UK’s largest car maker posts £310m Q3 loss as it counts £64m in cyber attack costs, with production only returning to normal levels in mid-November

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has reported further losses as it continues to grapple with the financial fallout from the major cyber attack last autumn. The UK’s largest car manufacturer has incurred an additional £64 million in costs linked to the cyber breach, which necessitated a five-week production halt across its UK plants from September last year.

The company reported a £310 million pre-tax loss for its third quarter ending in December, down from the £523 million profit recorded the previous year. Revenues for the final quarter of 2025 plummeted by 39% year-on-year to £4.5 billion, as sales volumes were hit by the cyber incident, with production only resuming normal levels in mid-November.

JLR said the losses were exacerbated by the ongoing impact of US tariffs, the planned phase-out of legacy Jaguar models ahead of new launches, and deteriorating conditions in China. However, the group expressed optimism about a significant improvement in its performance in the final quarter.

PB Balaji, the new CEO of JLR who succeeded former boss Adrian Mardell in November, described it as a “challenging quarter for JLR with performance impacted by the production shutdown we initiated in response to the cyber incident, the planned wind down of legacy Jaguar and US tariffs”.

He added: “Thanks to the commitment of our dedicated teams, we returned vehicle production to normal levels by mid-November, and we are focused on building our business back stronger.

“While the external environment remains volatile, we expect performance to improve significantly in the fourth quarter and we have clear plans to manage global challenges.

“2026 is set to be an exciting year for JLR as we develop our next generation vehicles, including the launch of the Range Rover Electric and the unveiling of the first new Jaguar.

Today’s statement said: “Looking ahead, JLR remains resilient and well placed to address the economic, geopolitical and policy challenges the industry faces. Investment spend is expected to remain at £18bn over the five‑year period from FY24. In light of the challenges faced, FY26 guidance is reaffirmed, with EBIT margin in the range of 0% to 2% and free cash outflow of £2.2bn to £2.5bn.”

The jury saw two very different reactions to the collision when they were shown footage from the Stena Immaculate, the ship that was anchored 14 nautical miles off the Humber estuary, and footage from the Solong, the cargo ship captained by Vladimir Motin that ploughed into it, Detective Chief Superintendent Craig Nicholson said.

The company’s revenue from operations stood at Rs 687 crore in Q3FY26, up 110% over Rs 327 crore posted in the corresponding period of the last financial year.

The company declared an interim dividend of Re 1 per share for the financial year 2025-26 and has fixed Friday, February 13 as the record date for the interim dividend. The dividend will be paid only through electronic mode on or before Friday, March 6.

The PAT was down 16% sequentially from Rs 186 crore reported in Q2FY26 due to a 4% decline in topline compared to Rs 718 crore in the July-September quarter of FY26.

Hindustan Copper’s expenses in the quarter grew around 3% sequentially to Rs 493 crore versus Rs 480 crore in Q2FY26 while surging 90 YoY compared to Rs 259 crore.

Live Events

For the nine-month ended December 31, 2025, the PAT grew 71% to Rs 477 crore versus Rs 278 crore in the year ago period. The revenue from operations during the period stood at Rs 1,922 crore in this period versus Rs 1,340 crore in 9MFY25. This implies a 43% YoY growth.
Also read: Tata Motors PV Q3 Results: Co reports loss of Rs 3,486 crore; revenue falls 26%Hindustan Copper shares recovered from the day’s low of Rs 577.60 (-6%), ending Thursday’s session 0.27% lower at Rs 612 on the NSE.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

America’s local television stations do something at which the coastal media class loves to sneer but upon which ordinary families rely every day: They cover school board fights, city hall scandals, high school championships, church fish fries, snow storm and tornado warnings and the first minutes of a crisis when cell networks clog and rumors flood social media.

So why does Washington still treat these hometown institutions like it is 1941?

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testifies during a House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee hearing on March 31, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Back then, the federal government imposed a national limit on how many local TV stations one company could own. Decades later, that restriction has morphed into today’s “national audience reach” cap, a rule prohibiting any broadcast station group from owning stations that reach more than 39% of America’s TV households. 

These restrictions, however, don’t affect cable networks, satellite networks, national networks or streaming giants. This includes Google, Meta and other Big Tech monopolists that hoover up local ad dollars and decide what information people see with opaque algorithms. Local broadcasters are the only major video and news platform in America told by the federal government: you may not scale up.

MIKE DAVIS: HOW THE TRUMP DOJ IS HOLDING GOOGLE ACCOUNTABLE

That isn’t “pro-competition.” It’s pro-cartel.

The FCC’s own record shows how old this rule really is. The original national TV ownership limit dates to the early days of television, a 1941-era policy choice made before the internet, before cable, before satellite, before smartphones, before YouTube, before streaming. And while Congress nudged the cap upward in the 1990s and early 2000s, it has been stuck at 39% since 2004, even as the marketplace for what you see on your screens transformed beyond recognition.

The national ownership cap does nothing to stop the real concentration in media. (iStock)

Here is the part Washington often misses: voters see the unfairness, too.

DAVID MARCUS: FCC ISN’T ‘GOING AFTER’ ABC, IT’S PROTECTING PUBLIC AIRWAVES

New polling has just been released by Fabrizio-Ward showing a majority of Americans oppose this outdated ownership cap. By a 38-point margin, voters view the restriction on local TV station ownership as unfair. Even more striking, by an eight-to-one margin, voters who get their local news from TV say they would be less likely rather than more likely to vote for a member of Congress who opposes letting local TV station owners compete nationally for advertising against cable networks and internet streamers.

That is not a policy footnote. That is a political warning label.

For years, defenders of the 39% cap have recycled the same talking points: “diversity,” “localism” and the claim that bigger station groups will somehow erase local voices. But in 2026, the real threat to viewpoint diversity is not that a broadcaster might operate more stations. It is that a handful of Big Tech platforms control the pipes of digital distribution with zero ownership caps and minimal transparency.

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS PROBE NEXSTAR, SINCLAIR OVER JIMMY KIMMEL, WARN BENCHING COULD RUN ‘AFOUL OF FEDERAL LAW’

If we want more local emergency coverage, more local investigative reporting and the stories that matter to everyday Americans, we should stop starving the one system that still delivers news for free to every American household.

The national ownership cap does nothing to stop the real concentration in media. It does nothing to limit the reach of a streaming platform. It does nothing to limit a cable channel. It does nothing to limit the distribution power of social media feeds. It only limits the people who still have FCC licenses, public obligations and a daily habit of showing up in local communities.

So what should conservatives do?

DAVID MARCUS: DEMS FREAK OUT OVER SHORT-LIVED KIMMEL CANCELLATION, BUT IGNORE SHOCKING GOOGLE REVELATION

First, stop apologizing for wanting a fair market. If you believe in competition, then competition has to be real. A rule that uniquely handcuffs one sector while its competitors operate with no comparable limits is not regulation. It is protectionism.

Second, take action. The FCC has an open proceeding on this issue and it should finish the job and repeal the cap. It has both the authority and the responsibility to remove this outdated bureaucratic rule that puts a heavy thumb on the scale for Big Tech at the expense of local stations and local stories.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Conservatives have a choice: defend an arbitrary cap that makes Big Tech stronger or scrap it and let local TV compete, invest and serve – not only in cities, but from sea to shining sea across the great expanses of our big, beautiful nation.

Voters are watching. And the numbers say they will remember who stood with their local communities and their stations when it counted.

Cutting net migration to zero would deliver a short-term boost to living standards but ultimately prove “fiscally unsustainable”, leaving the UK economy smaller, public finances weaker and the deficit permanently higher, according to new analysis.

The warning comes from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), which said a zero net migration policy would shrink the economy by 3.6 per cent by 2040 and reduce the workforce by around 2.5 million people compared with current forecasts. The result, it argues, would be a £37bn deterioration in the public finances unless offset by higher taxes or cuts to public spending.

The findings land amid fresh evidence that net migration has already fallen sharply. Preliminary estimates suggest net migration dropped to around 200,000 in 2025, the lowest level since 2012, excluding the pandemic period, following tighter visa rules for students and workers introduced by the previous Conservative government and further restrictions on overseas care workers under Labour.

That fall has fuelled speculation among population experts that net migration could approach zero in the coming years. This would mark a dramatic reversal after net migration surged to more than 900,000 in 2023, the highest level on record, with 2022 and 2024 also seeing historically high inflows.

NIESR said that in a scenario where net migration falls to zero, incomes per person would rise by around 2 per cent over the long term, as fewer workers would mean greater access to capital and equipment, boosting individual productivity. However, those gains would not be sustainable without fiscal intervention.

“The zero net migration scenario is fiscally unsustainable,” the institute said, arguing that weaker growth would eventually force governments to raise taxes or cut spending to stabilise debt. By contrast, it said positive net migration offered a “more straightforward route to fiscal sustainability” by supporting growth and the tax base.

Under the institute’s modelling, the UK population would stabilise at around 70 million by 2030 if net migration were eliminated, compared with rising to about 74 million by 2040 under projections from the Office for National Statistics.

Alongside its migration analysis, NIESR updated its wider economic outlook. It expects inflation to fall below the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target in April and remain close to that level for the rest of the year. As a result, it forecasts two interest rate cuts in 2026, taking the base rate down to 3.25 per cent from 3.75 per cent, although markets expect rates to be left unchanged at this week’s MPC meeting.

Economic growth is forecast at 1.4 per cent this year, slightly below the 1.5 per cent projected in November, before slowing to 1.3 per cent in 2027 and 1.1 per cent in 2028. NIESR said part of that moderation reflects the impact of tax rises announced by Rachel Reeves, which are expected to weigh on demand over the medium term.

The institute’s conclusion is stark: while cutting migration may appeal politically and offer a temporary lift to incomes, eliminating net migration altogether would come at a significant economic and fiscal cost that the UK would struggle to absorb without difficult trade-offs.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

Tae Hee Kim

Good afternoon. I am Tae-hee Kim, IRO of SK Telecom. Let us begin the earnings conference call for fiscal year 2025. Today, we will first deliver a presentation on the financial and business highlights, followed by a Q&A session.

Please note that all forward-looking statements are subject to change depending on various factors, such as market and management situations.

Let me now present our CFO.

Jong-Seok Park

Good afternoon. This is Jong-seok Park, CFO of SK Telecom. It is my first time to greet to investors and shareholders as CFO. I wish you a happy new year, and I also wish all of you good health and happiness in the new year.

In 2025, SK Telecom put priority on expanding operational improvements across the company and monetizing AI business and made strenuous efforts to strengthen fundamental business competitiveness and secure a foundation for new growth drivers.

However, the cybersecurity incident and its subsequent developments also led us to a period of careful reflection, realizing that understanding and innovating on customer value, which is the essence of our business, is a prerequisite for a sustainable future. We will do our utmost to build SK Telecom with strong fundamentals grounded in the trust of our customers.

Let me now report on the financial results for fiscal year 2025. Consolidated revenue posted KRW 17.099.2 trillion, down 4.7% year-on-year due to sales of subsidiaries, net decline in subscribers following the