WSJ : Exxon Mobil and Chevron Megadeals Are Cleared of FTC Antitrust Concerns

Exxon Mobil and Chevron Megadeals Are Cleared of FTC Antitrust Concerns
Pioneer Natural Resources’ former CEO and Hess’s CEO are barred from serving on the oil companies’ boards

The Federal Trade Commission on Friday approved separate consent orders resolving antitrust concerns over two multibillion-dollar oil deals: Exxon Mobil’s XOM 0.90%increase; green up pointing triangle purchase of Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron’s CVX 1.31%increase; green up pointing triangle acquisition of Hess HES 1.08%increase; green up pointing triangle.

Under the order for Exxon’s $60 billion merger, the company is prohibited from nominating, designating or appointing former Pioneer Chief Executive Officer Scott Sheffield to its board of directors. He is additionally barred from serving in any advisory role to Exxon’s board or management team, the FTC said.

Chevron, according to the order for its $53 billion deal for Hess, won’t be allowed to let Hess CEO John Hess serve on its board. Barring certain expectations, he would be blocked from serving in an advisory role to Chevron’s board or management team as well.

The FTC has ramped up its scrutiny of oil and gas deals as the oil patch has seen frantic M&A activity.

These orders follow complaints from the agency alleging that Sheffield and Hess separately attempted to collude and communicated with competitors about global oil output, which could have resulted in American consumers and businesses paying higher prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil and jet fuel.

At the time of these allegations, Sheffield said the FTC built its case against him on a false narrative about his statements and a dubious interpretation of the law. Hess’s board, meanwhile, said the allegations against its CEO were without merit.

WSJ : Vail Resorts Has an Epic Problem

Vail Resorts Has an Epic Problem
From Stowe to Switzerland, Vail Resorts transformed skiing. Now, on one of the busiest ski weekends of the year, customers are pushing back

Vail Resorts MTN -1.58%decrease; red down pointing triangle became the biggest name in skiing by snapping up mountain destinations and transforming the lift ticket into an all-access pass. Now the company that reinvented the sport is facing big problems.

For the first time, the company recently disclosed, it sold fewer season lift tickets, known as Epic Passes, than it did the year before. The Epic Pass, which costs around $1,000 this season, offers unlimited access to 42 Vail properties around the world, from Stowe, Vt., to Whistler in Canada, to Andermatt in the Swiss Alps. The whole business model rests on the pass, and any diminished interest in it could spell trouble, compounding other issues the company has been grappling with. Chief among them: Growth in skiers has been muted for nearly 20 years.

The Vail method is to lock in customers with season passes and then charge for a growing number of extras like premium parking lots. The three-day Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend is among the busiest of the year.

Its problems came to the fore over the recent holidays. A 12-day ski-patrol strike closed most runs at Park City, Utah, the company’s largest U.S. resort, leaving hundreds waiting on long lift lines, unable to ski most of the mountain and fuming on social media about ruined vacations. In recent years, its Whistler Blackcomb property in Canada was plagued by operational challenges, which Vail says it has been addressing, and by low snowfall. Referring to wait times as “epic” has become a running joke for frustrated Epic Pass holders.

Now, competitors have introduced rival multiresort megapasses.

More skiers are forgoing lift passes in favor of backcountry skiing. Vail’s stock, which peaked in November 2021 amid a pandemic boom in outdoor sports, has fallen by half in the three years since.

Vail changed the ski industry when it introduced the Epic Pass in 2008, at $579 for full access to six resorts. The price has increased almost every year to its current level. At the same time the company has raised the price of traditional lift tickets steeply, to around $300 a day in some cases.

The company kept acquiring resorts and adding them to the Epic Pass. In addition to securing skiers’ loyalty, the arrangement boosted revenue for Vail by creating a steady supply of customers for the company’s stable of hotels, restaurants, equipment shops and other slopeside amenities.

And the passes helped the company spread risk to customers. The Epic Pass, which is nonrefundable, must be purchased before the season kicks into high gear, letting Vail enter winter with a healthy cash hoard. And if any of its resorts runs into a strike or a stretch without snow, the financial blow to Vail is cushioned.

Vail increasingly pushes customers to its passes, and passholders now account for 75% of skier visits to its resorts. But on the company’s most recent conference call discussing earnings, Chief Executive Kirsten Lynch said the number of passes the company sold in North America, its biggest and most important market, declined by 2%—the first decline since the pass was introduced. Revenue from pass sales nonetheless rose, thanks to an 8% price increase.

The company said it expects to sell 2.3 million Epic Passes globally. Lynch said during the call that she was pleased with the pass sales results.

Before the Epic Pass, Lynch said in an interview, feast-or-famine ruled the ski industry. Resorts depended primarily on traditional lift tickets for revenue. In years of poor conditions, ski areas couldn’t reinvest in workers or equipment. Getting skiers to commit in advance gives stability to the industry and allows the company the room to innovate, in much the same way annual Amazon Prime subscriptions have juiced the online retailer’s bottom line.

The driving force behind everything Vail does is the “guest experience,” a phrase Lynch repeated 11 times in the 30-minute interview.

“We’re not always perfect, but we do listen and we do take action and we do try to make investments back to improve the guest experience,” said Lynch, who has been Vail’s CEO for three years, after 10 years as its chief marketing officer. A lifelong skier, she previously worked in marketing at PepsiCo and Kraft Foods.

The decline in pass sales, Lynch said, was due to continued effects of “a post-Covid normalization” in travel patterns. Challenging weather last season, including light snowfall in some areas, also dampened this season’s sales, she said.

Vail had something distinctive with the Epic Pass but now faces growing competitive threats. The rival Ikon Pass, which costs closer to $1,500, is sold by the privately held Alterra Mountain Co. and offers skiers access to Steamboat, Deer Valley and Alterra’s 17 other resorts and more than 50 mountains around the world through partnerships. The Epic Pass offers access to more than 80 resorts worldwide, a mix of Vail-owned properties and partners. There is also the smaller Indy Pass, which offers access to many resorts, often locally owned, and the Mountain Collective Pass.

Vail and Alterra sell as many megapasses as they can, leading skiers to complain about overcrowding on the slopes. The rise of the megapass has also drawn more people to the marquee resorts since skiers can go to places like Vail in Colorado and Utah’s Snowbird using the same passes that get them on the lifts at smaller mountains far from the Rockies, like Hunter Mountain in New York, or Michigan’s Boyne Mountain.

Vail Mountain opened in 1962. In 1992, Apollo Global Management, the private-equity firm, took over Gillett Holdings, the company that owned Vail and had gone bankrupt. Apollo restructured the company into Vail Resorts and took it public in 1997. By 2004, Apollo sold its stake in Vail. But Rob Katz, an Apollo employee who worked on forming Vail Resorts, stayed on the board, eventually becoming CEO. He is now executive chairman.

In the past decade, the company spent more than $1.9 billion to acquire 33 resorts. It looked for small resorts within driving distance of metropolitan areas in the hopes that skiers will also travel to its big, flagship resorts, where they’ll spend on lodging and dining.

Park City Mountain is the largest ski resort in the U.S., the result of the 2015 combination of Park City Mountain Resort and neighboring Canyons Resort. The resort has more than 7,300 acres of skiable terrain, with upwards of 300 trails, spanning many snowcapped peaks.

On Dec. 27, about 190 Park City ski patrollers walked off the job, striking for better pay and other improvements to deal with the high cost of living in a resort town.

Vail brought in managers and patrollers from other resorts. About 30 patrollers staffed the mountain during strike days, union members say, versus typical staffing of around 120. Vail said more than 30 patrollers were on duty during the strike but didn’t elaborate because it doesn’t publicly disclose staffing figures. With fewer patrollers available to evacuate injured skiers and head off potential avalanches, up to 85% of the skiable trails were closed during the strike.

The Tombstone Express, a six-person chairlift that serves as a major access point for the resort, closed during much of the strike, leaving limited terrain on much of the Canyons side of the mountain. Patrollers opened only as much terrain as was safe given limited staffing levels, Vail said, with priority for the most popular beginner and intermediate terrain.

Adam Shay with his wife and two teenage sons traveled to Park City from Wilmington, N.C., on New Year’s Eve for a five-night vacation. Shay knew the ski patrol was on strike, but hoped it would be resolved.

On Jan. 2 at 8:20 a.m., the Shays got in line for the orange bubble chairlift on the Canyons side of the mountain. The lift was scheduled to open at 9 a.m. At 9:14, with snow softly falling, skiers in line began chanting: “Pay ski patrol.” The lift didn’t start ferrying skiers until 9:45 due to avalanche mitigation, he says, which was slowed by the strike.

Shay and his family spent $9,700 on the trip, including airfare, rooms at the Silverado Lodge, managed by Vail, and ski rentals from a Vail-operated gear store.

The long lines and limited terrain were due to mismanagement, he says, adding that Vail should have been prepared for the strike. “If this is how they’re going to treat people, it shows they don’t care about anything but selling passes to them and lodging to them, and not about their experience.”

The strike ended after 12 days on Jan. 8, with Vail agreeing to an average pay increase of $4 an hour for workers whose hourly wage now ranges from about $23 to $40, according to a union representative, and added benefits, including access to parental leave.

The company said this week that it will give passholders a credit for each day skied or snowboarded at Park City Mountain during the strike period to apply toward the purchase of an Epic Pass of equal or greater value next year

For years, Vail delivered the kind of growth Wall Street prizes by acquiring new resorts and convincing more skiers to purchase Epic Passes.

After Vail’s run of domestic acquisitions, growth is now harder to come by, said Chris Woronka, a Deutsche Bank analyst. The company has its sights on Europe, but it’s expensive to break into markets outside the U.S. Ski-resort operators are competing with any other way people can spend a vacation, he said, and also need to get younger people involved in the sport.

The rate for a beginner, full-day group ski lesson for kids aged 7 to 15 without Epic Passes at Vail Mountain this weekend was listed online as $409, plus $54 for equipment rental and $23 for a helmet. Epic passholders get a 20% discount.

Vail will spend up to $254 million this year to make upgrades at its resorts, including installing a new gondola at Park City, which is to host Olympic events in 2034, and making changes at the newly acquired Crans-Montana resort in Switzerland.

In September, Vail Resorts announced a plan to save $100 million over the next two years. The company will lay off 14% of its corporate workforce and 0.2% of its front-line staff, and make changes like outsourcing call centers.

Vail acquired Stowe Mountain in 2017, a destination resort in a quintessential Vermont town. It was the company’s first East Coast acquisition. Vail invested in more efficient snow-making equipment and higher-speed chairlifts. Vail’s Epic Pass brought many more people to the resort, which is accessible by a winding mountain road.

Vail also did away with some local touches. Vail made unpopular changes to a once-free ski program for local schoolkids. In exchange for volunteering to teach during the Friday afternoon program, area residents could get a free lift ticket for the day, and one to use on a future day. The program now costs $68 for the season. Chaperones now get a ticket for the day, the company says, and another single-day ticket for every two days spent volunteering.

Deb Martin has skied at Stowe since the 1960s, and lived in the area since the ’70s. She can get to the mountain in 10 minutes from her house. In recent years, the traffic backup has prevented her from reaching the mountain on powder days. Her husband just bought his first set of backcountry equipment. “If it gets so bad,” she said, “we won’t buy a pass and will start backcountry skiing as our primary way to ski.”

CrunchBase : The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Biotech And Space Tech Bring In

The Week’s Biggest Funding Rounds: Biotech And Space Tech Bring In The Money

Thus far 2025 has come roaring in as far as large rounds go. Last week more than a dozen companies raised $100 million or more. This week there are fewer, but not by many, as companies needed to raise at least $100 million to make this list.

1. Truveta, $320M, biotech: Medical data research company Truveta landed a massive $320 million investment from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Illumina and 17 U.S. health systems as it continues to build the world’s largest genetic database. The deal values privately held Truveta at more than $1 billion. Truveta aggregates medical records data from its partner institutions to link treatments with outcomes and other health aspects. Its platform is updated daily. Founded in 2020, the company has raised $515 million, per Crunchbase.

2. Stoke Space, $260M, space: Reusable rocket startup Stoke Space locked up a $260 million Series C as the space tech sector looks to build off a successful 2024 in terms of fundraising. The Kent, Washington-based company is developing fully reusable rockets that make low-cost access to and from space possible. It intends to use the new funding to complete construction of its Nova launch vehicle at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. The new round involves new and existing investors including Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Glade Brook Capital Partners, Seven Seven Six and the University of Michigan, among others. Founded in 2019, Stoke has raised more than $480 million, per the company. After a slow-ish 2023, last year saw a bit of a bounce-back for the space tech industry in venture funding. In 2024, VC-backed space tech startups raised $8.3 billion, per Crunchbase data. That number is a 17% jump from the $7.1 billion raised in 2023, but short of the $9.2 billion invested in 2022.

3. Colossal Biosciences, $200M, genetics: Colossal Biosciences, a de-extinction startup looking at ways to bring back the dodo bird and the woolly mammoth, raised a $200 million Series C at a $10.2 billion valuation. The new cash infusion came from TWG Global, a holding company jointly led by Mark Walter and Thomas Tull. The Dallas-based startup, which launched in 2021, plans to use the money to continue to advance its genetic engineering technologies, as well as grow its software and hardware solutions for applications involved with de-extinction, conservation and human health care. The company said bringing back extinct animals could allow for a better understanding of evolutionary change in other species, and that genetic engineering applications also will help enhance food production and reduce environmental impact. It was January 2023 when Colossal Biosciences raised a $150 million Series B to further its de-extinction platform. The round was led by Tull’s US Innovative Technology Fund. Since launching in September 2021, Colossal has raised $435 million, per the company.

4. Tune Therapeutics, $175M, biotech: Epigenetic programming startup Tune Therapeutics raised a huge $175 million round led by Hevolution, New Enterprise Associates, Regeneron Ventures and Yosemite. The funding is expected to advance development of the company’s existing pipeline, which is currently anchored by its clinical-stage epigenetic silencing drug for chronic Hepatitis B. The cash also will be used to support the development of additional gene, cell and regenerative therapy programs. Founded in 2020, the company has raised $215 million, per Crunchbase.

5. Loft Orbital, $170M, space: Space infrastructure startup Loft Orbital raised a $170 million funding round led by Axial Partners and Tikehau Capital. The San Francisco-based company builds satellites to which customers can attach components like sensors and telescopes. Founded in 2017, the company has raised $326 million, per Crunchbase.

6. Caidya, $165M, biotech: Raleigh, North Carolina-based Caidya, a mid-sized clinical research organization, locked up a strategic growth investment of $165 million from funds managed by Rubicon Founders, a U.S.-based healthcare investment firm. Caidya offers biopharma companies an array of clinical trial services from regulatory strategy and submissions through post-approval surveillance. Founded in 2021, this is the first round raised with a disclosed amount, per Crunchbase.

7. Phantom, $150M, crypto: San Francisco-based Phantom Technologies, a crypto wallet startup, raised a $150 million round led by Paradigm and Sequoia Capital, valuing the startup at $3 billion. Founded in 2021, the company has raised $268 million, per Crunchbase.

8. (tied) Harbinger, $100M, electric vehicle: Los Angeles-based electric commercial trucking startup Harbinger raised a $100 million Series B co-led by Capricorn Investor Group and Leitmotif. Founded in 2021, the company has raised more than $200 million, per Crunchbase.

8. (tied) Instabase, $100M, data: San Francisco-based Instabase, which creates artificial intelligence-powered solutions to help companies handle unstructured data, locked up a $100 million Series D led by Qatar Invastment Authority. Founded in 2015, the company has raised $292 million, per Crunchbase.

8. (tied) Umoja Biopharma, $100M, biotech: Seattle-based Umoja Biopharma, a developer of in vivo cell therapies, announced the closing of a $100 million Series C co-led by DCVC Bio and Double Point Ventures. Founded in 2019, the company has raised $363 million, per Crunchbase.

Big global deals
The biggest funding round this week went to a China-based firm.
  • Smart Fabric, which provides internet-enabled solutions for the textile industry, raised a $460 million Series C.

>>> US This week's biggest % gainers/losers

This week's biggest % gainers/losers
The following are this week's top percentage gainers and losers, categorized by sectors (over $300 mln market cap and 100K average daily volume).

This week's top % gainers
  • Healthcare: STIM (2.40 +40.35%), NVRO (4.53 +37.69%), ITCI (126.25 +33.07%), SAGE (7.04 +26.85%), BPMC (109.62 +25.38%), RIGL (20.16 +24.06%), ATRC (38.73 +23.3%), SIBN (16.77 +22.23%), BGNE (210.06 +18.87%)
  • Materials: NGVT (46.45 +22.22%)
  • Industrials: HEES (88.54 +101.55%), JELD (9.43 +21.83%)
  • Consumer Discretionary: CVNA (229.62 +18.94%), CPS (15.66 +18.46%)
  • Financials: LX (6.79 +20.09%), OZK (49.31 +18.22%)
  • Energy: KLXE (6.66 +27.83%), MTRX (14.81 +23.07%)
This week's top % losers
  • Healthcare: ATRA (6.75 -56.59%), PACB (1.60 -23.81%), MRNA (33.91 -19.74%), EVH (10.08 -19.62%), MYGN (12.34 -16.8%), FATE (1.26 -13.99%)
  • Materials: LOMA (10.81 -14.58%)
  • Industrials: FTAI (113.96 -34.51%)
  • Consumer Discretionary: SIG (57.16 -25.41%), ANF (131.21 -18.46%), CHGG (1.47 -17.88%), IRBT (8.7 -16.74%), GME (27.48 -14.95%), PLAY (24.30 -14.23%)
  • Information Technology: CMTL (2.66 -35.59%), JKS (21.12 -14.39%)
  • Energy: DM (2.24 -17.04%)

Barrons : FedEx Stock Is Flagging. The Chief Financial Officer Bought Stock.

FedEx Stock Is Flagging. The Chief Financial Officer Bought Stock.

FedEx stock is coming off a year of lukewarm gains, and one executive just scooped up shares on the open market.

Shares of logistics firm FedEx managed to gain 11% in 2024, less than half the 23% rise in the S&P 500 index. Quarterly earnings reports were alternately upbeat and disappointing that year. The latest one, in mid-December, was a pleasant surprise to investors, as FedEx announced it would separate into two publicly traded companies “within the next 18 months.”

Chief Financial Officer John Dietrich paid $274,000 on Jan. 7 for 1,000 FedEx shares, an average price of $273.98 each. He now owns 9,067 shares in a personal account, according to a form that Dietrich filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

FedEx didn’t respond to a request to make Dietrich available for comment. He last purchased FedEx stock on the open market in December 2023, when he paid $252,000 for 1,000 shares, an average price of $252.02 each.

Dietrich is a former CEO of Atlas Air Worldwide, which was taken private in March 2023. In July of that year, FedEx named him as financial chief.

Inside Scoop is a regular Barron’s feature covering stock transactions by corporate executives and board members—so-called insiders—as well as large shareholders, politicians, and other prominent figures. Due to their insider status, these investors are required to disclose stock trades with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulatory groups.

Barrons : Biden Takes Aim at Russian Oil. Trump Is Up Next.

Biden Takes Aim at Russian Oil. Trump Is Up Next.

Talk about a parting shot. After nearly three years of winking and nodding at Russian oil exports, President Joe Biden dealt them a body blow two weeks before leaving office. That is, if President-elect Donald Trump follows through.

Markets are guessing that Trump just might. The price of Brent crude
BRN00

-0.07%
oil has jumped 5% since the U.S. unveiled its latest sanctions on Russia on Jan. 10.

“These are the most significant sanctions we’ve seen” since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, says Edward Fishman, a former U.S. sanctions official now at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

The new package places “blocking sanctions” on about half of the “shadow fleet” of oil tankers that Moscow has assembled to evade a $60 per barrel price cap imposed in early 2023.

It also targets Russia’s No. 3 and No. 4 oil companies, Surgutneftegas and Gazprom Neft, and its top two insurers. Any customer for these entities would be excluded from dollar-based financial transactions globally. Brent currently trades around $81 a barrel.

If enforced to the letter, Biden’s edict would cover more than 40% of Russia’s seaborne oil exports, calculates Matt Wright, principal shipping analyst at logistics consultant Kpler. That means close to two million barrels a day, or 2% of global supply.

The shadow fleet’s main customers, India and China, are signaling that they will heed the U.S. threat. China’s Shandong Port Group, a principal portal for oil imports, announced on Jan. 7 that it will bar any sanctioned vessels. “I was surprised to see the Shandong announcement,” Wright says. “It’s significant.”

Trump could annul Biden’s action for the same reason that Biden never took it earlier, keeping U.S. gasoline prices down. But the returning president also has reasons not to.

Trump could use the Biden sanctions as leverage over President Vladimir Putin ahead of talks to end the Ukraine war. Trump’s Treasury secretary pick, Scott Bessent, declared during his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 16 that he is “100% on board with taking sanctions up to levels that would bring the Russian Federation to the table.”

The measures’ effectiveness depends on how enthusiastically they are enforced, though, says Craig Kennedy, an associate at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. “What counts are the quiet diplomatic conversations about whether this is in compliance or not,” he says.

U.S. inflation is down and domestic oil production up—by about those same two million barrels a day—since the hectic days of 2022, adds Joseph Webster, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Trump might welcome constraints on Russia as a spur for U.S. producers to pump still more, or a gift to his traditional friend Saudi Arabia, which he wants to entice into recognizing Israel. The Saudis are sitting on some three million barrels a day of spare crude oil capacity, according to the International Energy Agency.

“Trump is incentivized to knock some Russian oil off the market so Saudi could add a few hundred thousand barrels,” Webster conjectures.

The incoming president will steer a middle course and keep his options open, agrees Bob Yawger, energy futures strategist at Mizuho Americas. “He doesn’t need to police Biden’s order aggressively,” he says. Russian sanctions evaders remain innovative, he adds, transferring crude from the shadow fleet to “legitimate” vessels mid-ocean, among other tactics.

Still, the extra risk and hassle from new sanctions should at least widen the discounts that Russia has to accept from its current $6 to $10 a barrel, Yawger predicts.

With Putin’s military budget (officially) slated to jump 25% this year, that bite into revenue could hurt.

Barrons : Nvidia, Smucker, Muni Bonds, and 31 Other Investment Ideas From Our Ro

Nvidia, Smucker, Muni Bonds, and 31 Other Investment Ideas From Our Roundtable Pros
Stocks are pricey—but there are values to be had. Learn more about our panelists’ picks in this week’s installment.

Henry Ellenbogen - CIO Franklin Templeton

Sonal Desai -

Rajiv Jain

John W. Rogers Jr

Mario J. Gabelli's

WSJ : The Man Making Billions From the Wildest Bitcoin Bet

The Man Making Billions From the Wildest Bitcoin Bet
MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor is buying as much of the cryptocurrency as he can. Some big-name investors are going along for the ride.

Michael Saylor’s company doesn’t market any hot products or services. What he and MicroStrategy MSTR 8.04%increase; green up pointing triangle do is sell new shares and debt, at a pace rarely seen in corporate history. Saylor plows all that money into bitcoin, vowing to keep doing it, over and over.

MicroStrategy shares are up about 690% in the past year and the 59-year-old executive chairman’s approximately 10% stake is worth about $9.7 billion, while he personally owns an additional $1.9 billion or so of bitcoin.

Saylor has emerged as the public face of the recent bitcoin craze, with nearly 4 million followers on X. To celebrate bitcoin topping $100,000, Saylor hosted a New Year’s Eve party for several hundred members of the crypto community at his waterfront, Miami-area estate, near his luxury yacht. A half-dozen dancers dressed in gold performed. Celebrities mingled with investing luminaries, including Bill Miller, the former Legg Mason fund manager; Peter Briger, chairman of Fortress Investment Group; and Mark Casey, a key portfolio manager at Capital Group. The event was livestreamed on YouTube to tens of thousands of bitcoin fanatics as Saylor, in a black blazer and a bitcoin T-shirt, presided.

Enthusiasm for Saylor’s company is so rabid it has resulted in a head-scratching situation: MicroStrategy owns about $47 billion of bitcoin, but its shares are worth about $97 billion. It’s as if investors are paying $2 for a $1 bill. Just as surprising: Sophisticated investors have been among the biggest buyers, including mutual-fund power Capital Group, which owned about 8% of the company as of Sept. 30, and Norges Bank Investment Management, Norway’s $1.5 trillion sovereign fund, which owned nearly 1%.

Fans say the premium reflects confidence that Saylor can continue to produce profits betting on bitcoin. Only 21 million coins will be created, a scarcity that boosts its value, they argue. By issuing equity at lofty levels, and selling debt at friendly terms to the company, Saylor can create value for shareholders as he expands MicroStrategy’s bitcoin horde, says Richard Byworth, a partner at SYZ Capital, who personally owns MicroStrategy stock.

“The premium is justified and will always be there,” says Jordi Visser, a Wall Street veteran who worked at Morgan Stanley and recently purchased MicroStrategy shares. “No company can do what he’s done. They own about 2% of bitcoin—who can own more of it?”

There’s serious risk attached to Saylor’s strategy. He rode past investment waves until they crested and then crashed, losing billions of dollars of personal wealth, sometimes in a single day.

Saylor declined to comment for this article.

Saylor, a lifelong bachelor who turns 60 next month, has endured a series of career setbacks and run-ins with financial authorities and others. Last year, he agreed to pay Washington, D.C., $40 million to settle an income tax dispute, after Washington officials alleged that he previously lived in the District, not in Florida or Virginia as he claimed, and should have paid D.C. taxes.

The son of a career Air Force officer, Saylor studied aeronautics and science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was part of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. A few years after graduation, he launched MicroStrategy in 1989 with college friends in Tysons Corner, Va., as a data-mining software company.

MicroStrategy soared during the late-1990s dotcom bubble. Saylor’s stock was worth about $10 billion, more than enough cash for lavish parties and Caribbean cruises for employees and others. Saylor’s company also purchased domain names including Mike.com, Michael.com, Hope.com and Voice.com, which it sold for $30 million.

It all collapsed in 2000 when the internet bubble burst. MicroStrategy was forced to restate its revenues and earnings, as regulators scrutinized how the industry booked revenues. The flameout was so dramatic it drew the attention of tabloids: In March of that year, the New York Daily Newsran a headline: “Lost $6 Billion in a Day” with a photo of a then-35-year-old Saylor, clean shaven and in a suit and tie, a dazed look on his face.

Later that year, Saylor and two other executives, along with the company, paid $11 million to settle accounting-fraud charges filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to the restatements, in which the SEC alleged the company inflated revenue and earnings, showing profits rather than losses, allegations Saylor and the others didn’t admit to or deny.

In July 2002, MicroStrategy shares closed at 45 cents, down from a high of $313 in 2000 as the company dealt with debt problems.

Over lunch in Bridgehampton, N.Y., venture-capitalist Rick Rickertsen commiserated with Saylor Rickertsen asked Saylor if he was worried about losing his business.

“I might,” Saylor said. “But I’ll just start something new.”

Saylor restructured MicroStrategy debt and did a 10-for-1 reverse stock split, averting crisis. For years, Saylor searched for the next big thing. For a while, Saylor made personal profits betting on stocks like Google and Apple but was dismissive of cryptocurrencies, tweeting in 2013 that bitcoin’s “days are numbered.”

By 2020, MicroStrategy shares had barely moved in years and promised little growth. It was worth just $1.5 billion, though it was profitable and boasted approximately $500 million in cash.

Spending time in his Miami estate in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, Saylor tried figuring out what to do with the company’s cash. Worried about a potential surge in inflation, as the government spent money to keep the economy afloat, Saylor studied bitcoin anew. He became a believer. Soon, Saylor was pitching his board on the idea of using the cash to buy bitcoin. They agreed, mostly because there didn’t seem to be any better alternatives for the company. At the least, the bet would draw some useful attention, they figured.

“The company was going nowhere, it had almost no Wall Street following,” says Rickertsen, who had become a board member. “It was bleak.”

That year, Saylor spent half the company’s money, about $250 million, to buy bitcoin at a price of around $11,000. Saylor put over $100 million of his own money in it, too. Right away, bitcoin’s price tumbled to $9,000, costing MicroStrategy about $40 million.

‘Most of us on the board said “Oh my gosh, what have we done, we’re all gonna be sued”,’ Rickertsen says. “Mike was worried too.”

The panic didn’t last long. Bitcoin began climbing, finishing 2020 above $26,000. MicroStrategy borrowed a few billion dollars to purchase even more bitcoin, at one point relying on a $205 million, floating-rate loan at a 8.27% rate, challenging terms at the time.

Then came the collapse of crypto exchange FTX in late 2022. Bitcoin tumbled below $17,000 and MicroStrategy shares fell to about $17. The cost basis of the company’s bitcoin was around $30,000, so it was sitting on paper losses. Rumors spread that the company was in trouble. Saylor and the company doubled down. They took advantage of difficulties at its lender, Silvergate Bank, which was also hurting due to crypto, to pay $161 million to buy back their $205 million loan.

The stock began to soar as Saylor ramped up his strategy of selling shares and debt to buy bitcoin—and as bitcoin climbed. In 2024 alone, MicroStrategy raised $23.2 billion from stock and bond sales, one of the largest hauls by a company in a single year, according to Mark Palmer, an analyst at the Benchmark Company, an investment bank.

Saylor’s pitch can be repetitive and simplistic, and he sometimes speaks in a halting manner. But he’s always evangelical in his belief in bitcoin. He stresses that it has limited supply, unlike the dollar or even gold. That helps bitcoin do a better job protecting against inflation, Saylor argues. He also says bitcoin’s digital nature makes it easier and cheaper for holders to store and use, avoiding the need for intermediaries and making it a “revolutionary” form of money.

Some mutual funds and others have internal guidelines barring them from buying bitcoin or even bitcoin exchange-traded funds, so MicroStrategy shares are a backdoor way for them to place a wager on the currency. Even some big, conservative investors see the stock as a way to potentially gain an edge over competitors more reluctant to dabble in a crypto company.

Saylor has proved adept at creating different kinds of equity and debt investments—rolling out bank loans, convertible bonds, common shares and more—to keep the cash faucet flowing.

“His genius is he’s creating different products for different audiences,” says Brett Messing, an executive of SkyBridge Capital, which manages funds with substantial exposure to bitcoin and advises a fund that holds MicroStrategy shares.

Over the past month or so, Saylor has promoted MicroStrategy and bitcoin on television shows and high-profile podcasts, at industry conferences and elsewhere. “If you are not buying bitcoin at the top, you are leaving money on the table,” he recently tweeted.

“He’s pretty bombastic in public, but more nuanced in private settings,” says Matt Hougan, chief investment officer of crypto asset manager Bitwise, who heard Saylor speak at a dinner for 12 investors last summer. His company manages an ETF that owns MicroStrategy.

If bitcoin keeps rising, the premium to hold MicroStrategy could continue to exist. If bitcoin tumbles, though, MicroStrategy stock likely will follow. Even if the premium dissipates, while bitcoin holds up, shares likely would be hurt. Vehicles that share some similarities, such as closed-end funds, often trade at a discount to their holdings, rather than at a premium, skeptics note.

The company may not face an existential threat, though. MicroStrategy currently has $7.26 billion of unsecured debt, most of which was sold at super-low interest rates. And it holds—or HODLs, in the parlance of bitcoin fans—450,000 bitcoin at an average cost of around $62,000. Bitcoin would have to fall below $16,000 and remain around that level as its debt comes due, for the company’s bitcoin to be worth less than its debt.

Just over a week ago, Saylor unveiled a brand-new way for MicroStrategy to raise money from investors to fuel its bitcoin purchases. He announced that the company will sell $2 billion of “perpetual preferred” shares this quarter. The news sparked Palmer, the analyst, to reiterate his $650 price target for the stock, about 65% higher than current levels.

FT : What next for Glencore after failed Rio Tinto merger talks?

What next for Glencore after failed Rio Tinto merger talks?
Early discussions between the miners went nowhere but mega M&A deals are back in vogue

Glencore chief executive Gary Nagle had a clear message at an industry event last October: the mining sector needs fewer, bigger companies in order to stay relevant.

More consolidation is needed, he told a private conference hosted by Goldman Sachs at LME Week. As it happened, Jakob Stausholm, the boss of rival mining company Rio Tinto, was also speaking at the event. Around the same time, Glencore and Rio held tentative talks about combining part or all of their business to create a $160bn mining behemoth.

Glencore’s “bigger is better” mantra has made it one of the most aggressive and ambitious dealmakers in the sector, even if those deal discussions do not always work out.

While discussions with Rio did not progress beyond early stages, megadeals are back in vogue for the mining sector. The question ripping through the industry now is: what will Glencore do next?

The return of big mining M&A was supercharged by BHP’s failed £39bn bid for Anglo American last year, which spurred companies to review their strategic options. But it is also due to structural factors: the 20-year commodity supercycle driven by China has ended, and miners are repositioning themselves for the next phase of growth, in which the energy transition is expected to boost demand for copper and battery metals.

Glencore has dealmaking in its DNA. Founded as a commodity trader in 1974, it built up its mining business almost entirely through acquisitions. Under former chief executive Ivan Glasenberg, a pugnacious South African who ran the company from 2002 to 2021, Glencore went public in 2011, and announced it was merging with Xstrata the following year.

“They are always trying to do deals, more so than the big mining companies,” said Barry Jackson, chief executive of mining consultancy Ascentia Resources. “You hear about Glencore talking with every mining company in the world.”

One of the biggest barriers for Glencore is that other miners are generally more conservative when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. Compared with bigger rivals where the M&A process is very tightly controlled, at Glencore “the freedom to do those kind of initiatives is higher”, Jackson said.

Glasenberg — who still owns 10 per cent of Glencore’s shares — earned a reputation as an enthusiastic dealmaker and his successor Nagle has continued that tradition, holding talks on potential megadeals every year since he became chief executive.

In early 2022, Glencore held preliminary talks with BHP about a deal that would have brought the two companies together and spun out their combined coal businesses, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

The next year, Glencore launched a hostile $23bn bid for Canada’s Teck Resources, proposing a similar structure: merge, then demerge into a metals group and a coal group. That bid failed due to opposition from Teck’s management and controlling shareholders; instead a Glencore-led consortium bought Teck’s steelmaking coal business in a $9bn deal later that year.

Last year, after BHP’s bid for Anglo became public, Glencore examined making a rival bid for Anglo, but did not make an offer. The talks with Rio took place in September and October, but did not progress. Rio previously spurned an approach from Glencore in 2014.

Rio CEO Stausholm has said Rio is interested in deals that boost its growth profile, but stressed that there is no “fear of missing out” at the company, which is guarding against a move that could “derail” the business. 

Rio is under pressure from an activist shareholder campaign to move its primary listing from London to Sydney — as BHP did — which the activists argue will give the miner greater power for share-based deals. Rio, which is listed in both London and Sydney, has not done a share-based transaction since its dual-listing structure was established.

One reason Rio is more conservative than Glencore in terms of deals is because it has been burnt by bad deals in the past, according to advisers. Rio overpaid for its $38bn purchase of Alcan in 2007, which is widely considered one of the worst mining deals ever.

“Glencore is born out of a trading culture, so they are a bit more aggressive in terms of deal flow — like in the way they approached the Teck deal a couple years ago,” said Richard Hatch, analyst at Berenberg.

The company’s dealmaking style is highly opportunistic, he added, pointing out its countercyclical acquisition of the Cerrejón thermal coal mine in 2021, which paid off handsomely when coal prices rocketed the following year.

One handicap for Glencore is that its share price has fallen 17 per cent in the past six months, giving it less financial firepower for any next potential deal.


Earnings have normalised after the bonanza couple of years that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and lower volatility in commodity prices has reduced trading profits. During the first half of 2024, Glencore reported a loss of $233mn, partly due to a $1bn impairment charge related to its South African coal operations.

With the Rio talks now on ice, analysts believe a Glencore-Anglo combination could make sense. In the wake of BHP’s failed bid, Anglo launched a radical restructuring, which will split off four of its businesses, and leave behind a company focused on coal and copper.

Glencore and Anglo already work closely together at the Collahuasi copper mine in Chile, where each has a 44 per cent stake. But Anglo’s price tag has gone up: its shares have risen 45 per cent in the past year, as shareholders rally behind its restructuring plan.

“There is more to be said for Glencore and Anglo to be doing something, rather than Glencore and Rio,” said Hatch at Berenberg. “But my view is that Anglo does not want to be bought.”

Whether or not this year holds a Glencore-Anglo bid, the cycle of mining consolidation is set to continue, analysts believe.

Kaan Peker, an RBC Capital Markets analyst, wrote in a note: “The M&A parlour games that we saw last year, will undoubtedly start again in earnest.”

FtT : Directors’ Deals: Canal+ insiders build stake after IPO stumble

Directors’ Deals: Canal+ insiders build stake after IPO stumble
TV and film group endures a rocky start to life as a listed group

Canal+, the pay-TV and film production group spun out of French media and telecoms heavyweight Vivendi in mid-December, has not had the smoothest start as a standalone listed company.

The parent business of Paddington producer StudioCanal saw its share price slump more than a fifth on its first trading day, leaving it with a market capitalisation just shy of £2.3bn. Shares have slid by another 14 per cent since.

The spin-off was part of French billionaire Vincent Bolloré’s plan to break up Vivendi and help unwind the conglomerate discount that has weighed on its valuation. Bolloré, Vivendi’s largest shareholder, said Canal+ could be worth close to €7bn (£5.8bn) as a separate entity.

Vivendi, which trades on Euronext Paris, also spun off its advertising company Havas in Amsterdam and its publishing division, Louis Hachette, in Paris. The Bolloré family retains a 30 per cent stake in Canal+.

Taking advantage of the post-IPO slump, Canal+ chief executive Maxime Saada bought £2.2mn worth of shares in the days leading up to Christmas. Louis Hachette boss Jean-Christophe Thiery followed suit, spending a total £172,914 on the shares between the final days of 2024 and January 3. 

Founded 40 years ago, Canal+ operates in more than 50 countries and has 26.8mn subscribers globally. It made an operating profit of €426mn (£353mn) on €6.2bn revenue in 2023, with Europe contributing about three-quarters of this total.

Netcall chiefs cash in
Netcall sells “drag and drop” software which enables customers to build their own products without having much coding experience.

It has not always been a software company. In its earlier iteration, it managed call centre switchboards for its customers. This changed in 2017 when it acquired low-code software provider MatSoft and in the past few years Netcall has been growing at an impressive pace.  

In the year to June 2024, revenue increased by 9 per cent to £39.1mn, driven by a 19 per cent increase in cloud revenue. Meanwhile, total annual contract value (ATV), which is often a better metric for demand, rose 15 per cent.

As Netcall increases its number of recurring cloud-based customers, it has seen an improvement in cash generation. Operating cash flow rose 23 per cent to £13.8mn over the period, which helped it fund two post period acquisitions, including an AI business.

Despite a strong financial performance in the past few years, the market has only recently started pricing Netcall as a software business. Its share price has risen 13 per cent in the last six months, meaning it now trades on a forward price/earnings ratio of 27.

This higher valuation might have contributed to the recent decisions by non-executive director Michael Jackson and non-executive chair Henrik Bang to sell shares to the value of £198,000 and £1.95mn, respectively. The latter cited “estate planning” and “investor demand” as catalysts for the sale.

It can take a while for the market to appreciate a company that has made a fundamental change to its business. Now, however, Netcall has a new problem: how to adapt to a world with AI. Its strong balance sheet gives it flexibility, but it needs to make the right investment decisions to maintain growth.