NY Post : Two key Michael Kors investors hit checkout

A pair of fashion tycoons is cashing out its stake in Michael Kors — but it isn’t through minting money off the label’s rampant growth.
Shares of Michael Kors, which have quadrupled since the company went public in December 2011, lost 4.5 percent Friday to close at $76.39 after Silas Chou and Lawrence Stroll disclosed they were selling their 5.7-percent stake.
The investing duo’s private-equity firm, Sportswear Holdings, will reap $890 million from the sale of 11.6 million shares, a process that’s being handled by JPMorgan Chase.
The exit of Chou and Stroll, who scooped up Michael Kors in 2003 for about $100 million, stoked recent fears that the clothing and accessory brand’s business is slowing.
Last month, execs said they expect gross margins to fall this year amid rampant competition in the handbag market, a disclosure that sent Michael Kors shares tumbling.
Indeed, Chou and Stroll exited their stake in Tommy Hilfiger, which they built into a global powerhouse in the 1990s, before that brand began to see its sales and profitability deteriorate, Barclays analyst Joan Payson said.
But while Chou and Stroll are leaving the Michael Kors board, there’s a silver lining as well, according to some analysts.
That’s because the duo still owns Far East Limited, an affiliate company that owns the license to produce Michael Kors merchandise for China.
Despite the fact that China is the biggest growth market for the luxury industry, Michael Kors has barely begun to tap into it.
“At some point, it is likely that [Michael Kors] will buy back this license and operate directly owned stores in China,” notes Wells Fargo analyst Paul Lejuez.

(Barron's) When Will We Get Serious About Security on the Web?

When Will We Get Serious About Security on the Web?
Naked celebrity photos kicked up a storm about Web security. Will anything really change, or is it just too much trouble? Synaptics and NXP may have an answer.

"Nude pictures!" That was the big story in the headlines last week about Internet privacy and security. Celebrities, including actress Jennifer Lawrence, had uploaded photos of themselves in the buff to iCloud, the online service run by Apple that lets people store their music and photos and data and synchronize it between computers. The pictures were appropriated by persons unknown, who then spread them across the Internet.

Apple pointed out its service wasn't broken, that, instead, these celebs were the target of diligent efforts to steal passwords and reveal celebrity mischief.

The sensational nature of the discussion was telling: The Internet is more popular for the ways in which it enables activity -- rapid dissemination of presumably confidential material to the masses, in this case -- than for what it prohibits.

Over the years, efforts to increase security for consumers have consistently failed. Basically, there's no money to be made in consumer security technology, per se, though understanding why efforts have failed may suggest ways to profit from the mess.

Consider that there are simple routes to at least limit what transpired on iCloud, even if such events cannot be entirely prevented.

In my anecdotal observation, time and again, people use weak passwords for computers, don't keep track of passwords, and probably use the same ones for both the places online where they shop for trinkets and for the places where they have their prime brokerage accounts. The whole process of following even basic rules of thumb for security is either too time-consuming or too complicated for most Internet users.

There are today, and have been for many years, some simple ways to add even more security. The most prominent thing is what's known in tech circles as "two-factor authentication." It requires a person to supplement a password with something they have physically in their possession that an attacker can't possibly possess.

Two-factor is frequently used in corporations, which worry more about risk than individuals. Employees are issued what's called a secure "token," a little plastic device that generates random numbers. The server computer across the corporate intranet requires this random number to be typed into the computer, and verified, if an employee wants to connect to the corporate network.

A decade ago, after the first big outbreaks of identity theft happened on the Internet, PayPal said it would offer a "premium" service to some users that would include such secure tokens. As far as I can tell, secure tokens never took off in a big way with PayPal users.

Apple, too, has a version of two-factor: It can send a text message to your smartphone containing a random number each time you try to log into iCloud, which you must then enter along with your password. Only you, the possessor of your phone, in theory, can gain access with that code.

But Apple has done little to promote two-factor, another instance where prevention was more trouble than anyone, including Apple, wanted to be bothered with. Apple CEO Tim Cook last week told The Wall Street Journal his company will promote two-factor more in the future.

The whole mess of privacy and security, some will say, is because the Internet is a place where people are exhibitionists. They share themselves on Facebook and Twitter, in excruciating detail. Even private pictures backed up to iCloud are a form of such, since they probably exist to be shared with someone, if not the whole world.

But that's not quite right. The Internet isn't actually a place at all. If it was, just like with your home or your social club, you'd certainly have locks on it, and you'd check with the local police about the neighborhood.

In actuality, the Internet exists as a series of signals in communications equipment that most people can't fathom. To the average individual, it is a tool, an extension of the computing tool. And like a tool, what matters to most is not that it's secure but that it provides ever-greater utility, with ever greater ease of use.

If the Internet is a tool, the only successful consumer security is stuff that brings new utility, rather than blocking or preventing things. The most intriguing recent example of that is Snapchat, the messaging app for phones that lets you send pictures and then makes them disappear moments after they're viewed by the recipient.

The service was recently valued at $10 billion, based on an investment by the venture capital legends Kleiner Perkins. The value of Snapchat is not so much that it hides things you share by making them disappear, but that it turns every conversation into ephemera: the interaction exists for a moment, and then it's gone. Its utility is how it makes chat among people effortless. Keep it light, could be the Snapchat ethos.

Apple has some good prospects for its smartphone empire, having included fingerprint identification in the iPhone. If speculation proves accurate, this Tuesday the company will unveil a new version of the device that allows you to make payments with the iPhone in place of a debit card. It's possible the company will combine the payments service with the fingerprint identification method.

If so, it will be a triumph of utility, allowing you to use the same device you constantly gaze into as your debit or credit card, obviating the need to reach for your wallet. Hopefully, the fingerprint sensor means that such transactions will also be more secure than many existing ways we shop.

One beneficiary could be NXP Semiconductors (ticker: NXPI), the chip maker that is likely to provide some of the technology to Apple. As I mentioned last week in this space, its shares are not expensive.

My colleague Alex Eule last week wrote about another hopeful in security, fingerprint sensor maker Synaptics (SYNA). Its shares are also worth a look.

DROPBOX AND BOX, two startups that are considering IPOs, could eventually be plays on security. They both let you share files over the Internet rather than store them on your hard drive. They could be private, secure transmission lines for sensitive documents, to the extent they afford enough utility.

The bottom line is that no matter what they say, people don't want privacy or security on the Internet as much as they want utility.

The fault, in other words, lies in ourselves.

WSJ : French Ex-Hostage Identifies Captor in Syria

French Ex-Hostage Identifies Captor in Syria
Journalist Says One of His Captors Was Frenchman Suspected of Killing Four People at Brussels Jewish Museum

PARIS—A French journalist held hostage for months by extremists in Syria said one of his captors was a Frenchman suspected of killing four people at the Brussels Jewish Museum earlier this year.

French magazine Le Point on Saturday quoted its reporter Nicolas Henin as saying he was tortured by Mehdi Nemmouche, a Frenchman who had spent time with extremists in Syria.

Henin was held for a time with American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, both beheaded by extremists from the Islamic State group in recent weeks. He was released in April with other French journalists who had been held since June 2013.

Nemmouche is in custody since his arrest in France soon after the Brussels killing in May. The attack crystallized fears of European governments that Europeans who join radical fighters in Syria could return to stage attacks at home.

French authorities say there are some 900 people from France who have been implicated in jihad in the Syria region. Several dozen have been killed.

Henin couldn't immediately be reached for comment Saturday. Speaking to the Associated Press last month, he described how Foley had endured tougher treatment from captors because of his citizenship, but always behaved with courage and dignity.

He and the other French journalists released in April described being held in about 10 underground places of captivity, mostly with other people. But they didn't elaborate on some details of captivity because of potential consequences for hostages still being held.

(Barron's) Two Questions for Alibaba

Two Questions for Alibaba
As the Chinese e-commerce giant's record size IPO approaches, investors need assurance on a couple of key points.

China's largest e-commerce provider, the Alibaba Group, is expected to start its initial public offering roadshow this week, with its shares possibly offered days afterward under the ticker BABA. In a regulatory filing Friday, Alibaba said it's seeking as much as $24 billion, which would make it the largest IPO ever.

Alibaba is certainly impressive. For the year ended in June, a total of $296 billion worth of transactions, or about 80% of China's e-commerce retail, flowed through its platforms.

As investors ponder whether to buy the IPO, they should ask two questions: Can Alibaba persuade consumers to migrate from its decentralized small-merchant marketplace to its site for larger merchandisers? And can it figure out how much and where to allocate its own money to capture eyeballs and wallets? The first question relates to faster revenue growth, while the second is about spending discipline, margins, and shareholder returns.

Alibaba makes most of its money charging for advertising and commissions on these two main e-commerce platforms -- its original, hugely popular site Taobao, which caters to smaller buyers and sellers, and the newer Tmall, where branded retailers sell. Tmall is the more lucrative site today. Branded retailers, which can include broad-based merchandisers like J.C. Penney (ticker: JCP) or fashion names like Zara, not only pay 0.3% to 5% of the merchandise value as commission, they also often advertise on Taobao to direct consumer traffic to their Tmall pages. On Taobao, sellers, big or small, bid for keywords through an auction system and pay based on the "clicks" they get. Tmall doesn't use this sort of advertising.

Tmall becomes more important as more Chinese shop on their smartphones. On the mobile screen, ads aren't as effective, so it can't charge as much. Arete Research analyst Muzhi Li reckons that Taobao's monetization rate is cut by more than half on mobile. Tmall, however, still generates commission fees at a similar rate on mobile. Overall, mobile now accounts for about a third of Alibaba's transactions.

It will be tough to coordinate the two sites' growth. Taobao is a longtime consumer favorite because of its low prices and large selection, selling everything from neon-colored toilet paper to Halloween costumes. Alibaba doesn't want to alienate its core Taobao constituency.

TO CREATE MORE DRIVERS of traffic, Alibaba has made more than 30 investments, spending about $7 billion in the last year on everything from strategic stakes in social media Weibo (WB) and online video site Youku (YOKU), to buyouts of mobile browser UCWeb. That's a big expense that then needs to be supplemented by added sales, technology, and R&D spending. As a result, Alibaba's operating margin has fallen to 43% in the second quarter, from 54% a year ago.

For all that, the IPO is well-timed. Peer Tencent Holdings (700.Hong Kong) has rallied over 30% in 2014 and trades at a handsome 32 times forward earnings.

In Friday's filing, Alibaba set the IPO's price range between $60 and $66 a share. At the midpoint, the company would be valuing itself at about $155 billion, which is roughly 20% below the consensus figure from analysts. The conservative approach suggests Alibaba and its bankers may also want to avoid a Facebook (FB) IPO flop. In Facebook's case, the deal priced above the expected range. By keeping to the current terms, Alibaba may have hit on a winning sales strategy.

(Barron's) Why Boeing Shares Could Take Off ($150 in a year --> 20% upside)

--> Fears about Boeing are overblown, with the outlook good for its planes, especially the newest models. In a year, the stock could be at $150.

Why Boeing Shares Could Take Off
Worries that Boeing is near a cyclical order peak have grounded its stock. But its shares could still climb 20%.

Boeing shares have dropped 8% this year, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index has climbed as much. Investors can now board: This is a buying opportunity.

Sellers may see surging plane deliveries as a signal that Boeing, whose earnings per share have quadrupled since the end of the last recession, is nearing a classic cycle peak. But growing demand for flights, especially in emerging markets, combined with fuel-efficiency gains and cheap financing, should keep earnings moving steadily higher—and free cash flow soaring. A massive order backlog reduces risk. Look for the shares (ticker: BA), recently around $125, to climb 20% over the next year to $150. And dividends provide a 2.3% yield.

Japan's ANA was the first airline to fly the 787. After initial problems, the jet seems to be performing well; 30 were delivered to customers in the second quarter. Photo: Noriyuki Aida/Bloomberg News
Boeing and Airbus (EADSY) hold a duopoly in passenger jets with 100 seats and up. The latest company to challenge them is Canada's Bombardier (BDRBF), a maker of smaller regional jets. Last year, it unveiled its CSeries, which can seat up to 160 and sips fuel. However, orders have been weak. One reason is that prototypes have been grounded after engine trouble. Another is that potential buyers, rather than take a risk on an entirely new airframe, can simply order the forthcoming Boeing 737 MAX or Airbus A320neo. Both add highly efficient engines to well-traveled narrowbody platforms.

Airbus is expected to deliver the A320neo next year, two years ahead of the 737 MAX. It has so far led in orders, with 60%, mostly because it started selling sooner

THAT'S LESS WORRISOME than it seems, for two reasons. First, aircraft aren't like smartphones, where sales opportunities are short-lived. The 737 was introduced in 1968. Boeing has sold 8,000 of them, making it the best-selling plane ever. Second, Boeing's existing 737 is selling so well that the company is struggling to keep up with demand. The aircraft maker says it will increase production to 47 a month by 2017, from 42 now. Analysts think it will push output even higher.

In general, aircraft manufacturers lose piles of money on the first sales of a new model and later turn hefty profits as sunk costs are paid off, and production costs are driven lower. The widebody 787 Dreamliner may grab the headlines, but the humble 737 is estimated to bring in more than half of Boeing's commercial-airplane profit.

As for the Dreamliner, its deliveries nearly doubled to 30 in the second quarter from 16 a year earlier. Overall deliveries rose to 181 from 169. That offset declines in Boeing's defense business and sent revenue 1% higher, to $22 billion. Core earnings, adjusted for pension expense, jumped 45% to $2.42 a share. For the full year, Wall Street expects much the same: surging commercial jet sales offset by military declines, driving revenue 3.5% higher, to $89.6 billion, and earnings per share, up 16.7%, to $8.25.

Enlarge Image

CEO Jim McNerney must smooth the transition to new planes. Remy de la Mauviniere/AP Photo
One cause for investor concern is that the backlog was unchanged during the second quarter at $440 billion. Some investors take rising deliveries against an unchanged backlog to mean that the sales cycle is nearing a peak, and that Boeing could soon be producing too many planes. Two firms downgraded the stock recently, one of them, Buckingham Research, to Underperform, Boeing's first such rating since 2009, when it was mired in Dreamliner production delays. Buckingham points out that Boeing's 777 has a three-year order backlog, but its replacement, the 777X, won't be delivered until 2020. Boeing eventually will have to cut 777 production, which could dip into profits, predicts Buckingham.

BUT DON'T UNDERESTIMATE Boeing's ability to adapt, says Howard Rubel at Jefferies. It can continue to take costs out of 777 manufacturing, so that profits remain robust at lower production levels. And competing planes are largely sold out, so 777 orders might hold up better than expected. As for next-generation widebodies, the outlook is bright. The 787 and 777X have accounted for close to two-thirds of orders, and Airbus's A350, the rest. All told, Boeing reported 941 plane orders this year, through Sept. 2, net of 63 cancellations, compared with 722 for Airbus through August, after 279 cancellations. Airbus says that many cancellations came from A320 customers switching to the A320neo.

Boeing's modest cancellation rate, combined with an order backlog equal to nearly five years' worth of revenue, provides excellent visibility into near-term demand. Long-term, better to look at broad trends in flight demand than to guess what's next for the economic cycle. Global air traffic is growing at a 6% annual pace. Boeing predicts that it will rise 5% a year over the next two decades as middle classes expand in emerging markets. That will create a need for the global airline fleet to expand from 21,000 planes now to 42,000 by 2033. To get there while replacing old planes, the industry will have to deliver 36,770 planes over the next two decades, close to double what it did during the past two.

Boeing's management, led by CEO Jim McNerney, successfully overcame some early problems with the 787, and still faces challenges. For Boeing, the near-term keys to success include bringing down 787 production costs and successfully transitioning to the 737 MAX. Several years out, the 777X transition will be critical. The best that can be said about the defense side is that Boeing made cuts there early, and the business is likely to make up just 31% of sales next year, down from half in 2010. This past summer, Barron's wrote that U.S. defense spending is in danger of being crowded out by a massive medical bill for former soldiers ("The Lingering Costs of War," June 9).

Boeing shares look plenty affordable at 14.8 times projected earnings for the next four quarters, a 8% discount to where they have traded over the past 15 years, and a 6% discount to the S&P 500, versus a 4% premium, historically.

After this year, earnings per share are expected to grow 23% cumulatively by 2017, to $10.17. But that vastly understates the improvement in cash profit, which was held back by 787 production costs and will be unleashed as output there scales up, and lessons learned are put to work in other new planes.


Wall Street expects free cash flow to approach $11 billion by 2017. That's more than double the current level and equal to more than 12% of Boeing's stock-market value. A rise in the stock price to $150 a share over the next year would still leave Boeing with a projected free cash yield exceeding 10% two years hence.

With that kind of cash pouring in, expect years of healthy dividend hikes, too.

FT : Lionel Barber reviews Henry Kissinger’s ‘World Order’

Lionel Barber reviews Henry Kissinger’s ‘World Order’

The former secretary of state to two US presidents calls for American leadership at a time of international disorder

Henry Kissinger’s latest opus is exquisitely timed. The Middle East is ablaze from Gaza to Iraq and Syria. Russia under Vladimir Putin has turned revanchist, annexing Crimea and mounting a stealth invasion of eastern Ukraine. China is jockeying for power and influence in the Pacific and beyond, testing the resolve of a war-weary America.
We are watching a world in disorder. The question is how far these convulsions are due to a power vacuum in the international system. Kissinger, 91, Harvard academic-turned-secretary of state to two US presidents, does not tackle this head-on in World Order but it is implicit in every page. The answers he suggests go to the heart of the debate about American leadership.
For the past 25 years, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has occupied the role of hegemon. The unipolar moment is now coming to an inglorious end. America under George W Bush overreached after the September 11 terrorist attacks, presiding in his first term over a militarisation of foreign policy that delivered a stalemate at best in Afghanistan and a broken state in Iraq. The result: a split western alliance, a disillusioned American public and a strengthening of theocratic Iran.

Under Barack Obama, the US has arguably over-corrected. The emphasis has been on bringing the troops home, first in Iraq and later in Afghanistan. Yet now the US is poised to re-engage militarily in the Middle East and is struggling to contain Putin. Policy in the wake of the Arab Awakening has been equally piecemeal. President Hosni Mubarak was dumped in the name of Egyptian democracy in 2011 but Washington turned a blind eye to the military coup that two years later ousted the admittedly incompetent and intolerant Muslim Brotherhood. Colonel Muammer Gaddafi was toppled in Libya, largely due to pressure from Britain and France. Libya is now falling apart, riven by gangs and tribal rivalry. In Syria, Obama invoked a red line over the use of chemical weapons but faltered when confronted with evidence that Bashar al-Assad had indeed deployed WMD against his own people.
From the vantage point of Moscow and Beijing, not just the laptop bombardiers in the western media, the US appears irresolute and lacking a sense of strategy. Yet America, Kissinger argues persuasively, must play a leadership role to preserve world order – not as a moralising global policeman but as a hard-nosed great power acting in concert with allies, and sometimes with rivals, to maintain equilibrium and keep the threat of war within tolerable limits. Someone, in other words, has to manage the peace.
World Order reprises the themes of earlier works such as the magisterial Diplomacy (1994) and A World Restored (1957), the young Harvard professor’s paean to Prince Klemens von Metternich, the 19th century master-diplomat. Kissinger’s model for world order is the “concert of Europe” that held sway between 1815 and 1914 and drew inspiration from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, a conflict in which political and religious disputes commingled and nearly a quarter of the population of central Europe died from combat, disease or starvation.
The Peace of Westphalia marked a breakthrough because it relied on independent states refraining from interference in each other’s affairs and recognising a balance of power on the continent. As Kissinger observes, pointedly: Westphalia
These words sum up Realpolitik, of which Kissinger and his boss Richard Nixon were arch-exponents. The dark side was America’s secret front in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, and the covert operation to undermine the Marxist president Salvador Allende in Chile. Today, it is more fashionable to dwell on the duo’s foreign policy successes: détente with the Soviet Union, the opening to Communist China, the Paris accords ending the Vietnam war, and the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt.
One specific concern is the future of the nuclear talks with Iran, a state Kissinger views with great suspicion
These are given their due in a book that is part history, part lecture, part memoir. There are gaps: Africa and Latin America barely feature, and there is insufficient discussion about the role of non-state actors. The latest expression is Isis, a group of fanatical and well-financed Islamist fighters seeking to establish a Caliphate stretching from Syria through northern Iraq. But there are other forms, such as Putin’s irregulars in eastern Ukraine and Chinese cyber-hackers. Each exploits asymmetry and (vaguely) plausible deniability to challenge traditional doctrines such as deterrence, which have underpinned world order.
At times, Kissinger’s portentous aphorisms are beyond parody. Thus Germany is “either too weak or too strong”; Russia is “a uniquely ‘Eurasian’ power, sprawling across two continents but never entirely at home in either”. China and America are both “indispensable pillars of world order”. Theocratic Iran “must decide whether it is a country or a cause”.
Kissinger blames the new world disorder first on the unravelling of the modern state. In Europe this has happened by design, as part of the development of a union whose members have agreed to pool sovereignty, at the expense of being an effective international actor. In the Middle East, the state has corroded from neglect, dissolving into sectarian and ethnic conflict often exacerbated by outside powers.
Second, there is the mismatch between the world’s economic system, which is based on the free flow of goods and capital, and a political system that remains national. For Kissinger, this contradiction partly accounts for a succession of economic crises driven by speculation and under-appreciation of risk.
Economics is not Kissinger’s strongest suit. He is more fluent writing about the lack of effective mechanisms for leading nations to consult on pressing issues. None of the regional forums such as Asean or Apec works, and the Group of Seven summits have been captured by bureaucrats. Kissinger might have given more space to Nato, which critics were too quick to dismiss to post-cold war irrelevance. Instead, he sounds a grumpy lament: politicians have become risk-averse. In the digital age, a surfeit of information has triumphed over knowledge and wisdom. (Tweeters, official and unofficial, take note.)
Above all, Kissinger frets about America, which he labels “the ambivalent superpower”. He is careful to pay tribute to George W Bush’s resolve after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and admits that he himself backed the removal of Saddam Hussein. But he is dismayed by the naive trillion-plus-dollar effort at democracy-building in the Middle East, a region with little historical experience of such western political values, to be accomplished on an absurdly tight US election timetable. There was, he declares with understatement, a “Sisyphean quality” to the whole exercise.
Barack Obama fares little better. The new world disorder would test the mettle of any US president, especially one faced with an implacable Republican opposition in Congress. But the US remains the most powerful country in the world. The Obama presidency does not compare well with, say, Harry Truman’s after 1945 or George HW Bush’s in 1989. Bush Sr, much underestimated, assembled a first-rate national security team and managed the peaceful end of the cold war with finesse. Kissinger is too polite to say that the Obama team has been curiously passive, often failing to recognise the value of building coalitions, reassuring and prodding allies, and arming those who will fight enemies without the direct use of US force.
Kissinger is worried about the dangers of a power vacuum left by a weakened president and a dispirited American public. One specific concern is the future of the nuclear talks with Iran, a state he views with great suspicion. He frets about the mullahs whose concept of jihad (struggle) is fundamentally at odds with Westphalian order. If the talks fail, he argues, the danger is nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, a hugely destabilising development. He is more optimistic about US relations with China, a more natural supporter of Westphalian order (notably on non-interference in other countries’ affairs). A Sinophile by temperament, Kissinger believes China’s rise can and should be accommodated as long as it does not fundamentally upset the balance of power.
In the last resort, the US must somehow find a median point between overconfidence and introspection in its dealings with the rest of the world. The quest for a balance between a values-driven foreign policy and Realpolitik is unavoidable for the superpower. Striking that balance is difficult but ultimately manageable. “What it does not permit is withdrawal.”
Kissinger’s conclusion deserves to be read and understood by all candidates ahead of the 2016 presidential election. World order depends on it.

FT : Alibaba eyes valuation of up to $163bn

Alibaba eyes valuation of up to $163bn

Alibaba, the ecommerce giant that in 15 years has transformed China’s retail landscape, is seeking a valuation of as much as $163bn in a record-breaking initial public offering that could raise $21.1bn for the company and its owners.
On the eve of a global investor roadshow that will start in New York on Monday, a regulatory filing from the company said it hoped to price its shares at between $60 and $66.

That would establish Alibaba as the largest technology or internet-related IPO ever, topping Facebook’s $16bn deal in 2012, according to Dealogic. At the high end of the range, the New York listing would be the world’s third-largest IPO from any sector worldwide.

Positive investor reaction could yet allow it to win the bragging rights of largest ever, topping Agricultural Bank of China’s $22.1bn IPO from July 2010.
Alibaba is offering 123m American Depositary Shares. Selling shareholders, including Yahoo and founder Jack Ma, are offering about 197m shares. It could expand the offering by exercising an overallotment option, to raise as much as $24.3bn. It expects to have about 2.5bn shares outstanding following the offering.
Alibaba is China’s largest ecommerce platform, controlling as much as 80 per cent of the market. It had revenue of $2.5bn last quarter and saw nearly $300bn worth of goods sold on its marketplaces last year.
It has pitched itself as a way to tap into the rapid growth of consumer spending and ecommerce in China. Fewer than half of China’s citizens are now online and even fewer shop online, but that figure is growing and nearly all who do shop online shop with Alibaba.

In a letter to investors, Mr Ma signalled that his ambitions spread far beyond China. “In the past decade, we measured ourselves by how much we changed China. In the future, we will be judged by how much progress we bring to the world,” he wrote.
Prospective buyers will have to weigh that growth against a governance structure that led Hong Kong’s stock exchange to rebuff the IPO. A partnership of 27 executives retains the right to nominate a majority of the board after the IPO.
Mr Ma defended the controversial structure, writing: “Our ecosystem is too complex – and too important – for us to depend on one or two founders or executives, no matter how capable they are.”

Mr Ma also made clear that shareholders would have to share his “mission-driven, long-term” vision. “Our company will not make decisions based on short-term revenues or profits,” he said: “We welcome investors with the same long-term mindset.”
Mr Ma will sell down his 8.8 per cent stake to 7.8 per cent, putting him in a position to earn as much as $841m from the sale.
Yahoo stands to collect between $7.3bn and $8bn based on the preliminary price range from selling down its current 22.4 per cent stake to 16.3 per cent, in line with a previously announced agreement with Alibaba’s management. Alibaba’s largest shareholder, Japanese telecoms group SoftBank, will not be selling shares in the offering.
The other major selling shareholder will be Joe Tsai, executive vice-chairman, who will reduce his stake from 3.6 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
As part of the roadshow, two teams will conduct more than 100 meetings pitching Alibaba to investors. Stops include Boston, London, the Middle East, San Francisco and Hong Kong before the group returns to New York. The Alibaba team led by Mr Ma and its bankers will have one-on-one sessions with investors as well as large group meetings with multiple prospective buyers.
Final pricing is expected during the week of September 15.
Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are managing the offering.
The shares will be primarily offered to large institutional investors, but the company is reserving as much as 6 per cent of the deal, including the overallotment option, for “certain of our directors, executive officers, employees, business associates and members of their families” to purchase at the IPO price.
The Hangzhou-based group operates a variety of platforms, most notably Taobao, a consumer-to-consumer site similar to eBay’s marketplace, and Tmall, which lets big brands sell directly to buyers. It also has a close association and profits from Alipay, the nation’s main online payments network. More recently, it has been diversifying further, with investments into cloud storage, online video and a handful of US start-ups.

(BFW) Club Med’s Sales Decline Complicates Potential Fosun Bid: Monde

Club Med’s Sales Decline Complicates Potential Fosun Bid: Monde
2014-09-06 14:21:53.334 GMT


By Francois de Beaupuy
Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Club Mediterranee’s management and
Fosun have contacted investors in recent weeks to top Bonomi’s
bid for Club Med, Le Monde said, citing unidentified people
close to Fosun.
Le Monde also reported:
* Accor and Marriott have unsuccessfully been approached
* Fosun would need to offer at least EU22-EU23 p/shr to have a
chance to succeed
* Alliance between Bonomi and Fosun can’t completely be ruled
out
* Deadline for counterbid is Sept. 12
* NOTE: Club Med’s Third-Quarter Revenue Statement: NSN
NBFT5CMEQTXC <GO>
* NOTE: Club Med Surges to Five-Year High on $1.1 Billion
Bonomi Bid NSN N81JMW6K50XX <GO>


Link to Company News:300808Z IM <Equity> CN <GO>
Link to Company News:656 HK <Equity> CN <GO>
Link to Company News:AC FP <Equity> CN <GO>
Link to Company News:CU FP <Equity> CN <GO>
Link to Company News:MAR US <Equity> CN <GO>

For Related News and Information:
First Word scrolling panel: FIRST<GO>
First Word newswire: NH BFW<GO>

To contact the reporter on this story:
Francois de Beaupuy in Paris at +33-1-5365-5051 or
fdebeaupuy@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Simon Thiel at +44-20-7673-2814 or
sthiel1@bloomberg.net
Mike Harrison, Dan Weeks

>>> Fed's Rosengren (dovish dissenter in 2013, FOMC non-voter in 2014): Must be

Fed's Rosengren (dovish dissenter in 2013, FOMC non-voter in 2014): Must be patient in removing stimulus, today's jobs report was disappointing, labor force slack is keeping inflation below target 
- Could reach full employment in two years, confident we are on a path to full employment.
- Can see the light at the end of the tunnel for policy normalization.
- housing is not as strong as hoped
- Appears Fed will conclude QE tapering in Oct as previously planned.

>>> Sarkozy, un divorce à 3 millions d euros


Nicolas Sarkozy
Un divorce à 3 millions…
Le divorce de Cécilia et Nicolas Sarkozy aurait été payé par le Qatar

Décidément, le monde politique n’est pas épargné en ce moment. Après François Hollande, c’est au tour de Nicolas Sarkozy d’être visé par des confessions chocs…
François Hollande peut souffler deux petites minutes : ce coup-ci, c’est Nicolas Sarkozy qui est dans l’œil du cyclone. L’ancien chef de l’État est au cœur d’une polémique lancée cette semaine par le magazine Marianne. En cause, son divorce avec Cécilia Sarkozy qui aurait été entièrement réglé par… le Qatar. Ces révélations sont issues d’Une France sous influence, un livre à paraître prochainement et écrit à quatre mains par Vanessa Ratignier et Pierre Péan, journaliste chez Marianne.
Selon des confidences recueillies par ce dernier en avril 2013 à Beyrouth, l’émir du Qatar, Cheikh Hamad ben Khalifa al-Thani, aurait confié en 2008 à Anis Naccache, un proche ami, qu’il aurait reçu, puis aidé financièrement Nicolas Sarkozy à régler ses problèmes avec Cécilia. « Sarkozy pleurait presque, aurait-il expliqué. Il m’a raconté que sa femme Cécilia lui demandait 3 millions d’euros pour divorcer. C’est moi qui ai payé. »
Des révélations qu’il aurait réitérées les 18 et 19 octobre 2009 lors d’une visite officielle en Algérie. « Son divorce lui a couté très cher », aurait lancé un responsable algérien dans une conversation à propos de Nicolas Sarkozy. « Vous voulez dire qu’il M’A coûté très cher », aurait répliqué l’émir du Qatar.
Des confidences rapportées par un tiers qui aurait commenté aux auteurs du livre : « L’émir a casqué. Le Qatar est la pompe à fric de Sarko. »