(BFW) *OUTOTEC NOT APPROACHED OR RECEIVED A BID


BN 07/23 07:56 *OUTOTEC WOULD EVALUATE ANY BIDS IF APPROACHED
BN 07/23 07:56 *OUTOTEC SAYS WOULD EVALUATE ANY BID THOROUGHLY IF ONE RECEIVED
BFW 07/23 07:56 *OUTOTEC NOT APPROACHED OR RECEIVED A BID
BN 07/23 07:56 *OUTOTEC SAYS NOT APPROACHED BY WEIR GROUP
BN 07/23 07:56 *OUTOTEC NOT APPROACHED OR RECEIVED A BID
BN 07/23 07:55 *OUTOTEC NOT APPROACHED
BN 07/23 07:55 *OUTOTEC COMMENTS ON MKT RUMORS

Outotec Oyj: Outotec comments on market rumors
2014-07-23 07:55:54.368 GMT

Outotec Oyj: Outotec comments on market rumors

OUTOTEC OYJ  STOCK EXCHANGE RELEASE   JULY 23, 2014  at 10.55 AM

Outotec comments on market rumors

Outotec notes that there has been speculation in the media this morning
concerning a potential bid for Outotec by The Weir Group Plc.

Outotec has not been approached or received a bid for a potential combination
of the two companies. Should Outotec receive these types of proposals the
Board of Directors of Outotec would evaluate them thoroughly and issue a Stock
Exchange Release regarding the matter.

OUTOTEC

Pertti Korhonen, CEO
Tel. +358 20 529 211

DISTRIBUTION:
NASDAQ OMX Helsinki
Main media
www.outotec.com

(UBS) Will Weir bid for Outotec ? not likely

Weir
Will Weir bid for Outotec? Not likely

* Weir bid for Outotec not likely in our view
Press reports (incl. The Times) have suggested that Weir is considering a bid for Finnish
mining equipment company Outotec. In our view while feasible from a financial
perspective, the industrial logic appears less clear. Outotec provides engineering
services to mining companies (a bit like an EPC) and as such has a different business
model to Weir who sell product and then farm the aftermarket. We believe that the
Weir management team are keen to continue an acquisitive expansion strategy but
acquisitions in the unconventional oil & gas flow control segment may be more
feasible. Weir officially are making "no comment".

* The maths on an Outotec bid
Outotec has an €1.4bn market cap (c£1.1bn) and on consensus estimates will have net
cash of c€95m at end 2014E, suggesting an overall staring EV of c£1bn. It is on a
2015E consensus EV/EBIT of c13x, although on more cautious UBS estimates this is
more like 15x. "thisismoney.co.uk" suggests a possible bid at €12 per share, which
would equate to an EV of over €2bn and consensus EV/EBIT of c21x15E based on
consensus and c24x on UBSe – this looks too high in our view and would suggest no
EPS accretion. If synergies at 5% of sales were possible, then the EV/EBIT could fall to
more like 12-13x and the deal could be c10% EPS accretive. However, the industrial
logic on the deal would appear less than on the recent Metso bid and as such it is
questionable whether this level of synergies could be achieved.

* Could Weir afford it – Yes, in our view
We estimate that Weir could add c£1bn of debt temporarily by going to c3x net debt /
ebitda suggesting that a capital increase may be needed, but not a very large one.

* Valuation: £28 price target
Weir price target set on 14x EV/EBITA 2014E.

(Oddo) HAVAS - upgrade to BUY / Q2 to exceed forecasts.

ODDO - HAVAS - upgrade to BUY / Q2 to exceed forecasts.

HAVAS (market cap €2.3bn) – upgrade to BUY. 20% upside on our €7 TP.

* Unlike Publicis, Havas is likely to surprise positively on Q2 (e LFL +5% vs
cons. +4% vs Q1 +3%), which could lead consensus to upgrade their forecasts
(solid net new business, improved US, football impact, relatively dynamic
advertising WW).
* We raise our EPS 014/15 by an average 5%, which puts us 5% above consensus.
* In the attached note, we identify numerous levers for margin growth and book
a long-term EBIT margin of 15.5% vs 15% previously (vs 13.8% in 13 and e14.3%
in 14).
* We forecast net cash of €80m by end 15 which we expect to trigger a buy back
by Bollore. This would reflect a similar scenario to the 2012 buyback (12%)
which boosted EPS by 11% and re-rated the share price (AMF again likely to
comply with not forcing a take over as Bollore owns 36%).
* “Self help” in the US has led to solid contract gains (ie Green Mountain
Coffee, Liberty Mutual and Dish) at Havas Worldwide which should accelerate H2
as management changes continue to have effect (eQ2 +2% vs Q1 +3.7%). Arnold will continue to suffer despite a recent gain (John Frida).
* The world advertising market is expected to grow by av. 5.5% over next 3
years.
* Despite our recent message of caution on advertising trends in France (e25%
of sales), Havas has been gaining new clients thanks to the BETC agency (Louis
Vuitton, Total and a new Air France campaign). The endless IPOs and M&As have
been very beneficial to Havas. This is reflected in our forecasts Q2 (Europe e
+4.1% vs Q1 +2.3%)
* Speculative – the last remaining independent advertising agency.
* VALUATION is attractive (15 P/E/ 13.6x vs 10 year av. 17.4x / EV/EBITA 9.2x
vs 10.9x, EV/EBITDA 7.8x vs 8.7x / EV/sales in line with average 1.3x).

(Exane) CGG : More radical surgery needed: 12 suggestions

Indebted margin laggard faces severe difficulties as downward cycle starts to bite; we suggest 12
potential remedies to generate upside

- Seismic still in a tough spot; cutting estimates; 2016 targets looking tough
Marine seismic faces headwinds from lower demand and still rising supply – winter looks tough.
These headwinds together with slow demand at Sercel lead us to cut our EBIT estimates by 19-
33% for ‘14E-‘16E. We are a long way short of CGG’s 2016 targets (>20% below at the EBIT
level), but find this at least partly priced in. We cut our TP to EUR8.5/sh (from EUR11), set at 9.5x
‘2016E EV/EBIT

- Net debt a risk given earnings sensitivity to slowing end market
CGG is in the midst of its third strategic phase, focusing on improving margins in its Acquisition
division by retiring vessels and reducing its land seismic activity. However, net debt is too high
given earnings volatility and increasing sector headwinds. We estimate a 10% fall in marine pricing
and multi-client sales would put CGG on the edge of its covenant threshold of 3x net debt /
EBITDA.

- We set out 12 recommendations for CGG to go further
Our suggestions range from compensation, specific ideas for business lines and altering the high
risk financial structure. In particular, we think the multi-client business can do better. We also
question whether restructuring of the Acquisition division is ambitious enough – once we adjust for
accounting factors, we still find that CGG’s targets leave its underlying margins >10% below
smaller peers such as Polarcus and Dolphin.

- The reward
Even a partial closing of performance gaps vs peers could add >USD150m to EBITDA and
>USD100m to EBIT, we estimate. Using a historic EBITA multiple of 9.5x, an additional USD100m
of EBIT represents EUR4 per share.

FT : Hollywood frets over Fox-Time Warner deal

Hollywood frets over Fox-Time Warner deal

Signage is displayed for the FOX Galaxy Parking garage outside of 20th Century Fox Studios in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on on Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013. News Corp., the parent company of Fox Entertainment Group Inc., is scheduled to announce quarterly earnings results on Feb. 6, following the close of U.S. financial markets. Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg©Bloomberg
In Hollywood, where a box office dud can sound the death knell for even the starriest career, anxiety is as much a part of life as red carpet premieres and tearful speeches at the Oscars.
The anxiety level ticked up several notches last week when news broke of an unsolicited $73bn bid by Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox group for Time Warner. The deal would combine two of Hollywood’s largest film studios – 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers – and create a film company responsible for about a third of all US box-office sales and blockbuster franchises ranging from Batman to X-Men, Harry Potter to Avatar.

21st Century Fox has said it would maintain the independence of 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers, two Los Angeles neighbours but, for decades, fierce rivals and competitors. “The proposal is designed to preserve and protect the creative identities of each of the businesses,” said a person close to the company.
But behind the scenes the proposed 21st Century Fox purchase has caused alarm in the creative community that is Hollywood’s engine. “We are adamantly opposed to the idea,” says David Young, executive director of the Writers Guild of America West, which represents screenwriters.
“We think it’s a disaster for talent in Hollywood and bad social policy,” he adds. “Markets are efficient when there are a lot of people in them buying and selling. If markets get consolidated and there’s a concentration of power what we will see is writers being paid less to create and consumers having to pay more.”
In the past 12 months Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox have been two of the three best performing studios, releasing hits this year such as The Lego Movie and X-Men: Days of Future Past. They are among the six main studios currently operating in Hollywood, competing alongside Walt Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount and Universal.

21st Century Fox’s bid has been rejected by Time Warner, which this week moved to block a potential hostile takeover by amending its bylaws and scrapping a rule that would allow investors to call a shareholder meeting.
But if 21st Century Fox returns with an offer that wins the approval of the Time Warner board, the six studios will effectively become five.
Once 21st Century Fox declared its offer could generate $1bn of savings, speculation started about how a combination of the two studios would work – particularly if Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox are to continue operating independently. “You could combine home entertainment and distribution of the two studios and leave all production and marketing operations intact,” says a rival studio executive.
The angst generated by a potential combination of the studios is not confined to writers. “It’s definitely not good for talent,” says an agent responsible for landing clients plum roles. “We’re going to have to be more creative about what we do [with the studios] and how we get projects financed.”
The possible 21st Century Fox-Time Warner combination would also bring together the two largest suppliers of television programming, responsible for shows such as Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory.
“In our view it will be a violation of antitrust law,” says Mr Young, who says the combined company would supply 40 per cent of television series shown in America. The guild has hired legal experts to represent it in front of antitrust regulators, he adds. “This is a merger that we absolutely have to stop.”

21st Century Fox has indicated it would sell CNN, Time Warner’s cable news channel, if its bid is successful. But it does not intend to dispose of either of the two studios because it believes the combination would not violate antitrust law. People familiar with the company say it has been advised that a six to five merger would not be contentious.
Still, there are other factors to consider, assuming 21st Century Fox succeeds with an improved bid. Culturally, the two studios are different places to work and each has long-term relationships with key talent that are impossible to replicate. Warner Bros has had a relationship with Clint Eastwood that has spanned decades while Christopher Nolan, the director of The Dark Knight and Inception, has also made the studio his home.
It is unclear what impact a 21st Century Fox takeover would have on those relationships – or, indeed, if another buyer for Time Warner will emerge, now that Mr Murdoch has shown his hand. Uncertainty, alongside the everyday anxiety, is now firmly part of the Hollywood mix.

>>> Max Petroleum launches strategic review, Blackstone running sale

Max Petroleum launches strategic review, Blackstone running sale - Full Document {http://bit.ly/WClKVC}
Max Petroleum today announces that it is launching a review of strategic options open to the Company with the intention of maximising value for shareholders.

The review of strategic options may include a corporate transaction such as a merger with, acquisition of or subscription for the Company's securities by a third party, a sale of the business or a farm down or disposal of assets. Discussions in relation to a merger with a third party or a sale of the Company will take place within the context of a "formal sale process" in accordance with Note 2 on Rule 2.6 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the "Code"), such that the Board of Max Petroleum is able to have discussions with third parties interested in such a transaction on a confidential basis.

The formal sale process

The Company has appointed Blackstone Group International Partners LLP ("Blackstone") as exclusive financial adviser to conduct the formal sale process. Parties with a potential interest in making an offer for, merging with or proposing other forms of corporate transaction with, Max Petroleum should contact Blackstone (contact details as set out below).

Any interested party will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the Company on reasonable terms satisfactory to the Board and on the same terms, in all material respects, as the other interested parties before being permitted to participate in the process. Following execution of an agreed non-disclosure agreement, the Company intends to provide interested parties with information materials on the Company. Following receipt of the materials, interested parties shall be invited to submit proposals to the Company.

The Board reserves the right to alter any aspect of the process as outlined above or to terminate it at any time and will make further announcements as appropriate. The Board reserves the right to reject any approach or terminate discussions with any interested party or participant at any time.

Accounting and finance update

In line with the Company's announcement on 12 June 2014 of estimated proved and probable reserves of 9.5m barrels of oil equivalent in proved and probable ("2P") reserves as at 31 March 2014, as estimated by its Competent Person Ryder Scott Company, it expects there will be an impairment of the total value of the oil and gas and capitalised exploration assets of the Company, reported to be USD 299.6m as of 30 September 2013, when the Company's financial results as of 31 March 2014 are announced in August 2014. A non-cash impairment charge of USD 64.6m against capitalised exploration costs allocated to its post-salt assets is expected to be made to reflect the limited exploration potential of its post-salt assets.

A possible additional non-cash impairment charge of up to USD 113.0m for the Company's pre-salt assets is also being evaluated. No final decision has been made and this possible pre-salt impairment is dependent on the assessed likelihood of: i) financing a re-entry and completion of the Company's pre-salt exploration well, NUR-1, which was suspended in 2012 and requires USD 20-25m of additional capital; and ii) of gaining regulatory approval for an extension of the exploration period of the Blocks A&E Licence to complete NUR-1 beyond March 2015, when the current approval expires.

The Company also advises that negotiations with Sberbank remain ongoing to reset the technical production and reserves covenants under the Sberbank USD 90m credit facility (as announced with the Company's interim results on 30 December 2013) to reflect the current profile of reserves and production. The Company continues to meet its payment obligations under the facility.

NYT : 2 Banks Forged in Crisis, CIT and OneWest, Are Set to Merge, to a Big Payo

For some, the financial crisis was very, very good.

Five years ago, after the mortgage market had imploded, a group of investors — including the billionaire hedge fund managers George Soros and John A. Paulson — banded together to create a new bank from the wreckage of the failed California lender IndyMac.

Now those investors are set for a big payday, thanks to the CIT Group, a lender that itself ran into trouble after the housing bust.

On Tuesday, CIT said it would acquire the bank that rose from IndyMac’s ashes — OneWest — paying $3.4 billion in cash and stock to its hedge fund and private equity owners.

The deal illustrates how casualties of the financial crisis have moved on, and even prospered.

The deal is a coup for John A. Thain, the Wall Street executive who sold Merrill Lynch during the depths of the crisis and was later unceremoniously ousted from the bank. Under his leadership, CIT, a lender to small and midsize businesses, has grown — to the point where, with the acquisition of OneWest, it will be deemed a systemically important bank for the first time.

Where the bank is now is a far cry from late 2009, when CIT spent 38 days in Chapter 11 protection to help put in place its corporate restructuring plan, Tuesday’s deal will roughly double the size of its commercial bank, to $28 billion in deposits and $67 billion in assets. And the cost of its funding will drop to about 2.4 percent.

“We have really repaired all of the problems coming out of bankruptcy,” Mr. Thain said in a telephone interview.

Investors in OneWest will have reaped a windfall from their investment in the lender. Led by Steven T. Mnuchin, a former partner at Goldman Sachs, the investors formed the bank in 2009 with $1.55 billion of their own money by buying the remains of IndyMac from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Now, they stand to have more than doubled their money. The approximately $1.85 billion in proceeds from the sale to CIT will come on top of more than $2 billion in dividends that the investors have already taken out of the bank.

Take Mr. Paulson, who famously collected nearly $4 billion by betting against failing home mortgages in the run-up to the financial crisis. His firm originally invested $400 million for a 24.9 percent stake in the nascent OneWest, according to a person briefed on the matter.

In a letter on Tuesday to clients, his hedge fund reported taking home $788 million for its stake in the bank — on top of having already received $551 million in dividends.

Such results are a rich turnaround for what had been one of the biggest bank failures during the financial crisis. When IndyMac collapsed because mortgages it made — most of which required little in the way of down payments or documentation — soured, it became the second-biggest savings and loan to fall in 2008, behind only Washington Mutual.

Efforts by the F.D.I.C. to enlist private investors to help rebuild failed banks opened the door to the OneWest deal. Mr. Paulson joined Mr. Mnuchin in a consortium that also included Mr. Soros; Michael S. Dell, the founder of the computer company that bears his name; and J. Christopher Flowers, a former Goldman banker who specializes in financial firm investments.

Since then, OneWest has blossomed into a healthy regional lender serving the Los Angeles area. Its assets have grown to $23 billion from $16 billion, while it now counts 73 retail branches across Southern California.

By last year, however, the bank’s lenders appeared ready for an exit. The firm explored a potential sale of itself while also readying a possible initial public offering.

Through Tuesday’s deal, those investors will receive $2 billion in cash and 31.3 million shares of CIT, valued at $1.4 billion. Mr. Mnuchin will become a vice chairman at CIT, while he and a OneWest director, Alan Frank, will join the acquirer’s board.

OneWest’s proposed owner has had a similar renaissance. Before the financial crisis, CIT sought to garner new power and prominence by moving beyond its traditional, sleepy business of commercial loans to the likes of Dunkin’ Donuts. The answer was in more aggressive lending, particularly for home and student loans.

But the collapse of subprime mortgages eventually shut off CIT’s access to the markets where it drew its lifeblood, cheap financing, and the company nearly collapsed before negotiating a rescue plan with creditors.

When Mr. Thain arrived as chief executive in early 2010, the firm was struggling to clamber back from its near-death experience. Borrowing money was punishing, with the lender paying a 13 percent interest rate on its $31 billion in debt.

His goal: making the lender more stable, particularly by building up CIT’s own stable of deposits to provide a lower-cost source of financing for its loans.

But until last year, he operated under the watchful eye of the Federal Reserve, running many major business decisions past regulators while unable to undertake others — including acquisitions. That clampdown lifted last year, and CIT soon began talking with OneWest about a potential deal.

“We’d been looking for a deposit base for the past year,” Mr. Thain said. “This one really came together as a good fit for us.”

Last month, Mr. Thain teased investors with the promise of a big bank acquisition. And he hinted that CIT would cross the government’s definition of a “systemically important financial institution,” one whose failure could wreak significant damage, by vaulting over $50 billion in assets.

Investors applauded the deal on Tuesday, as shares in CIT jumped nearly 11 percent, to $48.71.

Not all of the rewards from Tuesday’s deal are financial. CIT’s continued rebound has partially revived the reputation of Mr. Thain, a onetime golden boy of Wall Street whose career jumped from co-president of Goldman to chief executive of the New York Stock Exchange.

In 2007, he was appointed the chief executive of Merrill Lynch, and subsequently engineered its lifesaving sale to Bank of America in September 2008.

But Mr. Thain was forced out of Bank of America a year later over multibillion-dollar losses at Merrill, huge bonuses to several employees and renovations to his office.

CIT was seen as his humble re-entry into Wall Street. Yet with Tuesday’s deal, the firm will eventually bear the imprimatur of being a systemically important lender — just like his former employer, Bank of America.

FT : Hermès headwinds and what they spell for the wider luxury industry

Hermès headwinds and what they spell for the wider luxury industry

Earlier this week Hermès’ womenswear designer Christophe Lemaire announced his impending exit from the ultra-luxe label to focus on his namesake collection.

This news, coming just days after the company undershot expectations in its latest quarterly performance, got me thinking about the rapidly evolving status quo forming for one of the star brands in the luxury galaxy.


Hermès, which started life as a saddlery in 19th century Paris, has certainly found itself at a crossroads – not least as a successor for Lemaire has yet to be announced.

As the FT reported last week:

Hermès said second-quarter sales totalled €963.4m, just below consensus estimates at €971m. In constant currency terms, sales growth was 9.6 per cent, below estimates at 11 per cent. But negative exchange rate trends took a toll, which Hermès said would depress operating margins when first-half profits are announced on August 29.

The company also noted that it had underperformed in both the world’s number one and fastest growing luxury markets, North America and Asia-Pacific respectively – although its important to remember that these returns remain markedly higher than those of many key rivals.

The ready-to-wear sales hitherto masterminded by Lemaire also slightly underperformed with 13 per cent year on year growth, whereas leather goods grew by 10 per cent in line with expectations.

So how to capture further growth given the global macro-headwinds now weighing on the industry? These are the three key questions facing the label:



1.) Should it continue its focus on growing ready-to-wear?

Lemaire did a strong job in forging a distinctive and elegant aesthetic that increased demand from leading buyers, but the brand is still best known for its coveted bags like the Birkin and Kelly which can go for thousands of dollars. The brand has diversified its portfolio which now encompasses watches and perfumes as well as silks and r-t-w – all hallmarks of a luxury lifestyle brand – but realistically clothes will never make up the lion’s share of sales. Exactly how valuable is its impact on overall brand equity? The next designer appointed to fill Lemaire’s shoes will speak volumes as to the group’s overarching strategy.

2.) Will they continue expanding production capabilities?

The group’s production capacity, rather than demand, has tended to dictate the pace of sales. A tight leash on supply has maintained an aura of exclusivity around Hermès offerings, but also tempered its ability to grow the business – including in core areas like e-commerce. The brand continues to have strong momentum and is opening two new factories in France in 2015 and 2016, but finding a sustainable balance will only get trickier as competition in the premium accessories space hots up amid haute luxe offerings from rivals such as Louis Vuitton.



3.) How to convince the market that the stock is not overvalued?

The graph above (which featured in this FT video on the expansion of luxury fashion back in April) reflects the meteoric multiples at which the Hermès share price in the last 20 years. But some analysts seem to becoming more cautious – see this excerpt from a Bernstein Research note published last week:

We maintain our Underperform rating on Hermes, given the unwarranted valuation multiple, in our view, despite its ultra luxury brand positioning and enviable brand momentum in the sector…We have reviewed our estimates leading to a 2% reduction in our FY14.

With the loss of its creative director, production bottlenecking and softening across the sector, will shareholders stay invested in the company’s growth?

In my view, the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding yes. Hermès is still a brand wielding a huge amount of product power and profitability. But the times are a’changing in the luxury sphere and brands across the spectrum are getting burnt as a result (think Louis Vuitton and Gucci, Mulberry and Coach to name but a few).

Several years ago it was far easier to talk about overarching trends defining and dividing winners and losers: namely the hi-lo bifurcation of the luxury market. Hermès sat in pole position as a non-logo centric player with a focus on accessories (good margins) and at the top of the pricing spectrum (making its core clientele demographic the ultra-high consumer, whose spending remains unswayed through economic peaks and troughs).

But even they are needing to think hard about next steps. Methinks a more granular company-by-company approach to the space will now be required, as opposed to sweeping ‘one size fits all’ conclusions. And I’m starting today with Hermès.

>>> Spotify, Google have not held talks (WSJ was reporting, GOOG had talks)

Spotify, Google have not held talks

Google has not been in formal or informal talks to acquire music streaming service Spotify, according to a Re/code report.

The report cited unnamed sources at both companies who said there have been no conversations about a deal or on price or even any negotiations between the two.

The report mentioned a prior Wall Street Journal article which said Google had been interested in buying the UK-based music service but walked away when the price was too high.

A previous filing by Google, which included mention of an unnamed foreign company that it had failed to buy for between USD 4 and USD 5bn, was also discussed in the report as a reason for the two companies being linked.


Source Re/code