FT : Crackdown on fund industry entertainment begins

The UK regulator plans to crack down on fund companies that splash out on lavish events and gifts for financial advisers in an attempt to win business.
Yesterday the Financial Conduct Authority said it had discovered cases of fund providers offering hospitality or gifts to advisers that were of “unreasonable value”.
“[This] could have led to a channelling of business to that provider,” the UK watchdog said.
Gina Miller, founding partner of SCM Private, the UK investment house, said such practises are widespread and penalise smaller groups that either cannot afford or would not choose to offer the same perks.
She said: “It is all very well to cement or reward a relationship, but the extravagance of some entertainment is eye-watering. You have to question whether it influences what an adviser offers clients.”
It is not uncommon for big fund companies to invite advisers to events such as the Monaco Grand Prix, three day golfing tournaments in Scotland or cruises on superyachts, according to Ms Miller.
And this is by no means a UK phenomenon; Italian fund house Pioneer Investments, for example, invited French clients to the Champions League football final in London last June.
French group Carmignac Gestion also paid for a large number of UK financial advisers to attend a private Rolling Stones concert in Paris in late 2012.
There is broad agreement among smaller fund providers that they are losing business as a result.
The head of an independent financial adviser network recently told Ms Miller that although SCM Private’s funds rank highly in terms of performance, her fund company “does not wine and dine advisers enough to retain [the IFA network’s] business”.
“[Fund selection] is not about best advice, it is about best entertainment,” she said.
Hector McNeil, co-chief executive of Boost ETP, the exchange traded fund boutique, shares her concerns. He said: “[Corporate entertainment] is a bit like product kickbacks and lacks transparency. I think it is only a matter of time before it is banned or prohibited.”
However, Jason Hollands, a managing director at BestInvest, one of the UK’s largest adviser networks, believes such fears are overblown. “I have not been invited to any sports events, concerts or trips in the past year,” he said.
In response, Carmignac says that it only hosts one entertainment evening a year out of roughly 200 investment-focused client events. Pioneer says it allocates a modest part of its marketing budget to corporate hospitality and plans to reduce this expenditure soon.
There is growing consensus that rules on what constitutes appropriate corporate entertainment need to be clarified, particularly beyond the UK market.
Christopher Cruden, a fund manager at Insch Capital, a Swiss hedge fund, said: “Where does hospitality cease and bribery begin?”
Gary Mairs, co-founder of UK fund house TCF, added: “There is a fine line between what is over the top and what is acceptable. We think rugby matches or the Grand Prix are unnecessary and are potentially open to people making accusations of abuse.”
Until now, uncertainty around the rules has caused some fund groups to scale down events to include only their most senior clients, or to legitimise them by tacking a business meeting on to it, according to Charlie Hepburn, managing director of Vivid Event Group, the corporate hospitality company.
His company has also seen increased demand for bespoke gatherings between senior fund executives, top clients and their spouses, such as trips to see the northern lights, as opposed to large-scale client events.
Mr Hepburn believes that fund managers are unlikely to turn away from corporate entertainment altogether as a means of maintaining relationships with advisers, despite the regulator’s push against this.
He said: “The [fund] industry is oiled by entertaining, and there is a massive grey area in terms of what you can do. People are still entertaining, but they are just finding new ways to do it.”

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

Gapping up: ARQL +39.8%, NIHD +16.7%, NLST +15.4%, SWKS +13.6%, CTIC +6.2%, KERX +5.3%, MT +4%, SPWR +3.3%, TWTR +3.2%, TSCO +3.1%, S +3%, IAG +2.8%, TS +2.8%, TMUS +2.5%, EA +2.1%, RIO +2%, STRM +1.8%, RRTS +1.6%, BBL +1.5%, HSBC +1.3%, SLB +1.2%, GE +1.1%, SAND +1%, GSK +1%, C +1%, BHP +0.9%, ILMN +0.6%

Gapping down: SSNI -24.3%, RDEN -19.4%, FCEL -14.6%, BJRI -13.8%, GALE -6.4%, CNW -5.6%, CLD -5.4%, SLM -4.2%, INTC -3.9%, ORC -3.8%, AMD -3%, ORBC -2.8%, SYY -2.4%, COF -1.9%, RDS.A -1.9%, SQNM -1.8%, REV -1.6%, NBG -1.6%, CVT -1.1%, BUD -1.1%, BP -1.1%, EL -1%, COTY -0.8%

(NYPOST) Activist plots snack attack on Oreo maker: source

Peltz weighing proxy fight with Mondelez, says source Nelson Peltz is seriously weighing a proxy fight against snack food giant Mondelez International, as was first reported by nypost.com Thursday.
The activist investor, who owns a 2.3 percent stake in the maker of Oreos, Fig Newtons and Ritz crackers, is looking to pressure CEO Irene Rosenfeld to increase margins and, perhaps, explore selling the company’s coffee business, an industry source said.Peltz, if he decides to make the move before the Jan. 21 deadline, would nominate himself and perhaps a few other candidates to the board, the source added.
“I think the majority of shareholders would want Peltz and a few of his directors to have seats on the board,” the source said.
Mondelez, split apart from Kraft in 2012, has seen its share rise 30.2 percent in the last year — outpacing the S&P 500’s 25.4 percent rise. Mondelez shares closed Thursday unchanged at $35.70 in heavy trading.
The looming proxy fight seems similar to Peltz’s battle with H.J. Heinz in 2006, when he won five seats on the board — and called on the company to cut costs and sell assets.
Heinz ultimately followed much of his advice. It sold for a high multiple last year to Warren Buffett and 3G Capital.
Mondelez head Rosenfeld has come under increasing pressure.
Three top shareholders, not including Peltz, were losing patience with the CEO after she fell short of the growth targets she set, The Post reported exclusively in November.
There has been a string of disappointing earnings reports since Rosenfeld split Mondelez from Kraft’s slower-growing grocery business a year ago.
Neither Peltz nor Mondelez returned calls.

(BFW) Shire Cancels Listing of Convertible Bonds

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

PRN 01/17 12:00 SHIRE PLC: Cancellation of listing of Shire Convertible Bonds BN 01/17 12:00 *SHIRE CANCELLATION OF LISTING OF SHIRE CONV BONDS

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Shire Cancels Listing of Convertible Bonds 2014-01-17 12:03:45.503 GMT

By Gaurav Panchal Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Refers to cancellation of listing and admission to trading of $1.1b 2.75% convertible Bonds due 2014 (ISIN XS0299687482). * Statement:{NSN MZJO0W3MMTC0 <GO>}

Link to Company News:{SHP LN <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: Gaurav Panchal at +44-20-7392-0511 or gpanchal2@bloomberg.net

NYT : Apple’s Latest Foray Into China Gets a Weak Response AAPL-0.3% pre market

TOKYO — Apple has been counting on a long-awaited agreement with China Mobile, the world’s largest cellular operator, to reverse its fortunes in China. If the muted reception Friday, when customers were finally able to buy iPhones from China Mobile, is any indication, the companies may have to work harder to whip up enthusiasm.
Instead of the round-the-block lines that have greeted Apple product introductions in China and other countries in the past, only about a dozen customers showed up to buy iPhones at the opening of a store in Beijing — despite the presence of a special guest, the Apple chief executive, Timothy D. Cook.
Mr. Cook’s trip to Beijing was a testament to the importance that Apple has attached to the introduction of iPhones on a mobile network with more than 750 million customers. The agreement to sell the iPhone 5S and 5C was announced in December, after years of negotiations.
Apple was once an iconic brand in China, where its phones have been sold for years by the second- and third-largest mobile operators, China Unicom and China Telecom. But it has lost ground to the market leader in smartphones, Samsung Electronics, and cut-price domestic rivals.

Its market share has fallen into the single digits.
In some ways, Apple’s challenges echo those of other American brands in China, which gained loyal followings during the country’s boom but have more recently been subject to intense scrutiny by the Chinese media, prompting consumers to give another look to alternatives.
“Apple used to be the must-have, aspirational brand for all wealthy and middle-class Chinese consumers,” said Shaun Rein, the managing director of CMR, a market research firm, and the author of “The End of Cheap China.” “But over the last year, there has been a real deterioration of the Apple brand.”
The state-run CCTV has broadcast a series of exposés of supposed quality or ethics lapses by Western brands, including Apple. In one of the most recent examples, Walmart this month recalled donkey meat that it was selling at several outlets after it was found to have been tainted with fox meat.
Apple is just the latest of a number of American technology companies to fall on harder times in China. Google was once a leading search engine in China, but then lost ground to a local rival, Baidu. Motorola was once a power in mobile phones in China, but then lost ground to Nokia of Finland — which, in turn, yielded leadership to Apple, Samsung and others. More recently, Cisco Systems, the maker of telecommunications network equipment, said that sales in China had been hurt by disclosures of surveillance by the United States National Security Agency.
Analysts say that Chinese consumers are likely to base their purchasing decisions more on the price and features of phones and calling plans. And Apple still has enthusiasts, including some of the consumers who visited the Beijing store on Friday.
“This is like manna from heaven!” said Xia Bingyi, a 26-year-old customer from the eastern Chinese city of Jinan. She was one of 10 registrants for an iPhone through China Mobile who won a trip to the Chinese capital to purchase an iPhone on the opening day of the company’s offering.
Ms. Xia already owned an iPhone 4 she bought two years ago, but said she did not hesitate to sign up for a new iPhone 5S once China Mobile began offering the Apple product.
So far, China Mobile is being has been less aggressive on pricing than some analysts had expected. It is offering the unsubsidized, unlocked version of the iPhone 5S at 5,288 renminbi, or $874, the same price that Apple charges in its own stores in China. China Mobile customers can get the phone for free — but only if they commit to a two-year contract at 588 renminbi per month, or almost $100.
China Unicom and China Telecom have made only modest price cuts on their competing iPhone packages since China Mobile announced its Apple agreement in December.


    “There won’t be a subsidy war among the three operators because they have already learned that they need to control this,” said Jun Zhang, an analyst at Wedge Partners, an equity research firm.
    On Sina Weibo, a microblogging service, some users complained about the pricing of the iPhone 5S by China Mobile, saying they could get smuggled versions for less money.
    “The model is the same,” one contributor wrote on Weibo. “I want the cheaper one.”
    Even before the deal with Apple, China Mobile said 45 million people were already using iPhones on its network, most of them acquired from Hong Kong or via other unofficial channels. This accounts for more than 60 percent of the iPhones in use in China, according to Craig Yu, research director at Kantar Worldpanel ComTech, a research firm.
    Now, in addition to the agreement with Apple, China Mobile has another big advantage over its two rivals — the fast new network it is building, using so-called 4G technology. China Unicom and China Telecom are still relying on the slower, previous generation technology.
    But this is a mixed blessing for Apple, because analysts say some China Mobile iPhone sales will come from customers switching from China Unicom or China Telecom. As a result, estimates of iPhone sales by China Mobile, which have ranged from less than 10 million annually to more than 30 million, might overstate the overall benefit to Apple.
    An Apple spokeswoman, Carolyn Wu, said the company did not plan to report first-day sales figures.
    Previously, China Mobile had reported more than one million advance orders for the phone via its website since the deal was announced.
    But Mr. Zhang of Wedge Partners said such online registrations generally result in firm orders in only about one-third of cases, meaning Apple could expect around 400,000 sales.
    Over all, including the effect of customers switching from rival networks, Mr. Zhang said he expected Apple to sell about one million more phones a month in China as a result of the deal, on top of the roughly three million it has been selling.
    In a market of more than one billion mobile phone customers, those are modest figures. That may help explain why even Mr. Cook seemed to be looking as much to the future as to the present as he traveled to Beijing for the China Mobile introduction.
    Analysts said that Apple could probably broaden its potential market in China by making phones with features that appeal more to Chinese consumers, like bigger screens. Handsets like the Samsung Note 3, which has a 5.7-inch screen, compared with the 4-inch screen of the Apple 5S and 5C, have been selling well in China.
    In his appearance at the China Mobile store in Beijing, the Apple chief told shoppers and reporters that “today is just the beginning of China Mobile and Apple coming together to deliver the best experience in the world.”
    “We never talk about future things,” Mr. Cook said. “We have great things we are working on but we want to keep them secret. That way you will be so much happier when you see it.”

    >>GE : reports EPS in-line, revs in-line--> GE +1.47% pre market

    General Electric reports EPS in-line, revs in-line; 2014 framework remains unchanged

    Reports Q4 (Dec) earnings of $0.53 per share, excluding non-recurring items, in-line with the Capital IQ Consensus of $0.53; revenues rose 3.1% year/year to $40.38 bln vs the $40.21 bln consensus.
    • Industrial sales of $28.8 billion increased 6% YoY.
    • GECC revenues of $11.1 billion decreased 5% YoY.
    • 4Q U.S. orders +8%, growth market orders +13%, Europe orders +3%
    Industrial segment profits rose 12% to $5.5 billion. Six of seven Industrial segments had positive earnings growth. Industrial segment margins improved 100 basis points over the prior-year period.
    • Infrastructure orders for the quarter were $30.7 billion, up 8%. GE's backlog of equipment and services at the end of the quarter was its highest ever at $244 billion, up $15 billion from the third quarter. Industrial segment revenues grew 6%, with organic growth of 5%. Growth market revenues were up 10% for the quarter, with double-digit growth in six of nine growth regions, and growth market orders were up 13%. Services revenue grew 6%, with gains in most segments.

    GE Capital continued to execute on its strategy of becoming a smaller, more focused financial services business. GE Capital earnings rose 38% including gains from the IPO of Swiss consumer business, and the BAY disposition. ENI (excluding cash and equivalents) was $380 billion at quarter-end.
    • Volume was up 5% for the quarter, with attractive returns. General Electric Capital Corporation's (GECC) estimated Tier 1 common ratio (Basel 1) rose 1.2% to 11.4%, and net interest margin was strong at 5%.
    2014 framework remains unchanged.

    During the quarter, GECC paid $2 billion in dividends to the parent. Cash generated from GE operating activities in 2013 totaled $17.4 billion excluding $3.2 billion of NBCUniversal deal-related taxes. Cash generated from Industrial operating activities, excluding the NBCUniversal deal-related taxes, totaled $11.5 billion.

    (TheEconomist) Coming to an office near you, The effect of today’s technology on

    Coming to an office near you
    The effect of today’s technology on tomorrow’s jobs will be immense—and no country is ready for it

    INNOVATION, the elixir of progress, has always cost people their jobs. In the Industrial Revolution artisan weavers were swept aside by the mechanical loom. Over the past 30 years the digital revolution has displaced many of the mid-skill jobs that underpinned 20th-century middle-class life. Typists, ticket agents, bank tellers and many production-line jobs have been dispensed with, just as the weavers were.
    For those, including this newspaper, who believe that technological progress has made the world a better place, such churn is a natural part of rising prosperity. Although innovation kills some jobs, it creates new and better ones, as a more productive society becomes richer and its wealthier inhabitants demand more goods and services. A hundred years ago one in three American workers was employed on a farm. Today less than 2% of them produce far more food. The millions freed from the land were not consigned to joblessness, but found better-paid work as the economy grew more sophisticated. Today the pool of secretaries has shrunk, but there are ever more computer programmers and web designers.
    Remember Ironbridge
    Optimism remains the right starting-point, but for workers the dislocating effects of technology may make themselves evident faster than its benefits (see article). Even if new jobs and wonderful products emerge, in the short term income gaps will widen, causing huge social dislocation and perhaps even changing politics. Technology’s impact will feel like a tornado, hitting the rich world first, but eventually sweeping through poorer countries too. No government is prepared for it.
    Why be worried? It is partly just a matter of history repeating itself. In the early part of the Industrial Revolution the rewards of increasing productivity went disproportionately to capital; later on, labour reaped most of the benefits. The pattern today is similar. The prosperity unleashed by the digital revolution has gone overwhelmingly to the owners of capital and the highest-skilled workers. Over the past three decades, labour’s share of output has shrunk globally from 64% to 59%. Meanwhile, the share of income going to the top 1% in America has risen from around 9% in the 1970s to 22% today. Unemployment is at alarming levels in much of the rich world, and not just for cyclical reasons. In 2000, 65% of working-age Americans were in work; since then the proportion has fallen, during good years as well as bad, to the current level of 59%.
    Worse, it seems likely that this wave of technological disruption to the job market has only just started. From driverless cars to clever household gadgets (see article), innovations that already exist could destroy swathes of jobs that have hitherto been untouched. The public sector is one obvious target: it has proved singularly resistant to tech-driven reinvention. But the step change in what computers can do will have a powerful effect on middle-class jobs in the private sector too.
    Until now the jobs most vulnerable to machines were those that involved routine, repetitive tasks. But thanks to the exponential rise in processing power and the ubiquity of digitised information (“big data”), computers are increasingly able to perform complicated tasks more cheaply and effectively than people. Clever industrial robots can quickly “learn” a set of human actions. Services may be even more vulnerable. Computers can already detect intruders in a closed-circuit camera picture more reliably than a human can. By comparing reams of financial or biometric data, they can often diagnose fraud or illness more accurately than any number of accountants or doctors. One recent study by academics at Oxford University suggests that 47% of today’s jobs could be automated in the next two decades.
    At the same time, the digital revolution is transforming the process of innovation itself, as ourspecial report explains. Thanks to off-the-shelf code from the internet and platforms that host services (such as Amazon’s cloud computing), provide distribution (Apple’s app store) and offer marketing (Facebook), the number of digital startups has exploded. Just as computer-games designers invented a product that humanity never knew it needed but now cannot do without, so these firms will no doubt dream up new goods and services to employ millions. But for now they are singularly light on workers. When Instagram, a popular photo-sharing site, was sold to Facebook for about $1 billion in 2012, it had 30m customers and employed 13 people. Kodak, which filed for bankruptcy a few months earlier, employed 145,000 people in its heyday.
    The problem is one of timing as much as anything. Google now employs 46,000 people. But it takes years for new industries to grow, whereas the disruption a startup causes to incumbents is felt sooner. Airbnb may turn homeowners with spare rooms into entrepreneurs, but it poses a direct threat to the lower end of the hotel business—a massive employer.
    No time to be timid
    If this analysis is halfway correct, the social effects will be huge. Many of the jobs most at risk are lower down the ladder (logistics, haulage), whereas the skills that are least vulnerable to automation (creativity, managerial expertise) tend to be higher up, so median wages are likely to remain stagnant for some time and income gaps are likely to widen.
    Anger about rising inequality is bound to grow, but politicians will find it hard to address the problem. Shunning progress would be as futile now as the Luddites’ protests against mechanised looms were in the 1810s, because any country that tried to stop would be left behind by competitors eager to embrace new technology. The freedom to raise taxes on the rich to punitive levels will be similarly constrained by the mobility of capital and highly skilled labour.
    The main way in which governments can help their people through this dislocation is through education systems. One of the reasons for the improvement in workers’ fortunes in the latter part of the Industrial Revolution was because schools were built to educate them—a dramatic change at the time. Now those schools themselves need to be changed, to foster the creativity that humans will need to set them apart from computers. There should be less rote-learning and more critical thinking. Technology itself will help, whether through MOOCs (massive open online courses) or even video games that simulate the skills needed for work.
    The definition of “a state education” may also change. Far more money should be spent on pre-schooling, since the cognitive abilities and social skills that children learn in their first few years define much of their future potential. And adults will need continuous education. State education may well involve a year of study to be taken later in life, perhaps in stages.
    Yet however well people are taught, their abilities will remain unequal, and in a world which is increasingly polarised economically, many will find their job prospects dimmed and wages squeezed. The best way of helping them is not, as many on the left seem to think, to push up minimum wages. Jacking up the floor too far would accelerate the shift from human workers to computers. Better to top up low wages with public money so that anyone who works has a reasonable income, through a bold expansion of the tax credits that countries such as America and Britain use.
    Innovation has brought great benefits to humanity. Nobody in their right mind would want to return to the world of handloom weavers. But the benefits of technological progress are unevenly distributed, especially in the early stages of each new wave, and it is up to governments to spread them. In the 19th century it took the threat of revolution to bring about progressive reforms. Today’s governments would do well to start making the changes needed before their people get angry.

    >>> Schlumberger beats by $0.02, reports revs in-line, indicated higher

    Schlumberger beats by $0.02, reports revs in-line

    Reports Q4 (Dec) earnings of $1.35 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.02 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $1.33; revenues rose 7.4% year/year to $11.91 bln vs the $11.98 bln consensus. Co recorded charges of $0.09 per share in the fourth quarter of 2013 versus $0.06 per share in the fourth quarter of 2012. Schlumberger did not record any charges or credits in the third quarter of 2013.
    Highlights/metrics:
    • Oilfield Services revenue of $11.91 bln was up 3% sequentially and increased 7% year-on-year.
    • Oilfield Services pretax operating income of $2.60 bln was up 4% sequentially and increased 23% year-on-year.
    • Fourth-quarter results were driven by solid activity in key international markets and strong year-end product, software and multiclient seismic sales in almost all areas. Growth was strongest internationally, where revenue set a new record high, but all Areas recorded sequential growth underpinned by the quality and efficiency of Co'sexecution.
    • Overall results were, however, impacted by the temporary shutdown of activity in South Iraq and seasonal slowdowns in North America, the North Sea, Russia and China.
    Regional
    • Geographical results were led by the Middle East & Asia, with continuing strength in the key markets of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as in exploration activity in Malaysia and Australia.
    • Deepwater exploration work and strong project management activity in Argentina and Ecuador led Latin America higher, while Europe/CIS/Africa made progress through significant activity in Angola, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
    • In North America, deepwater activity in the Gulf of Mexico continued to be strong, while on land increased service intensity, improved efficiency, market share gains, and new technology uptake was again offset by further pricing weakness in most product lines.
    Outlook:
    "The overall global economic outlook continues largely unchanged, with fundamentals continuing to improve in the U.S., and Europe seemingly set for stronger growth. These positive effects should overcome lower growth in some developing economies and support a continuing rebound in the world economy. Largely as a result, forecasts for oil demand in 2014 have been revised upwards to reach the highest demand growth in several years. Supply is expected to keep pace with demand, with the market, therefore, remaining well balanced. Natural gas prices internationally should be supported by demand in Asia and Europe. In the U.S., we see no change in fundamentals, with any meaningful recovery in dry gas drilling activity some way out in the future."

    (Citi) European Telco : International Rescue

    * Top picks — We upgraded KPN to Buy on the basis that improving sector dynamics, relatively low valuation, our expectation that its sale of E-Plus is approved and downside protection from a possible renewed bid from AMX will outweigh the now relatively well-understood risk of the new entrant in Dutch mobile. We retain Buys on Vodafone, BT, Belgacom and Tele2. We see United Internet with its 1.9m strong MVNO as one of the main external beneficiaries of the TEF De/E-Plus deal.

    * Least favoured — We retain Sell ratings on Telefónica and Telecom Italia, where our estimates are 5% and 10% below consensus for 2014E EBITDA due to Latam currencies and, in TI's case, also Italian fixed line. We retain our Sell on Orange, which we think is not as relatively cheap as its EV/EBITDA multiple appears once the high French corporate tax rate and limited life of the Iliad wholesale revenue are taken into account.


    * High activity levels to continue in 1H — In 2014 we expect continued elevated bid activity, better mobile trends and increased capex on fast broadband and 4G as positive drivers for the sector. The first half of the year we see dominated by Vodafone's £51bn distribution (in parts on 24 February and 6 March) pushing liquidity into the sector, and, in our view, likely approvals of consolidation deals in Germany (May) and, with less certainty, Ireland (April), though we expect quite tough remedies from the EC. We see an in-market breakup of TIM Brasil and a combination of Sprint and T-Mobile USA as less likely to achieve approval.

    * Premium valuation provides a challenge — The sector has performed well and average sector valuations have moved up into demanding territory, though they do not yet look worryingly excessive by historical standards. Trailing sector EV/EBITDA is approaching one standard deviation above the 10-year average while the 12 month forward sector PE is at an unusually robust premium to the market on forward PE of 7.5% vs a 10-year average of a 2% discount. We see downside risk to consensus EBITDA for 2014 and do not see earnings alone as enough to even justify the rally, never mind extend it.

    * Softbank maybe focusing on US, not Vodafone — Softbank's apparent interest in T-Mobile USA would, if confirmed, seem to us to rule it out from contesting any bid for Vodafone. That T-Mobile could itself see contested bids, with mentions of Dish's possible interest in the press, we view as a positive for DT. However, we expect German mobile to see tougher competition in 2014 and, with United Internet establishing a second MVNO contract with E-Plus in anticipation, we doubt the likely TEF De/E-Plus deal remedies will leave much benefit for the incumbents.