Category: 3. Business

A government-funded program to test the true performance of vehicles has found the driving range of five popular electric cars is between 5% and 23% lower than results from laboratory testing.

The Australian Automobile Association tested vehicles from Tesla, BYD, Kia and Smart – the first EVs to be put through its four-year, federally funded Real World Testing Program to give consumers more accurate information on vehicle performance.

The extended range variant of the BYD Atto3 had the largest discrepancy, according to the AAA, with a real-world range of 369km, 23% lower than the 480km achieved in laboratory testing. The Smart #3 had the lowest, with only a 5% difference.

The Tesla Model 3 had a real-world range 14% lower than the lab test. Tesla’s Model Y and the Kia EV6 both had a real world range 8% lower.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

Despite showing a gap between lab and real-world results, the AAA and electric vehicle industry representatives said the results should reduce range anxiety among consumers looking to buy an EV.

The Electric Vehicle Council industry body’s head of legal, policy and advocacy, Aman Gaur, said the AAA’s results should “give confidence that EVs have more than enough range for everyday Australians”.

“The average Australian drives 33km per day. This means that an EV with a range of 350km can be driven for more than 10 days before needing to be recharged,” he said.

The results come after the AAA released a summary last month of tests on 114 petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles that showed 77% used more fuel than advertised. One in five also broke noxious emissions that were advertised from lab tests.

Carmakers advertise the results of government-mandated laboratory tests on emissions, fuel efficiency and, in the case of EVs, their energy consumption and range with a fully charged battery. The government’s Green Vehicle Guide lists the results for all vehicles.

The AAA’s managing director, Michael Bradley, said the Real World Testing Program had found consumers couldn’t always rely on the laboratory tests as an indicator of real-world performance.

“As more EVs enter our market, our testing will help consumers understand which new market entrants measure up on battery range,” he said.

Vehicles tested in the AAA program are taken on a 93km circuit of urban, rural and highway roads around Geelong in Victoria using protocols based on European regulations. For electric vehicles, the program also measures how much electricity is needed to run the vehicle.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

A table showing results of AAA testing of the range of five popular electric vehicles

Gaur from the EVC said laboratory tests were in controlled conditions while real-world driving “throws in all sorts of variables: traffic flows, hills, rough roads, weather, extra passenger or luggage weight, and the unique driving styles of motorists.”

He added: “Given the unpredictable nature of driving, it’s inherently challenging for manufacturers to provide real-world estimates. Electric vehicle manufacturers are following the rules and advertising the test results that are required by law.”

John Kananghinis, a spokesperson for LSH Auto, the importer and retailer of Smart EVs in Australia, said it was inevitable the “stringent testing criteria of the AAA” would give different results than in a laboratory.

“To achieve such a low 5% variation is, we consider, a testament to the leading battery and overall EV technology that underpins the smart brand,” he said.

“We thank AAA for the work they undertook to give consumers a real-world view of the performance of EVs that, hopefully, further alleviates any residual range anxiety and helps to act as incentive to experience the future of urban motoring.”

Battery and plug-in hybrid cars accounted for 12% of new car sales in the first half of 2025, up from 9.6% for the same period last year, EVC data shows.

Guardian Australia has also contacted Tesla, BYD and Kia for comment.

DETROIT/SEOUL, August 6, 2025 – Hyundai Motor Company and General Motors announced plans for their first five co-developed vehicles, marking a significant milestone in their previously announced strategic collaboration.

The two companies will co-develop four vehicles for the Central and South American market, including a compact SUV, car and pick-up, as well as a mid-size pick-up, all with the flexibility to use either internal combustion or hybrid propulsion systems. Hyundai and GM also will co-develop an electric commercial van for North America.

Hyundai and GM expect sales of the co-developed vehicles to be more than 800,000 vehicles a year once production is fully scaled.

GM will lead the development of the mid-size truck platform, while Hyundai will lead on the compact vehicle and electric van.

The two companies will share common platforms and develop unique interiors and exteriors consistent with their respective brands.

Design and engineering work is underway on the new vehicles for the Central and South American markets, which will launch in 2028. The electric commercial van will be manufactured in the U.S. as early as 2028.

“Hyundai’s strategic collaboration with GM will help us continue to deliver value and choice to our customers across multiple vehicle segments and markets,” said José Muñoz, President and CEO of Hyundai Motor Company. “Our combined scale in North and South America helps us to more efficiently provide our customers more of what they want – beautifully designed, high-quality, safety focused vehicles with technology they appreciate.”

Shilpan Amin, GM senior VP and global chief procurement and supply chain officer, said the vehicles announced today were targeted at the largest segments in the Central and South American markets, as well as the commercial segment in North America.

“By partnering together, GM and Hyundai will bring more choice to our customers faster, and at lower cost,” Amin said. “These first co-developed vehicles clearly demonstrate how GM and Hyundai will leverage our complementary strengths and combined scale.”

The two companies also plan joint sourcing initiatives in North and South America for materials, transport, and logistics. Further areas for potential joint operations include raw materials, components, and complex systems.

Hyundai Motor and GM also agreed to explore collaboration on low-carbon emissions steel as part of their commitment to sustainable manufacturing.

Following the signing of a framework agreement in September 2024, the companies continue to assess additional joint vehicle development programs for global markets, as well as collaboration opportunities across propulsion systems, including internal combustion engines, hybrid, battery electric, and hydrogen fuel cell technologies.

Apple said Wednesday that it would expand its planned investment in the United States as it faces pressure from President Donald Trump to shift its supply chain to American soil.

The splashy announcement came hours before Trump’s wave of country-specific tariffs were set to go into effect. The president’s levy barrage isn’t over yet. Trump has warned he will be announcing tariffs on semiconductors, which could affect iPhones, iPads, MacBooks and other popular Apple products.

Speaking alongside Apple CEO Tim Cook in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump said his administration is “going to be putting a very large tariff on chips and semiconductors,” but for any company “building in the United States of America, there’s no charge.” Trump said the semiconductor tariff would be approximately 100% and apply to all chips imported into the country.

Apple also said it will manufacture the glass covers on all iPhones and Apple Watch devices sold worldwide in the United States. Apple said manufacturing firm Corning will produce that glass at its Harrodsburg, Kentucky, plant under a $2.5 billion commitment.

“Apple will massively increase spending on its domestic supply chain for the iPhone, and will build the largest and most sophisticated smart glass production line in the world,” Trump said.

That plant has been producing glass products for over 60 years, according to a post on Corning’s website. In 2021, Apple said Corning already supplied glass for iPhone, Apple Watch and iPad. Apple also said at the time that “every generation of iPhone glass has been made” at the plant named in Wednesday’s announcement.

Corning will dedicate the entire facility to manufacturing for Apple, and that would boost the glass maker’s manufacturing and engineering workforce in Kentucky by 50%, the tech giant said in a news release.

“I’m glad to be here with you today, and I’m very proud to say that today, we’re committing an additional $100 billion to the United States,” Cook told Trump during their White House event.

Cook also said the company has “already signed new agreements with 10 companies across America” to do additional manufacturing.

“Second, we’re committed to buying American made, advanced rare earth magnets,” he added, noting an agreement announced in July.

Apple supplier Applied Materials also announced that it would invest $200 million in an Arizona factory that manufactures chip-making equipment. That equipment will be used by Texas Instruments, another Apple supplier, to make some semiconductors used in Apple’s products.

Apple said the glass manufacturing announcement was part of a $600 billion commitment to bring parts of its supply chains to the U.S. Previously, the company had vowed to invest $500 billion over the next four years.

“Apple will also build a 250,000-square-foot server manufacturing facility in Houston, and invest billions of dollars to construct data centers across the country from North Carolina to Iowa to Oregon,” Trump also said.

Apple had previously announced the Houston server plant, which is estimated to open in 2026.

However, Wednesday’s announcement doesn’t mean manufacturing or assembly of any of the company’s major products, such as the iPhone, iPad or MacBook, will come to the States. Cook told reporters that final assembly of iPhones wouldn’t happen in the U.S. “for a while,” even though “there’s a lot” of pieces made in the U.S. Most iPhones are manufactured in India and China.

Most of Apple’s most popular products are currently exempt from tariffs while the Commerce Department conducts a so-called Section 232 investigation to determine the national security impact of importing those products and their parts. Despite the exemptions, Apple took an $800 million hit in the last quarter from tariffs and predicted it will take another $1.5 billion hit in the next three months.

In a May social media post, Trump said: “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else.”

Trump on Wednesday conceded that some recent factory announcements may take a number of years to materialize.

“So I don’t know when it shows up, but there are a lot of factories and a lot of plants that are either under construction or soon we’ll be starting construction,” he said. “So can’t tell you exactly when, but I want to be around in about a year from now and two years from now, because we’re going to see an explosion, I think.”

Apple’s investment pledge bears some similarities to recent announcements from the president. OpenAI, Oracle and Japan’s Softbank collectively pledged $500 billion to invest in building out data centers across the country to power artificial intelligence applications.

But months after being announced, the plans reportedly hit some snags. The three firms said they would “immediately” begin investing but now the plans call for just one small data center in Ohio by the end of the year.

A trade agreement between the Trump administration and the European Union included what they said would be $600 billion of investments in the United States and $750 billion of energy purchases.

“They gave me $600 billion, and that’s a gift,” Trump said on CNBC Tuesday. “They gave us $600 billion that we can invest in anything we want.”

However, the E.U. said in a statement that European companies have only “expressed interest in investing at least $600 billion.” The E.U. does not have any mechanism in place to incentivize those investments. Similarly, the E.U. has said $750 billion is only a projection of potential energy purchases over the next three years.

Patient characteristics

The baseline data of all 204 patients and their tumors are summarized in Table 1. The median follow-up times for DFS were 899.5 days in the training cohort (interquartile range [IQR]: 385.0–1257.0 days) and 950.4 days in the validation cohort (IQR: 499.0–1304.5 days).

Sixty-five of the 204 patients experienced disease recurrence, 33 (50.8%) of whom experienced systemic disease recurrence (8 in the lung, 20 in the liver, 2 in the bone and 3 in both the liver and lung), 21 (32.3%) of whom experienced locoregional disease recurrence, and 11 (16.9%) of whom experienced mixed disease. Among them, 20 patients were confirmed by surgery, while the other 45 patients were diagnosed based on radiological characteristics. 137 (67.2%) patients were treated with postoperative adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.

Overall, the average CD34-based MVD of all the lesions was 40.19 ± 6.89; for CD105-based MVD, it was 28.25 ± 5.50.

2D- vs. 3D-ROI interobserver agreement

Among the two ROI methods, the 3D-ROI method had the best interobserver agreement (ICC of 0.826–0.960) (Table 2). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that all the imaging features measured by the 3D-ROI method were more concentrated than those measured by the 2D-ROI method, indicating that the 3D-ROI analysis had a smaller consistency interval and better accuracy in repeated measurements by different readers (Fig. 2). Therefore, the average values of 3D-quantitative imaging features calculated by the two radiologists were used for further analysis.

Predictive factors for DFS

In the univariate analyses of DFS, clinicopathological parameters (histologic grade, pT stage, pN stage, CEA, HIF-1α, LVI, and PNI), SDCT features (NICVP_3D and NICDP_3D values) and angiogenesis parameters (CD34, CD105, and VEGF) were associated with DFS. According to the multivariate analysis, clinicopathological parameters (PNI, histologic grade), SDCT features (NICVP_3D values) and angiogenesis parameters (CD105) were found to be independent predictors in the training cohort (P < 0.05, Table 3).

Model construction and comparison

A multidimensional radiological-angiogenesis-clinicopathological integrated model (RACIM) was established based on the above prediction variables (PNI, CD105, histologic grade and NICVP_3D values), which predicted the probability of disease recurrence for each individual patient. Multivariate analysis was used to construct a clinical model that included histologic grade, HIF-1α, LVI and PNI; an angiogenesis model that included CD105; and a radiological model that included NICVP_3D values. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different models for the entire cohort are shown in Fig. 3. The ROC curves revealed that the radiological model (NICVP_3D) had an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78–0.91), a sensitivity of 78.4%, and a specificity of 79.3%. According to the X-tile, the optimal cut-off value of the NICVP_3D was identified as 0.345. The combined model achieved excellent predictive performance, with AUCs of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.00) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively (Table 4). The AUC of the combined model was obviously greater than that of the radiological (P = 0.0004, P = 0.0393), angiogenesis (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0091) and clinical models (P = 0.0471, P = 0.0088) in all cohorts.

Additionally, a VN model with pathological stage, surgical procedure, and adjuvant chemotherapy status was also built for comparison. Compared with the VN model (AUC: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70–0.85; AUC: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.92; AUC: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.85), our radiological and RACIM models exhibited superior performance in the training (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78–0.91, P = 0.0160; AUC: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98, P < 0.0001) and validation (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.93, P = 0.4217; AUC: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00, P = 0.0428) (Table 4). Moreover, the calibration plots of RACIM model showed that the estimations had good agreement with the actual observations (Fig. 4a,b). The decision curve analysis curves revealed that the RACIM model achieved moderately better net benefit than other models over the relevant threshold range in all cohorts (Fig. 4c, d).

Patient risk stratification

We divided patients into high- and low-risk groups according to the X-tile-generated optimum cutoff value (0.389) of the RACIM, which significantly differed in terms of DFS in the training cohort (log-rank test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 5a). Then, we performed the same analyses to stratify patients in the validation cohort to determine the prognostic value of the RACIM. Consistent with the training cohort, significant differences in DFS were observed between the two groups in validation cohort (log-rank test, P = 0.001) (Fig. 5b). Table 5 showed the selected prediction parameters in RACIM-classified high and low-risk groups.

To test the ability of the RACIM to identify patients who may benefit from postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, subgroup analyses of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were further performed. Notably, in the RACIM-classified high-risk group, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly associated with a treatment benefit (P = 0.036), while adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve survival in any of the 204 patients (P = 0.400) or in patients with any high-risk clinicopathological features (P = 0.400, Fig. 6).

Model interpretability with SHAP

In this study, we employed the SHAP algorithm to endow our RACIM with global and local interpretability. As observed in the plot, the SDCT imaging indicator NICVP_3D was the most important risk factor, followed by CD105, PNI, and histologic grade (Fig. 7a,b).

Figure 7c,d shows the SHAP model force plot of two male participants who had TNM stage IIIB disease, depicting how NICVP_3D, CD105 and clinicopathological characteristics affect the ability of the model to predict recurrence risk at the individual level.

TORONTO, Aug. 6, 2025 /CNW/ – TD Bank Group (“TD” or the “Bank”) (TSX: TD) (NYSE: TD) announced today that it expects catastrophe claims of approximately $36 million after reinsurance and before tax to be reflected in the Bank’s Wealth Management & Insurance segment’s third-quarter results. 

Catastrophe claims are insurance claims that relate to any single event that occurred in the relevant fiscal quarter, for which the aggregate insurance claims are equal to or greater than an internal threshold of $5 million before reinsurance. The Bank’s internal threshold may change from time to time. The total amount of catastrophe claims presented reflects the estimated pre-tax cost of these claims net of recoveries from related reinsurance coverage and, when applicable, includes the cost of reinsurance reinstatement premiums. The total amount of catastrophe claims is included in Insurance service expenses and amounts related to reinsurance coverage are included in Other income (loss) on the Bank’s Consolidated Statement of Income.

Additional information about the Bank’s insurance catastrophe claims (including catastrophe claims, net of reinsurance for the comparative quarter) is available on its website here: https://www.td.com/ca/en/about-td/for-investors/investor-relations/financial-information       

Quarterly Earnings Announcement

TD will release its third-quarter financial results and host an earnings conference call on Thursday, August 28, 2025.

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

From time to time, the Bank (as defined in this document) makes written and/or oral forward-looking statements, including in this document, in other filings with Canadian regulators or the United States (U.S.) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and in other communications. In addition, representatives of the Bank may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the media, and others. All such statements are made pursuant to the “safe harbour” provisions of, and are intended to be forward-looking statements under, applicable Canadian and U.S. securities legislation, including the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements made in this document, the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“2024 MD&A”) in the Bank’s 2024 Annual Report under the heading “Economic Summary and Outlook”, under the headings “Key Priorities for 2025” and “Operating Environment and Outlook” for the Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, U.S. Retail, Wealth Management and Insurance, and Wholesale Banking segments, and under the heading “2024 Accomplishments and Focus for 2025” for the Corporate segment, and in other statements regarding the Bank’s objectives and priorities for 2025 and beyond and strategies to achieve them, the regulatory environment in which the Bank operates, and the Bank’s anticipated financial performance.

Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as “will”, “would”, “should”, “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “outlook”, “plan”, “goal”, “target”, “possible”, “potential”, “predict”, “project”, “may”, and “could” and similar expressions or variations thereof, or the negative thereof, but these terms are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. By their very nature, these forward-looking statements require the Bank to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, general and specific. Especially in light of the uncertainty related to the physical, financial, economic, political, and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties – many of which are beyond the Bank’s control and the effects of which can be difficult to predict – may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.

Risk factors that could cause, individually or in the aggregate, such differences include: strategic, credit, market (including equity, commodity, foreign exchange, interest rate, and credit spreads), operational (including technology, cyber security, process, systems, data, third-party, fraud, infrastructure, insider and conduct), model, insurance, liquidity, capital adequacy, compliance and legal, financial crime, reputational, environmental and social, and other risks. Examples of such risk factors include general business and economic conditions in the regions in which the Bank operates; geopolitical risk (including policy, trade and tax related risks and the potential impact of any new or elevated tariffs or any retaliatory tariffs); inflation, interest rates and recession uncertainty; regulatory oversight and compliance risk; risks associated with the Bank’s ability to satisfy the terms of the global resolution of the investigations into the Bank’s U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/anti-money laundering (AML) program; the impact of the global resolution of the investigations into the Bank’s U.S. BSA/AML program on the Bank’s businesses, operations, financial condition, and reputation; the ability of the Bank to execute on long-term strategies, shorter-term key strategic priorities, including the successful completion of acquisitions and dispositions and integration of acquisitions, the ability of the Bank to achieve its financial or strategic objectives with respect to its investments, business retention plans, and other strategic plans; technology and cyber security risk (including cyber-attacks, data security breaches or technology failures) on the Bank’s technologies, systems and networks, those of the Bank’s customers (including their own devices), and third parties providing services to the Bank; data risk; model risk; fraud activity; insider risk; conduct risk; the failure of third parties to comply with their obligations to the Bank or its affiliates, including relating to the care and control of information, and other risks arising from the Bank’s use of third-parties; the impact of new and changes to, or application of, current laws, rules and regulations, including without limitation consumer protection laws and regulations, tax laws, capital guidelines and liquidity regulatory guidance; increased competition from incumbents and new entrants (including Fintechs and big technology competitors); shifts in consumer attitudes and disruptive technology; environmental and social risk (including climate-related risk); exposure related to litigation and regulatory matters; ability of the Bank to attract, develop, and retain key talent; changes in foreign exchange rates, interest rates, credit spreads and equity prices; downgrade, suspension or withdrawal of ratings assigned by any rating agency, the value and market price of the Bank’s common shares and other securities may be impacted by market conditions and other factors; the interconnectivity of financial institutions including existing and potential international debt crises; increased funding costs and market volatility due to market illiquidity and competition for funding; critical accounting estimates and changes to accounting standards, policies, and methods used by the Bank; and the occurrence of natural and unnatural catastrophic events and claims resulting from such events.

The Bank cautions that the preceding list is not exhaustive of all possible risk factors and other factors could also adversely affect the Bank’s results. For more detailed information, please refer to the “Risk Factors and Management” section of the 2024 MD&A, as may be updated in subsequently filed quarterly reports to shareholders and news releases (as applicable) related to any events or transactions discussed under the headings “Significant Events”, “Significant and Subsequent Events” or “Update on U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Program Remediation and Enterprise AML Program Improvement Activities” in the relevant MD&A, which applicable releases may be found on www.td.com.

All such factors, as well as other uncertainties and potential events, and the inherent uncertainty of forward-looking statements, should be considered carefully when making decisions with respect to the Bank. The Bank cautions readers not to place undue reliance on the Bank’s forward-looking statements. Material economic assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained in this document are set out in the 2024 MD&A under the headings “Economic Summary and Outlook” and “Significant Events”, under the headings “Key Priorities for 2025” and “Operating Environment and Outlook” for the Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, U.S. Retail, Wealth Management and Insurance, and Wholesale Banking segments, and under the heading “2024 Accomplishments and Focus for 2025” for the Corporate segment, each as may be updated in subsequently filed quarterly reports to shareholders and news releases (as applicable).

Any forward-looking statements contained in this document represent the views of management only as of the date hereof and are presented for the purpose of assisting the Bank’s shareholders and analysts in understanding the Bank’s financial position, objectives and priorities and anticipated financial performance as at and for the periods ended on the dates presented, and may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Bank does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by or on its behalf, except as required under applicable securities legislation.

About TD Bank Group

The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries are collectively known as TD Bank Group (“TD” or the “Bank”). TD is the sixth largest bank in North America by assets and serves over 27.9 million customers in four key businesses operating in a number of locations in financial centres around the globe: Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, including TD Canada Trust and TD Auto Finance Canada; U.S. Retail, including TD Bank, America’s Most Convenient Bank^®, TD Auto Finance U.S., and TD Wealth (U.S.); Wealth Management and Insurance, including TD Wealth (Canada), TD Direct Investing, and TD Insurance; and Wholesale Banking, including TD Securities and TD Cowen. TD also ranks among the world’s leading online financial services firms, with more than 18 million active online and mobile customers. TD had $2.1 trillion in assets on April 30, 2025. The Toronto-Dominion Bank trades under the symbol “TD” on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange.

SOURCE TD Bank Group