confirmed when the findings from this review will be released, nor did the fraud investigation body comment on the matter.

Creditors have expressed outrage over the SRA’s oversight during SSB’s collapse, particularly highlighting a creditor who claims to have raised alarms more than six months before the firm’s administration. The creditor asserts that her concerns, which included warnings about financial irregularities, were initially ignored and later dismissed by the SRA.

“The SRA was explicitly warned in March 2023 about serious regulatory risks at SSB, including issues related to payment defaults and coercion,” the creditor, who preferred to remain anonymous, stated. “Yet the response from officials was a dismissal claiming ‘there was nothing to see.’ This refusal to acknowledge evident risks constitutes a failure of regulatory duty.”

Critics of the SRA’s response have accused the authority of a lack of transparency and timely action, emphasizing that the implications of SSB’s collapse extend far beyond financial losses; many vulnerable claimants, particularly the elderly residing in substandard housing, were left without recourse.

One creditor lamented, “The SRA’s negligence has inflicted lasting damage—not only on vulnerable citizens deprived of support but also on trust within the legal sector itself. Their focus appears to have been on self-preservation rather than safeguarding the public interest.”

This creditor also underscored the personal ramifications of the firm’s failure, stating, “I was owed over £250,000 in unpaid fees, which represented years of my income. As the primary provider for my family, this has had heartbreaking consequences. These failings are not mere statistics—they’re real and painful.”

In concluding its enforcement actions, the LSB noted parallels between the Axiom Ince collapse and SSB’s, particularly concerning the concentration of ownership and compliance roles held by a single individual. They underscored the necessity for the SRA to bolster measures that mitigate risks to consumers, especially when compliance responsibilities are overly centralized.

While the LSB’s review highlighted substantial concerns, it also acknowledged the SRA had developed a proactive improvement plan in response to identified shortcomings. However, criticisms regarding SSB’s creditor complaints have not gone unnoticed; the SRA asserted it had finalized its investigation, imposed conditions on several individuals’ practicing certificates, and issued disciplinary notices.

In closing, a spokesperson for the SRA stated, “It would be inappropriate to comment further while the LSB’s review of this ongoing case is still in progress.”

The acquisitions comprise Spectris, the nation’s foremost publicly traded industrial technology firm receiving a £3.7 billion bid from US private equity giant Advent International, and the chip designer Alphawave IP Group, which has endorsed a £1.8 billion buyout proposal from California’s Qualcomm.

Additionally, Oxford Ionics, a quantum computing startup established by two PhD graduates from Oxford University, has reached an agreement to be sold to Ion Q, a larger American corporation, for approximately $1 billion.

This recent surge in acquisitions follows fresh anxieties regarding the robustness of London’s capital markets, particularly after fintech leader Wise revealed surprising intentions to relocate its primary listing to New York.

The acquisitions were announced on the same day that London Tech Week commenced, featuring an opening address by Sir Keir Starmer alongside Jensen Huang, CEO of the Silicon Valley powerhouse Nvidia.

The competitiveness of Europe’s technology landscape emerged as a significant topic during the event, highlighted by remarks from Markus Villig, CEO of the ride-hailing service Bolt, who noted, “Europe has historically struggled not just with initial public offerings but also with retaining them here.” 

Villig pointed to liquidity issues as a key factor, stating that many European startups predominantly secure funding from investors in the US. Despite the challenges, he expressed optimism, stating that he remains open to London as a potential site for Bolt’s future public offering, and believes “Europe will reach its goals.” 

Hermann Hauser, founder of Arm and a prominent venture capitalist, emphasized the vulnerability of the UK tech sector, stating, “Our challenge isn’t the lack of startups; it’s the difficulty in scaling them up.” 

However, Hauser, who has invested in Oxford Ionics and serves on the board of the European Innovation Council fund, regarded the confirmed sale to Ion Q as a “favorable outcome,” asserting that “a significant portion of the investments will stay within the UK.” 

In a note titled “UK for Sale,” Charles Hall, head of research at Peel Hunt investment bank, remarked, “UK companies appear more appealing to potential buyers than to investors themselves. This trend stems from a continual capital outflow from domestic markets. For the UK equity market to thrive, we must urgently rethink our approach to ensure British companies receive backing from UK capital.” 

Efforts to enhance the attractiveness of the City to global investors have been underway, with successive governments and leaders from the London Stock Exchange and Financial Conduct Authority implementing reforms. These initiatives include relaxing listing regulations and motivating pension funds to invest in UK enterprises.

According to Peel Hunt, there have been 30 bids made for UK companies with market caps exceeding £100 million this year, totaling approximately £25 billion, with Spectris and Alphawave representing the most substantial acquisitions.

Hall noted the average acquisition premium stands at 43 percent, highlighting the significant undervaluation in the UK market.

This marks the fifth consecutive month of declining sales for Tesla in the UK, Germany, and Italy, according to data from New Automotive, a market research firm. Despite a 28% increase in overall electric vehicle sales across the industry in the UK, the trend for Tesla points downward.

Last month, Tesla sold 1,758 vehicles in Britain, a decrease from 3,244 units sold in May 2022, as reported by New Automotive. Nevertheless, Tesla continues to hold the title of the top-selling battery electric vehicle maker in the UK for the year to date.

Elon Musk, who recently departed the White House after advocating for reductions in government inefficiencies, faces criticism as his company struggles with both declining sales and stock prices.

Protests urging customers to boycott Tesla have emerged, driven by Musk’s alignment with far-right politics in Europe and his attempts to trim the US federal workforce as well as humanitarian funding.

A group of investors has recently reached out to Tesla’s board, requesting that Musk dedicate at least 40 hours a week to the company, citing concerns over the “plummeting global reputation” of Tesla.

Sales in China and Europe have come under pressure from the influx of affordably priced electric vehicles from Chinese manufacturers. Tesla’s sales in Germany are reported to have fallen more than one-third in May, according to the German road traffic agency KBA, even as overall electric car sales surged by 45%.

KBA noted that Tesla sold 1,210 cars in Germany last month, marking a 36% decline year-on-year. In contrast, sales for the Chinese competitor BYD skyrocketed, increasing ninefold to 1,857 units.

A spokesperson for Tesla expressed optimism that the upcoming launch of the new version of the Model Y—previously Europe’s best-selling car in 2023—would help increase sales in June as deliveries in the UK commence.

In Norway, the new Model Y has already started to bolster sales, with deliveries scheduled to begin this month across several other European markets.