(BFW) Grand City Properties 1Q FFO, Net, Rental, Op. Income Jump

DBF 05/18 18:48 DGAP-News: Grand City Properties S.A.,: continues its growth path in first quarter 2014 staying highly profitable with a well
 BN 05/18 18:49 *GRAND CITY PROPERTIES CONTINUES GROWTH PATH IN 1Q 2014
 BN 05/18 18:49 *GRAND CITY PROPERTIES CONTINUES GROWTH PATH IN 1Q 2014 XXXXX
Grand City Properties 1Q FFO, Net, Rental, Op. Income Jump
2014-05-18 19:01:46.172 GMT


By Claudia Rach
     May 18 (Bloomberg) --
  * 1Q rev. up 280% to EU60.2m
  * 1Q rental, op income rises 188% to EU45.7m
  * 1Q net profit up 419% to EU70.3m
  * 1Q FFO up 761% to EU16.4m
Link to Statement:{NSN N5S9LM3PWT1D <GO>}
Link to Company News:{GYC GR <Equity> CN <GO>}

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

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Claudia Rach at +49-30-70010-6219 or
crach1@bloomberg.net

FT : The public interest argument on AstraZeneca is overdone

The public interest argument on AstraZeneca is overdone

While the case against a Pfizer deal is weak, the tax case for it is compelling, says Tony Jackson
It is unsurprising that Pfizer’s takeover offer for the UK drug company AstraZeneca has raised a political storm. These are not the best of times, after all, for red-toothed capitalism. The trouble is that in this specific case, the arguments for the public interest are mainly misdirected.
Let us take as our opening text a recent statement on the bid from the UK prime minister David Cameron. “The most important intervention we can make,” he said, “is to back British jobs, British science [and] British research.”

In the matter of jobs, it seems a little late. AstraZeneca employs 6,700 people in the UK, 13 per cent of its global workforce. This compares with 11,000 five years ago.
And science? In its preliminary bid defence, AstraZeneca named 13 drugs as central to its development pipeline. Only two were conceived in the UK. The rest came from the US, mainly from Medimmune, a biotech company AstraZeneca bought for $16bn seven years ago.
This recalls another aspect of the debate. As with Kraft’s bid for Cadbury five years ago, there have been assertions from UK politicians of all stripes that the US would never allow its companies to be taken over in this manner.
The Medimmune example suggests otherwise. As for Cadbury, its various US acquisitions included America’s second-biggest maker of chewing gum – bought, as chance would have it, from Pfizer.
What we have here are not plucky British champions being picked off but aggressive US-focused multinationals falling prey to others of their kind.
But AstraZeneca, some would say, differs from Cadbury in one vital respect. It supplies the National Health Service, which is funded by the British taxpayer. And it exploits tax-funded research in government laboratories and universities.
True enough; but a little context is in order. Of AstraZeneca’s global sales, only 7 per cent are in the UK, against 40 per cent in the US. Pfizer has the same percentage of its sales in the US; and while it does not disclose a UK figure, I would bet it is similar to AstraZeneca’s.
That is how global drug companies work; efficacious drugs are sold everywhere, so the pattern of each company’s sales tends to mirror that of world drug markets.
How much extra revenue the UK might get from Pfizer is anyone’s guess; but the fact that its global tax provision last year was $4.3bn suggests it might not be trivial
So from a strict NHS perspective, there is no logical reason to worry more about AstraZeneca than any other global supplier. As for licensing the discoveries of state-funded laboratories, I am not aware that UK drug companies are given preferential terms over foreign ones. If they were, I would, as a taxpayer, be faintly concerned.
Speaking of taxpayers, an explicit motive for Pfizer’s bid is its intention to move to the UK for tax purposes. This reminds us of an awkward truth: that behind the recent outcry over global companies avoiding UK tax, UK government policy is aimed at minimising the amount of corporate tax pinched by other countries, while maximising the amount pinched from them. How much extra revenue the UK might get from Pfizer is anyone’s guess; but the fact that its global tax provision last year was $4.3bn suggests it might not be trivial.
One final point. It is evident that Big Pharma globally has become progressively worse at finding new drugs, so revenues shrink as old drugs come off patent.
The pace is startling: over the past three years Pfizer’s global revenues in dollar terms have fallen 16 per cent and AstraZeneca’s 23 per cent.
In any other industry this would be a death spiral. Perhaps Big Pharma can reverse the trend but it would not do to count on it.
The time-honoured response for industries in this plight is amalgamation, if only to cut costs. It thus seems likely that AstraZeneca will have to merge eventually, whether as acquirer or acquiree. So UK jobs and science are liable to take a hit either way.
But let us not end too negatively. If the UK is blessed with top-flight drug researchers, they would be far better employed not in the barren fields of Big Pharma but in the small outfits where the breakthroughs are being made.
In other words, the government should abandon vain attempts to stop the clock, and concentrate instead on fostering the drug industry of the future. That is not going to be easy but it may in the end be the only way.

FT : Brazil’s ‘first ethanol billionaire’ hits at petrol price curbs

Brazil’s ‘first ethanol billionaire’ hits at petrol price curbs

Rubens Ometto, the sugar cane tycoon, has described government petrol price controls as a “disaster”, in a rare outburst for Brazil’s normally reserved business community.
The chief executive of Cosan, the sugar and logistics company, ratcheted up the pressure on President Dilma Rousseff’s government, which is already unpopular with markets, by telling a gathering of Brazil’s business elite that the government needed to “get off the backs of entrepreneurs”.

Mr Ometto, described by Forbes magazine as the first ethanol billionaire, said the government’s price controls for state-owned oil company Petrobras were destroying the country’s prized ethanol industry. Petrobras is being forced to import petrol at international prices and sell it domestically at a discount to help control inflation, meaning ethanol producers have to compete with subsidised gasoline.
“If this policy has for us [ethanol producers] been ruinous, it has been fatal for Petrobras,” Mr Ometto said at a Brazilian American Chamber of Commerce awards dinner in New York late last week, at which he was honoured for his contribution to Brazilian business.
Ms Rousseff’s government holds a strong lead heading into elections scheduled for October, but she has been falling in opinion polls. Each dip in her popularity has helped drive a rally in the country’s stock market as investors bet that a victory for the opposition or a weakening of the president in her second term could lead to more business-friendly policies.
Aside from the petrol price controls, investors point to the government’s intervention in electrical energy prices, its maintenance of a minimum wage policy not linked to productivity and its previous meddling in currency markets as destructive for the investment climate.
“This [petrol price policy] is a disaster because businessmen cannot plan,” Mr Ometto told the FT. “It is one thing if you plan a business and you commit an error in your projections and diagnoses; it’s another thing if you are penalised because the rules change in the middle of it.”
Mr Ometto’s outspoken comments were unusual in a business community that generally keeps very close ties with government. While big Brazilian companies tend to be well managed, the government’s central place in the economy, given its sheer size, means most rely on it for some business.
BNDES, Brazil’s development bank, is also the main source of long-term lending in the economy, with big business dependent on its allocations of loans at cheaper rates than those available from private-sector banks.
In his speech to the awards dinner – whose attendees included Luciano Coutinho, the head of the BNDES – Mr Ometto called on the government to lift burdens such as a convoluted taxation system and difficult labour laws.
If the government could not help, it could “at least not get in the way”, Mr Ometto said.
His company, Cosan, is also a partner of Anglo-Dutch group Shell.

WSJ : China to Permit Some Provinces and Cities to Sell Bonds on Own Credit

China to Permit Some Provinces and Cities to Sell Bonds on Own Credit
Market Likely to Be Tapped in July

China will allow 10 provinces and cities to sell bonds on their own credit later this year, introducing the country's first Western-style municipal bonds as it broadens the financial choices for local governments.

The list will cover six provinces, including the wealthy eastern Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Shandong, southern Guangdong and two less-developed provinces in central and western China. The four cities are Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and another city on the country's eastern coast, said a person familiar with the situation.

The central government will announce the plan later this month and bonds will likely be issued in early July, the person said.

Local governments are generally barred from directly issuing debt because of concerns over rising debt and fears that some local administrations don't have the ability to manage their own funds.

China began issuing local-government bonds in 2009 to offer local authorities more financing channels. The finance ministry sold all such bonds on behalf of the local authorities in 2009 and 2010.

Beijing started a trial program in late 2011 to allow a few provinces and cities to sell bonds directly, a potential first step toward putting local-government finances in order. But the bonds were still supported by the central government, because the finance ministry continued to repay the principal and interest on the local authorities' behalf.

The new municipal bonds will be rated and investors will probably ask for higher yields because the local authorities will repay the debt themselves.

China is revising its budget law to give such bond offers formal permission. The most-recent draft of the law, which still needs legislative approval, includes a provision for local governments to issue bonds directly to fund essential projects.

It is unclear how much debt the 10 provinces and cities will offer this year, but Beijing has raised the total local-government bond quota to 400 billion yuan ($64.2 billion) this year, up from 350 billion yuan in 2013, according to the country's deficit plan for 2014. China announced a larger budget deficit this year as it tries to overhaul the economy and respond to the effects of slower growth.

The finance ministry has asked local governments to make proper use of the bond proceeds, with increased support for social welfare and economic restructuring, the Xinhua news agency said earlier.

China's National Audit Office said in late 2013 that debt and guarantees issued by local governments had surged 67% to 17.9 trillion yuan by the end of June 2013, compared with the last tally of local debt at the end of 2010 of 10.7 trillion yuan.

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, many local governments in China undertook major spending projects to stimulate economic growth. Much of this was financed through special investment platforms set up specifically to skirt rules barring local governments from borrowing directly from financial institutions.

That has led to greater scrutiny from Beijing of local-government financing policies, although it has tried to balance that by opening the doors to governments that prove they can manage their finances successfully.

WSJ : Pfizer Said to Be Planning to Make Sweetened Bid for AstraZeneca

Pfizer Said to Be Planning to Make Sweetened Bid for AstraZeneca

Pfizer May Walk Away From Deal if Latest Bid Rejected

Pfizer Inc. PFE +0.21% was planning to make a sweetened takeover offer for AstraZeneca AZN.LN +2.05% PLC on Sunday, according to people familiar with the matter, in a last-ditch effort to bring the U.K. drug giant to the negotiating table.

Pfizer, which has already been rebuffed by AstraZeneca more than once, may walk away from its proposed deal if the latest advance is turned away, the people said.

Details of a new offer, and where any talks between the two companies currently stand, couldn't be discerned.

Pfizer first approached AstraZeneca late last year about a trans-Atlantic tie-up between the companies that would rank as one of the healthcare industry's biggest ever. The U.S. pharmaceutical company's most recent offer, worth about $106 billion and consisting mainly of its own stock, was made at the beginning of this month and quickly rejected by AstraZeneca's board.

>>> General Electric drops out of bidding for Ansaldo STS

General Electric drops out of bidding for Ansaldo STS 

General Electric, the US-listed, Connecticut-based conglomerate, has dropped out of the bidding for Ansaldo STS, the listed, Italian manufacturer of railway signaling equipment.

According to Italian-language daily Il Sole 24 Ore's report, which cited financial sources, GE could have made the move to focus on its bid for listed, French, defence group Alstom. However, the article added that GE could rejoin the bidding at a later stage.

The item said that the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi is also believed to have pulled out.

The report also claimed that the sale of Ansaldo STS and rolling stock manufacturer Ansaldo Breda by listed, Italian, defence group Finmeccanica has been stalled currently due to the replacement of Alessandro Pansa as CEO by Mauro Moretti. However, the item said that the sales process is likely to resume shortly.

The report said that French defence group Thales and Canadian rolling stock manufacturer Bombardier are now believed to be the two keenest suitors for Ansaldo STS and Ansaldo Breda. The item added that Chinese groups CNR Corporation and Insigma are also believed to be interested in the two units.


Source Il Sole 24 Ore

NY Post : Despite the news, the economy is still a zero

Is the US in a recession?
No, according to the traditional definition of two negative quarters of gross domestic product.
But to a middle-class family and those less fortunate, a couple of GDP ticks up or down are utterly meaningless.
In Washington — where the learned economists who came up with the definition toil — not a single pencil-pusher saw the massive 2007-2009 financial crisis coming or the fact that the economy would not grow in the first quarter of this year.
In fact, at the Fed they forecast 2 percent growth for the quarter.
Let’s move to the kitchen table, where the real-life economic decisions get made. What bills will be paid and what purchases can be made?
This is where economic growth begins — and where barely any of the $4 trillion of the Fed’s ballooning balance sheet has reached.
Walmart reported earnings Thursday, and they are a meaningful measure of what’s going on in the consumer’s kitchen.
With its vast array of products, Walmart is America’s general store. It provides a window on not only how much consumers spend, but also what they’re spending it on every day.
So when Walmart guided down estimates for next quarter, stocks and bonds became even more fearful of growing economic weakness.
When in doubt, look to the bond market — the adult in the room — for guidance in these important matters.
The 10-year Treasury bond yield is trading at recessionary levels. The benchmark note broke below the psychologically important level of 2.5 percent, and the 30-year is at 3.33 percent.
Besides being a gauge for mortgage rates, these yields say that Treasury market traders don’t see much growth — if any — for the near future.
Speaking of kitchens, for most Americans, President Harry S. Truman’s famous quote works quite well for defining an economic slowdown: “It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.”
Today everybody has a friend or family member out of work. No matter how the Beltway economists slice it or how they spin it, this zero of an economy is still at zero.

FT : Pfizer poised to sweeten offer for AstraZeneca

Pfizer poised to sweeten offer for AstraZeneca

The Pfizer Inc. company logo, right, and the AstraZeneca Plc company logo, are seen on boxes of pharmaceutical products produced by the drug makers in this arranged photograph taken in London, U.K., on Friday, May 2, 2014. AstraZeneca Plc rejected Pfizer Inc.'s sweetened takeover proposal, saying the 63.1 billion-pound ($106.5 billion) offer fails to recognize the value of the promising experimental medicines under development by the U.K.'s second-biggest drugmaker. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg©Bloomberg
AstraZeneca is braced for a fresh approach from Pfizer as the UK government holds talks with Brussels about its options for intervening in what would be the biggest foreign takeover of a British company.
Pfizer was weighing its next move over the weekend as the clock ticked towards the May 26 deadline for the US drugmaker to sweeten its £63bn offer or walk away under UK takeover rules.

People close to both companies said they expected Pfizer, maker of the Lipitor cholesterol treatment and Viagra anti-impotence pill, to improve on the £50-per-share proposal rebuffed by AstraZeneca earlier this month.
Big shareholders and analysts have said an offer between £53 and £55 per share is likely to be needed to bring AstraZeneca to the table, with a higher portion of cash than the two-thirds paper proposal made on May 2.
Pfizer has not ruled out making a hostile bid but people close to the US company say it still hopes to persuade its UK rival to enter talks over a friendly deal.
People close to AstraZeneca said on Sunday that, while the UK-listed drugmaker would consider a higher offer, it continued to believe the company was best off independent.
Meanwhile, UK government officials have held informal early-stage discussions with the European Commission to establish what powers the UK would have should ministers attempt to intervene, according to people familiar with the talks.
David Cameron is under pressure from the opposition Labour party to subject any deal to a “public interest test” amid concerns over what impact a US takeover of AstraZeneca would mean for Britain’s life sciences sector.
While the prime minister has made clear his reluctance to do anything that undermines the UK’s reputation for openness to foreign investment, he has given the go-ahead for officials to explore the government’s options.
Under EU law, ministers can intervene in big mergers on public interest grounds but ultimately the move needs approval from Brussels. Three reasons to intervene are specifically mentioned in EU regulations: public security, media plurality and financial stability.
The UK has in the past intervened in a water merger citing public security concerns and officials are taking advice on whether it could do the same in the pharmaceuticals sector.
An alternative is to ask Brussels for permission to intervene on other grounds, such as protecting the R&D base. The commission, which has the job of guarding against protectionism, has never accepted such a request and people familiar with the process say the bar is “very high”.
British officials are examining whether legally binding commitments from Pfizer on research and investment could be attached to merger approval from the commission.
Ministers are not yet involved in any discussions with Brussels. Vince Cable, business secretary, told MPs last week that the “mere fact that the government would enter into a conversation with the commission is potentially highly significant in terms of the bid and its effect on the shareholders”.
Business leaders have warned ministers against any move that creates the impression the UK is resorting to “protectionism”.
Katja Hall, the CBI’s new deputy director-general, said executives wanted the government to protect Britain’s science base but were nervous about Labour’s more hardline position. “We’ve got to make sure that any commitments [from Pfizer] are made to stick,” Ms Hall said. “But the concern is if there is any impression given that the UK wasn’t open for business.
“The UK has always been a trading nation and ultimately we will be successful by being able to export goods and services to other parts of the world and by making sure we get investment into the UK. We mustn’t resort to protectionism.”