2014-05-18 07:12:25.246 GMT
By Heather Burke
May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Pfizer is considering a last-minute
higher bid for AstraZeneca, Sunday Times reports without saying
where it got the information.
* In discussions with Department for Business on increasing
length of commitment to keep research facilities in U.K. to
10 yrs from 5 yrs
* NOTE: Pfizer bid GBP50/shr for AstraZeneca that was
rejected, has until May 26 to make formal bid or walk away
* Is “almost inevitable” Pfizer will offer more, Times says,
citing unidentified sources close to AstraZeneca
* NOTE May 15: U.K. Government Urged to Hold Pfizer to Account
Over AstraZeneca
* NOTE May 14: Pfizer Buyout ‘Not Inevitable,’ AstraZeneca CEO
Soriot Says
For Related News and Information:
First Word scrolling panel: FIRST<GO>
First Word newswire: NH BFW<GO>
To contact the reporter on this story:
Heather Burke in London at +44-20-7673-2044 or
hburke2@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
James Ludden at +44-20-7673-2645 or
jludden@bloomberg.net
Zoe Schneeweiss
Fresenius rules out move on Rhoen-Klinikum (translated)
Fresenius, the German medical group, is no longer interested in taking over local rival Rhoen-Klinikum,Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported.
The German newspaper quoted Ulf Schneider, the chief executive of Fresenius. The article pointed out that Fresenius failed in an attempt to take over Rhoen-Klinikum two years ago, but subsequently acquired 40 clinics from the group. Schneider made clear in the report that Fresenius has no intentions to make another attempt at a full takeover of Rhoen-Klinikum. He explained that such a move would not get the approval of the German cartel authorities.
Rhoen-Klinikum has a market cap of EUR 3.215bn. As previously reported, Fresenius operates on the hospital management market via its subsidiary Helios.
Source Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
Rio Tinto would consider ‘attractive’ offers for any asset
Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian listed miner, would listen to offers for any of its assets, according to Chief Executive Sam Walsh. The Herald reported that Walsh said the company would entertain any “attractive” offer for any commodity, regardless of what it is. Rio Tinto’s Mozambique-based coal assets have been the subject of speculation, the item noted.
Rio Tinto is not actively seeking to dispose of operations this year, the report said, noting that the group has been divesting non-core assets.
Source The Herald
France Says It May Extend GE-Alstom Deal Review Beyond June
Economy Minister Concerned Purchase Could Hand U.S. Company Vital French Technology
French officials said Friday they might extend their review of General Electric Co. GE +0.26% 's proposed $17 billion takeover of Alstom SA ALO.FR -1.58% 's power business beyond the beginning of June.
Economy Minister Arnaud Montebourg met Friday with Steve Bolze, chief of GE's power unit, and warned that more time could be needed to evaluate how GE's proposed purchase would affect issues of national sovereignty.
The minister gained new powers over the acquisition this week via a government decree that effectively gives him veto power over deals involving areas deemed to be strategic to the country, such energy and transportation.
Read More GE Heads to Paris to Save Alstom Deal Policy, Data, CEO Frustration Chill French Business Climate France Boosts Power to Block Foreign Takeovers of Strategic Firms On Wall Street, meanwhile, the political wrangling has some analysts warning that GE should be prepared to walk away from the transaction rather than concede too much to get it done.
GE has justified doing a deal that was much larger than the $1 billion to $4 billion acquisitions it has targeted by saying it was a bargain.
"People were OK with it, because this was kind of an opportunistic value move—Alstom needed the cash, GE had the cash, and so they could get it at a kind of acceptable price," said Shannon O'Callaghan, a senior analyst at Nomura. "You don't have a ton of room to move away from that."
The French minister is concerned GE's purchase could transfer ownership of vital technology, such as nuclear-power generation, out of French hands. The country remains heavily reliant on nuclear power.
The meeting between Messrs. Montebourg and Bolze was productive, according to a government aide who attended. Mr. Bolze said Mr. Montebourg's concerns about the GE proposal were "legitimate," the aide said, and the two agreed to continue their discussions.
A GE spokesmen didn't respond to requests for comment.
Alstom's board is scheduled to meet June 2 to take action on the GE proposal, which it has already endorsed. Action by the board could box out GE rival Siemens AG SIE.XE -0.32% , which has said it is weighing a bid as well.
Mr. Montebourg has encouraged Germany's Siemens to step forward and said he would prefer a deal that pairs some assets from Alstom with those of another European firm. Siemens, however, has yet to make a formal bid.
Chief Executive Jeff Immelt has offered to be flexible. In a letter to President François Hollande earlier this month, Mr. Immelt suggested the company could make concessions regarding nuclear technology and would also be willing to part with some Alstom assets, including onshore and offshore wind technology.
But GE hasn't publicly offered more generous concessions, in part because it has made the only formal bid so far.
Could Bonds Suffer a 1994-Styled Meltdown?
As we mark the 20th anniversary of the start of the bloodbath, are today's conditions similar to then? Editor's Note: Bartholomew is Global Macro Investment Manager at Aberdeen Asset Management.
Twenty years ago, Forrest Gump's famous quip that "life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get" proved prophetic for investors. The film's release in 1994 came in the same year that the Federal Reserve unexpectedly hiked rates. Painful lessons about the risk of interest rate rises, particularly unexpected ones, were learned.
The U.S. economy emerged from deep recession and the then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan decided to tighten monetary policy. May marked an acceleration in the pace of tightening and Treasuries subsequently plummeted in value as interest rates rose throughout the year causing significant losses for bond investors.
At first glance the picture today looks all too familiar. The U.S. economy is showing some signs of positive-growth momentum, U.S. Treasuries are near all-time lows and the Fed, in an effort to begin to normalize monetary policy, has begun to reduce the pace of its asset purchase program. Indeed, it is no wonder many investors are pondering whether bond markets are set to have a relapse.
A number of factors however differentiate the situation we find ourselves today and two decades ago presenting new challenges and opportunities.
First and foremost is that back then you really didn't know what you were going to get from the Fed. In 1994 the Fed didn't even announce an official policy rate – investors were expected to calculate the main interest rate using Fed open-market operations data. However, today, the Fed is incredibly transparent about policy actions and tries to provide forward guidance on the future path of rates. Investor forecasts were consequently far more varied two decades ago and there was much more uncertainty over policy changes. U.S. Treasuries are likely to follow a much smoother path this time because of this evolution in communication.
Another important difference is that in 1994 the Fed was still trying to establish its inflation-fighting credibility and felt the need to demonstrate to investors that it would act proactively in response to any inflation risk. This time the Fed is taking a more cautious approach to normalizing monetary policy and if anything is trying to prevent inflation falling to dangerously low levels. In part, this is because despite the prolonged period of near zero rates, interest rates did not go as low as the Fed would have liked given the degree of output decline and unemployment due to the zero lower bound. One way to get monetary policy traction in such an environment is to communicate a bias towards hiking more slowly and potentially letting inflation overshoot.
Thirdly, only conventional monetary policy tools were used in 1994. The degree of quantitative easing (QE) this time around is making the process of weaning the economy off life support all the more challenging. Traditionally, to hike rates the Fed simply reduced liquidity in the economy at the margin by selling government securities.
The sheer scale of QE and resulting increase in excess reserves over the past few years, however, means that such measures will be insufficient to control short-term rates. It will now need to implement more powerful policy tools that can control the short-term rate market. At the moment the most likely policy will be to put in place some form of market floor through a reverse repo facility. In plain English, the Fed will offer the market an interest rate they are willing to pay to borrow money, which will in turn become the lowest interest rate in the market because no one will lend to a another debtor for less than the 'risk-free' Fed. Over time the Fed would be able to gradually raise this rate and this would become the policy rate. Of course, the fact that the Fed has not trialed such a maneuver before will test investor confidence.
Interestingly too, a larger proportion of debt securities are now owned by smaller investors as opposed to large institutions. In contrast to large institutions, which care far more about changes to the market price of bond securities and so their duration risk, small investors predominantly hold debt securities to benefit from their regular coupon component. As a result they are perhaps less likely to sell in a rising rate environment. But predicting what such a broad, diverse group might do is hard. If rate rises come as a shock, smaller investors may behave in a similar way to commuters getting caught in a sudden rain shower – scattering unpredictably in all directions looking for cover.
The year 1994 provided an interesting lesson on the potential dangers associated with normalizing monetary policy and a number of commentators have sparked concerns over whether U.S. Treasuries are today doomed to the same fate. Indeed, given the degree of market stimulus over the past few years the process of policy normalization was never going to be easy. Unconventional policy tools are likely to be employed and investor confidence will no doubt be tested.
Nevertheless, the world has evolved over the past two decades. The Fed is arguably more reactionary, investors are better informed on future policy decisions and policymakers are all too conscious of repeating previous blunders. Forrest reminded us that predicting the future can be tricky – you never know what you're going to get – but we certainly have a better idea than we did in 1994, and consequently we expect that this time U.S. Treasuries are likely to have a smoother ride.
Monday:
- Pre Market - CPB, VAL - After Hours - URBN, PWRD
Tuesday:
- Pre Market - HD, TJX, SPLS, MDT, DKS, DCI, HGG, SSI, RRGB, CATO, EJ, AINV - After Hours - INTU, CRM, ADI, DY, TDW, VSAT, HEI
Wednesday:
- Pre Market - TGT, LOW, HRL, PETM, QIWI, BAH, TIF, AEO, TSL, EV, CTRN, NM, LITB, MMYT - After Hours - LB, ANW, NTAP, WSM, SNPS, BRS, SINA, VVTV, SMTC, GA, EGHT, RENN, WSTL
Thursday:
- Pre Market - BBY, RY, CAJ, SHLD, TD, DLTR, PDCO, TTC, BONT, PLCE, SMRT, BRC, BKE, ESI, PERY, MNRO, CMCO, MOV, KIRK, LTXC, ASEI - After Hours - HPQ, GPS, ROST, GME, MRVL, BRCD, TFM, DRYS, ARO, NDSN, ORIG, MENT, SCVL, CPWR, ARUN, ZUMZ, YOKU, VNET, TIVO, COVS
Friday:
Pre Market - FL, HIBB