NYP : Elon Musk’s xAI could be valued at more than $20B after heavy demand in fi

Elon Musk’s new AI startup could be valued at a higher-than-expected $20 billion in its first funding round, with investor demand surging as the process nears a close, The Post has learned.

Musk’s xAI — which powers the snarky Grok chatbot — could raise between $7 billion and $8 billion at that lofty valuation as it competes with Google’s Gemini AI platform and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a source with knowledge told The Post.

That would exceed the $6 billion getting raised at an $18 billion valuation reported by Bloomberg earlier this week.

Musk — who launched Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Boring — has asked xAI investors to wire in money by the end of Friday before he closes the window on the first funding round, another source who is investing in xAI said.

“People are asking for a second close so they can put more money in,” the source told The Post on Friday.

Part of the reason for the overwhelming demand has been Musk making a convincing case that he can leverage Tesla’s computing power to help xAI, a second source investing in the round said. The electric vehicles use only 10% of their computing power,

While some money has flowed in from the Middle East, Musk has been careful not to accept cash from China, including Hong Kong, the first source investing in the round said.

Musk spokespeople declined comment.

In February, The Post reported exclusively that Musk was expected to raise funds that could put xAI’s valuation at between $10 billion and $20 billion.

In April, Musk said xAi would need to buy 100,000 Nvidia H100 chips to train the upgraded versions of its chatbot “Grok 3.” The current version, Grok 2, took about 20,000 chips.

Despite months of rumblings, Musk had repeatedly denied that xAI was raising money.

“xAI is not raising capital and I have had no conversations with anyone in this regard,” Musk wrote on X earlier this year.

At the time of Musk’s denial, xAI had already disclosed plans for a fundraise in a regulatory filing. Late last year, xAI said it would raise at least $1 billion through an equity offering.

NYP : Nobody knows what Paramount chair Shari Redstone wants to do with hard-to-

Nobody knows what Paramount chair Shari Redstone wants to do with hard-to-sell conglomerate

Remember Byron Allen?

You know, the voluble media executive who got Paramount shareholders all juiced up when he said he wanted to buy the company from Shari Redstone for a cool $30 billion.

Sounded like a great deal since Paramount’s market cap at just below $10 billion reflects the melting ice cube of much of its programming.

Well, he’s nowhere to be found these days in the merger talks because no one seems to think he has the money except ­Byron ­himself.

Then there was that convoluted thing offered by David Ellison, the rich-kid son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison.

He runs a decent movie studio named Skydance and wants to write Shari a check for just $2 billion for her controlling stake, which in a normal world wouldn’t make sense but this is major media and weirdness rules.

Shari owns Paramount through some tangled structure that includes so-called controlling shares as opposed to the common stock.

Those investors are the bag holders under this scenario because they get next to nothing.

Now they’re threatening to sue, causing enough agita in Redstone’s orbit that her CEO, Bob Bakish, went nuts and got himself axed.

Shari, I am told, still loves this deal (David is offering more than twice as much as her stake is actually worth), but its dog-with-fleas quality is so profound that Paramount was forced to let Skydance’s exclusivity on ­negotiations lapse so they can ­explore other offers.

Next up: Apollo, the rapacious private equity firm that wouldn’t overpay for a cup of coffee.

They have made a strangely worded “informal offer” to buy the company for $26 billion in a partnership with Japanese media conglomerate Sony. Sounds good until you start parsing through the numbers and other ­factors.

Much of the money goes to pay off Paramount’s $14 billion-plus in debt.

Then they plan to break the whole thing up, something Shari would like to avoid since it was her late father, media-merger icon Sumner Redstone, who cobbled together the once-storied franchise that combines seminal brands like CBS and MTV with a top-notch movie ­studio.

Business, not nostalgia
The Apollo people aren’t much for nostalgia, however.

Shares of Paramount have declined more than 70% over the past five years because Paramount’s brands are increasingly un-seminal in an era of cord cutting.

Sony-Apollo believe that pieces of Paramount are worth more than the company as a whole and they may be right.

But before Paramount’s remaining bag holders get their hopes up, consider: Sony is owned by the Japanese and Apollo does plenty of business with the Saudis, two big strikes against this deal when it goes before the deal-hating Biden regulatory apparatus, which looks down on foreign ownership, particularly of US media assets.

Apollo says there is no Saudi money involved (the Biden regulatory cops are said to be less inclined to approve Saudi ownership than Japanese).

Still, plenty of smart Wall Street analysts question whether without the Saudis these guys have the money because Sony certainly doesn’t — with just around $10 billion in cash laying around its balance sheet.

So, what’s going to happen next?

That was the question I had for some savvy media executives while trolling for stories at this past week’s Milken Institute conference in Beverly Hills.

When I asked the aforementioned Byron Allen, he threw up his hands and said, “It’s up to Shari.”

I then got the feeling he wasn’t too keen on any follow-ups so I didn’t press the issue.

Another top media executive reminded me of the whole Les Moonves situation.

Moonves was once the king of all media, having steered CBS when it was a separate company in the Redstone empire to record profits and hit shows.

Before he was ousted as CEO in a 2018 #MeToo scandal, he unsuccessfully sought to wrest CBS from Shari’s control through a shareholder lawsuit.

He thought Shari didn’t understand the TV business and CBS would fetch a higher price back before the ice cube of his programming began melting.

“Les was right . . . he saw the ­s–tshow coming and didn’t think Shari could manage it,” the exec said.

Yet, this executive still thinks Shari will prevail.

Despite her operational deficiencies, she inherited her father’s legendary determination and usually gets what she wants.

She wanted Moonves out so she could formally merge the two media companies she controlled (Viacom and then CBS into one) and consolidate power, and did it.

She will play a long game with the common shareholders in court because nothing will stop her from getting that $2 billion, the exec says.

No way, counters a third top media executive, a CEO of a rival company whom I snagged as he was rushing into a Milken panel discussion.

He told me he thinks nothing will happen.

In fact, the current post-Bakish management structure — three ­execs who will occupy what must be a very large “Office of the CEO” — will remain in place for the foreseeable future because no deal will get done given the hurdles I outlined.

The troika, Chris McCarthy, ­George Cheeks and Brian Robbins, are known in the Wall Street analyst community derisively as the “hydra-headed monster.”

If they don’t do something to stop Paramount from imploding, they will soon be known even more derisively as the “Three Stooges.”

FT : South Korean state energy monopoly in talks to build new UK nuclear plant

South Korean state energy monopoly in talks to build new UK nuclear plant
Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British officials over mothballed Wylfa site

South Korea’s state energy monopoly is in talks with the UK government about building a new nuclear power station off the coast of Wales, in what could be a big boost to Britain’s plans for a new nuclear fleet.

Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British officials about a new facility at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, and a ministerial meeting is expected this coming week, according to people briefed on the matter.

In his March Budget, chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced the government would buy the mothballed site and another from Hitachi for £160mn. In 2019, the Japanese industrial group scrapped its plans to develop a nuclear project at Wylfa, writing off £2.1bn in the process. 

Hunt’s move was designed to facilitate a fresh deal with a new private sector partner to build a power station at Wylfa, which could boost the government’s plans to replace Britain’s current ageing fleet of nuclear power stations. 

About 14 per cent of the UK’s power was supplied by nuclear plants in 2022 but all but one of the fleet is set to close by the end of the decade, just as demand for low-carbon electricity is set to rise as part of the shift away from fossil fuels. 

The government wants the UK to have 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, compared with roughly 6GW today.

A consortium including US construction group Bechtel and US nuclear company Westinghouse has already proposed building a new plant on the Wylfa site using Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor technology. 

One industry executive with knowledge of the situation said: “Kepco is certainly interested in the project and the company is in talks with the UK government about it.” 

Energy minister Andrew Bowie is expected to meet Kepco this week to discuss the proposals, a government official said. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnez) said: “Wylfa has excellent potential and we welcome the interest of all parties who are looking to invest in UK nuclear projects.”

Other industry figures pointed to increasingly active engagement between London and Seoul on a possible investment at Wylfa in recent months. “The Koreans are all over Desnez,” said one. 

One UK government official briefed on the matter said talks were “very much early stages” but that Claire Coutinho, energy secretary, would “very much welcome all interest” in nuclear investment.

Another industry figure said Wylfa’s future would depend on a decision by GB Nuclear, the government quango which now owns the site.

GBN could give the go-ahead for a large reactor or reactors at Wylfa or judge that it is a suitable site for building a cluster of new “small modular reactors”. Supporters of SMRs claim their modular design would make them relatively quick and cheap to build.

“Wylfa is now the next priority site for the UK so it makes sense that Kepco are interested, but they just need GBN to make a decision soon about whether they do want a traditional nuclear power station there,” the figure said. 

One senior Korean government official struck a cautious note about the prospect of Kepco buying the site, saying that building nuclear power stations in the UK was “difficult”. 

“In order to rebuild our nuclear ecosystem and since we have the technological prowess, we can certainly do nuclear projects in the UK if the conditions are right,” he said. “But it is not a good idea for our companies to stretch themselves and do those projects at a loss.”

Kepco declined to comment. 

Despite the UK government’s ambition for 24GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, only one project — Hinkley Point C — is under construction, and it is running wildly over-budget and late.

The government has meanwhile asked potential investors in a second proposed project at Sizewell in Suffolk to submit final bids before the summer as ministers seek to reach a final investment decision (FID) by July.

One industry figure said that while there had been conversations about announcing the FID by then, he was not sure that would be feasible.

Centrica is among companies that have expressed an interest in backing the new facility at Sizewell, which is being jointly developed by French-state owned energy company EDF and the UK government. Enec, which is owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, has also been reported as one potential investor

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said it was “delivering the biggest expansion of nuclear power in 70 years” and “exploring a range of nuclear technologies” to reach 24GW of capacity by 2050.

“We are already making progress on our nuclear revival, securing two sites to host new projects,” it added.

FT : UK will pay the price for an international student exodus

UK will pay the price for an international student exodus
Government’s tightening of graduate visa rules poses a grave risk to universities and the country

The UK has long been an attractive destination for the best and brightest global minds. The country’s universities are the envy of the world and consistently listed at the top of higher education rankings. But the UK government’s attempts to block talented international students from working and studying here poses a grave risk to these institutions and the country.

The government is about to publish its review into the graduate visa, a two-year unsponsored work permit for overseas graduates of British universities. The review comes on the heels of other changes, including one implemented in January that prevents overseas postgraduate students on a taught course (such as a masters degree) from bringing spouses or children with them.  

Home secretary James Cleverly says this latest review is designed to ensure graduate visas are “not being abused”. But these changes, and the government’s rhetoric, create an unwelcoming atmosphere for international students. This goes against the UK’s values of openness and innovation, which have enabled our economy and society to thrive.  

Facing an increasingly hostile environment, the smartest students will look elsewhere for university places, notably the US, where they often receive more generous financial support for postgraduate degrees. Some international students are already turning away. According to Financial Times analysis of Universities and Colleges Admissions Service data, a third of UK universities saw fewer overseas non-EU applicants in 2023.

The UK will pay the price for this exodus. International students bring tremendous economic benefits with them, putting nearly 10 times more into the economy than they take out. UK universities also rely on income from international students to subsidise places for British students, who pay lower tuition fees. 

Alongside our world-class universities, the UK is home to prominent scholarship programmes, including the Rhodes scholarship, which brings exceptional young people from around the world to study at the University of Oxford. Since our founding in 1903, 8,000 Rhodes scholars have come to learn and to foster friendships across national boundaries — building affection for their host country as they do so.

I came as a Rhodes scholar from the US in 1983 and was privileged to return in 2018 to oversee the programme from which I benefited so much. Other Rhodes scholars have also made the UK their home, and include well-known figures in public health, education, engineering and other fields.

We are proud of the many ways our scholars contribute to British society. For example, Emmanuelle Dankwa, from Ghana, was one of the early-career researchers selected to present her research to parliament as part of the Stem for Britain competition. 

Access to a graduate visa has played a key role in enabling Rhodes scholars to make a positive impact. Take the fintech company founded by three scholars from Singapore, Syria and Palestine. Run by Amer Baroudi and Abdallah AbuHashem, nsave has secured major seed funding and is committed to making banking more inclusive and accessible by providing safe accounts for people from countries with high inflation and distressed economies. These founders demonstrate how opportunities for cross-cultural collaboration enable students at UK universities to become part of a global network of entrepreneurs, academics and leaders. 

Instead of creating more barriers for such qualified, hard-working young people, we should welcome and encourage those eager to come here to learn, work, and contribute. The government may claim to be cracking down on abuse of the graduate visa system but it is only shooting itself in the foot, jeopardising the UK’s competitiveness and harming all students, both British and international.

FT : Newspaper groups warn Apple over ad-blocking plans

Newspaper groups warn Apple over ad-blocking plans
UK press says proposed ‘web eraser’ tool in next iOS update threatens journalism’s financial sustainability

British newspaper groups have warned Apple that any move to impose a so-called “web eraser” tool to block advertisements would put the financial sustainability of journalism at risk.

Apple is preparing to include an AI-based privacy feature in the Safari browser in the next iOS 18 software update that will remove ads or other unwanted website content, according to reports.

In a letter sent on Friday to Apple’s government affairs chief in the UK, the News Media Association, which represents 900 national, regional and local titles, raised concerns about how this would affect digital revenues in the industry.

The letter, seen by the Financial Times, said professional journalism required funding “and advertising is a key revenue stream for many publishers”. Members of the NMA include The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph.

Online platforms such as web browsers and social networks are important routes for the public to access journalism, the NMA argues, but also for publishers to “monetise their content in the digital marketplace”. 

The prospect of an automatic block on online ads has caused considerable alarm among publishers, which are already facing a squeeze on revenues given separate moves by tech groups that have throttled news traffic and a broader slowdown in spending in many parts of the market. Apple declined to comment.

The NMA’s letter said “ad-blocking is a blunt instrument, which frustrates the ability of content creators to sustainably fund their work and could lead to consumers missing important information which would otherwise have been very useful to them”.

Serious questions over editorial accountability would also be raised, the letter said, if AI tools were used to selectively remove or change the content of articles. It called for a meeting between publishers and Apple to discuss the potential implications of the web eraser.

Media groups have been left reeling in recent years after the large tech groups they rely on to deliver their news and content have made it more difficult to make money. 

Apple’s attempts to position itself as a guardian of its customers’ privacy in recent years have come at a cost to a broad range of businesses that rely on data to target ads, from Meta to local newspapers. 

A 2021 software update introduced an Apple feature called App Tracking Transparency, which banned apps and advertisers from collecting data about iPhone users without their explicit consent. 

Most users declined to grant permission and Apple has tightened its privacy protections in subsequent iOS updates, including further restrictions on device fingerprinting and email tracking.

Google had threatened to follow Apple in blocking third-party cookies used by advertisers to target audiences — a move that has since been delayed in the face of regulatory concerns.

Meta last year decided to cut back news on Facebook, including axing Facebook News and Instant Articles in Europe, which has throttled traffic for media groups. It also ended a scheme to fund local journalism in the UK. 

These moves have led to a drop in digital revenue for many newspaper groups. Many media executives are especially angry given social media platforms have used free newspaper content to help build their audiences.

WSJ : There’s Not Enough Power for America’s High-Tech Ambitions

There’s Not Enough Power for America’s High-Tech Ambitions
Georgia is a magnet for data centers and other cutting-edge industries, but vast electricity demands are clashing with the newcomers’ green-energy goals

ATLANTA—Bill Thomson needs power fast. The problem is that many of the other businesspeople racing into Georgia do too.

Thomson heads marketing and product management at DC Blox, which in recent years built a string of data centers in midsize cities across the fast-growing Southeast. The company more recently set its sights on Atlanta—the would-be capital of the region—joining a slew of tech and industrial firms piling into the state.

Vying for a piece of one of America’s hottest markets, those businesses tend to have two things in common. One is that they represent a U.S. economy increasingly driven by advanced manufacturing, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. The other is that they promise to hoover up huge amounts of electricity.

That combination means Georgia’s success in luring this development comes with a side effect: Power is a big source of tension. The clean-energy goals of companies and governments are running up against the need for projects to break ground fast. So far, climate advocates fear the imperatives of growth mean more fossil fuels.

Georgia’s main utility, Georgia Power, has boosted its demand projections sixteen-fold and is pushing ahead on a hotly contested plan to burn more natural gas. Critics warn it will yield higher bills and unnecessary carbon emissions for decades. Some companies are scrambling to secure bespoke renewable-energy deals to power their development.

One major source of disruption is data centers. The facilities are ballooning in size as people spend more of their waking hours online and companies digitize everything from factory processes to fast-food drive-throughs. All that computing requires power—and for firms like DC Blox to lock it in as quickly as possible.

“Generally,” Thomson said, “we find the guys with the fastest power win.”

Similar quandaries are rippling through other hubs of the new American economy, with utilities in Tennessee and the Carolinas forecasting their own unexpected surges in load growth. U.S. power usage is projected to expand by 4.7% annually over the next five years, according to a review of federal fillings by the consulting firm Grid Strategies. That is up from a previous estimate of 2.6%.

The projections come after efficiency gains kept electricity demand roughly flat over the past 15 years, allowing the power sector to limit emissions in large part through coal-plant closures.

“We haven’t seen this in a generation,” said Arne Olson, a senior partner at consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics. “As an industry, we’ve almost forgotten how to deal with load growth of this magnitude.”

For states like Georgia, the fear is missing out on what could be once-in-a-generation investments. Wall Street is salivating over an artificial-intelligence-fueled tech bonanza, while Washington is throwing billions of dollars into domestic manufacturing.

The added wrinkle is that it is all happening as many parts of America—corporate America included—are trying to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

“These companies all have clean-energy goals,” said Patty Durand, a Georgia Power critic who is campaigning to be a utility regulator in the state. “Those goals are at risk if Georgia Power gets what it wants.”

The Peach State’s energy quandary stems from the type of economic dynamism that many counterparts would envy. Its growth has consistently outpaced the nation’s. A smaller portion of Georgians are jobless than the U.S. average, while their incomes tend to be rising faster.

State and local economic-development teams have courted large businesses to set up shop with sales pitches that have included generous financial incentives. Rail lines, ports and America’s largest air hub also provide access to faraway customers.

Pat Wilson, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Economic Development, said energy is increasingly part of those discussions with newcomers. Officials tout the newly expanded Plant Vogtle, America’s largest nuclear power plant, as a sign the state is ready for long-term growth.

“We have a utility partner to make sure you can meet your energy needs on day one,” Wilson said.

Those needs include affordability, reliability and sustainability for firms like Aurubis, a German metals giant building a recycling plant in the outskirts of Augusta.

U.S. energy prices are far lower than those in Europe. That is a boon for Aurubis, which uses mammoth equipment to shred old circuit boards and electrical wiring, melt the scraps, and separate copper from other materials.

The company also boasts aggressive emissions-reductions targets for its power-intensive smelters. At its roughly $820 million Georgia plant, Aurubis will use up to 31 megawatts of electricity, enough to power thousands of homes.

“Not every project itself has to reduce carbon emissions,” said David Schultheis, president of the Georgia facility. “But the overall set of projects has to guide us there.”

The firm has made strides to that end in Europe by bolstering its usage of wind or solar power in a portfolio stretching from Belgium to Bulgaria. In Georgia, Schultheis pointed to Plant Vogtle, visible just 12 miles away, as a symbol of reliable energy.

Companies prize nuclear power plants, since they produce carbon-free energy and—unlike wind or solar power—don’t depend on the weather. But the projected power needs of new businesses in the state far exceed the expected output of the plant’s recently added reactors, the second of which went online last month.

Despite Aurubis’ proximity to Vogtle, which is co-owned by Georgia Power, it is also difficult to trace the source of electricity that reaches the substation on the German company’s property nearby. Schultheis instead relies on the utility’s overall power production for his carbon accounting, meaning the Georgia site will add more to Aurubis’ carbon footprint.

“We get the full grid—the mix of the grid—of what they produce,” he said.

Many of the battles over that energy mix have been fought in a windowless room in one of the imposing government buildings crammed into Atlanta’s South Downtown area. That is home to meetings of the Georgia Public Service Commission, which oversees utilities including Georgia Power.

The investor-owned utility last fall made an unusual update to its periodic resource proposal to regulators. Citing a boom in new business customers, Georgia Power boosted its projected demand growth over the next seven years from less than 400 megawatts to 6,600 megawatts, or about a third more than the utility’s total capacity at the beginning of 2023.

To make up the gap, the company put forward a plan that includes adding battery storage, buying power from fossil-fuel-burning plants in Mississippi and Florida, and building three new gas-fired turbines in Georgia.

The Southern Co.subsidiary has since sparred with renewable-energy-minded organizations as divergent as local municipal governments, the Sierra Club and the Pentagon.

Opponents argued the utility should accelerate demand-side responses, such as allowing customers to dial down energy usage depending on costs. Others proposed more-aggressive use of solar power and batteries, or so-called “virtual power plants” that allow consumers with solar panels to sell energy back to the grid.

In Georgia Power’s view, adding gas is key to providing stable power and quickly ramping up electricity for moments of peak usage on the hottest days of summer and coldest days of winter. That is especially crucial given the utility’s gradual retirement of coal-fired plants.

The state is attracting so many power users, Georgia Power contends, that new investments will actually suppress ratepayers’ bills.

“We anticipate that we will not need to increase rates to cover the costs of these resources that we’re adding,” said Aaron Mitchell, the company’s vice president of pricing and planning.

Some Georgians are skeptical, noting utilities’ previous overestimates of demand growth. Power companies have a financial incentive to pursue capital projects, critics say, and overbuilding now would risk saddling ratepayers with assets that have decadeslong shelf lives.

The recent history of energy development in the state has also been rocky. The Georgia Power-led project to expand Plant Vogtle, the first U.S. nuclear development in decades, ran up more than $30 billion in costs and lagged years behind schedule.

Since the project’s early stages in 2007, the 12-month moving average of residential power costs for the utility’s customers has surged 68%, according to the Georgia Center for Energy Solutions. That outpaced inflation, as well as cost increases for industrial and commercial customers.

Price pressures and climate fears have pushed communities such as suburban Atlanta’s DeKalb County, which has pledged to slash emissions, to lobby regulators for more aggressive oversight of the investor-owned utility. Ted Terry, a DeKalb County commissioner, warned that the state is using a 20th-century energy playbook while trying to attract 21st-century industries.

The state’s energy market “is not working for all of us,” Terry said. Regulators approved much of Georgia Power’s plan on April 16.

‘Essential to our economy’

The tension hasn’t slowed businesses’ rush to the state.

Alphabet’s Google has operated data centers in Georgia for more than two decades, gradually expanding its footprint. In 2021, Microsoft established a new U.S. data-center region emanating from greater Atlanta. An Amazon Web Services spokesman said the firm recently bought land in the Peach State and is evaluating possible server-farm locations.

All three firms purchase massive amounts of renewable energy to help power their facilities around the world. All three are also members of the Clean Energy Buyers Association, a trade group pushing utilities, including Georgia Power, to go green.

Priya Barua, the organization’s senior director of market and policy innovation, said the added difficulty in much of the Southeast is that traditionally regulated power markets sometimes give firms fewer opportunities to shop around for wholesale electricity.

“They’re more limited in how they can get clean energy,” she said.

Some analysts believe that could change as companies exert more pressure on regulators and developers strike deals with independent power producers. As part of Georgia Power’s recent planning update, the utility said it would work with trade groups like Barua’s to explore how commercial and industrial customers might build or contract their own clean-energy projects in the future.

Those setups have been confined in recent years to nonprofit electricity cooperatives that tend to serve rural areas. Instagram-owner Meta, for example, joined with a Georgia co-op and solar developer Silicon Ranch as part of a broader deal to power data centers.

But even in a more-competitive market, those deals may remain out of reach for most companies, such as DC Blox, the data-center operator building two facilities on opposing outskirts of Atlanta.

Founded in 2014, the firm constructed its first data center in an old paper plant in Chattanooga. Power usage: one megawatt. DC Blox has since built out a network from Myrtle Beach, S.C., to Huntsville, Ala., leasing space to municipalities, universities and manufacturers.

Now, the company is big-game hunting for big-tech customers. The larger of its two Atlanta-area sites could reach up to 300 megawatts.

“The smart states and smart utility commissions are going to figure out how to do this because this isn’t going to stop,” said Thomson, the DC Blox executive. “AI is coming next.”

DC Blox executives see themselves as part of Atlanta’s evolution from logistics center to the digital hub of the Southeast. Nowhere is that more apparent than west of the city in Douglas County, the most sought-after corner of the region’s data-center market.

Local officials including Chris Pumphrey, president of the public-private Elevate Douglas Economic Partnership, began seeking out data centers about a decade ago. While the facilities employ few full-time employees, operators and tenants pour property and sales taxes into public coffers. Another benefit to Douglas County was that the new industry reduced truck traffic to warehouses peppering the area.

“At that period of time,” Pumphrey said, “there wasn’t this significant concern about energy.”

These days, Douglas County is home to current or forthcoming data centers by companies including Google, Microsoft, DC Blox, Flexential and Switch. As hundreds of construction workers etch the concrete structures into sides of hills like fortresses, Pumphrey is eagerly awaiting the payoff.

“They’re essential to our economy,” Pumphrey said. As for the energy concerns, he added, “We have to figure something out.”

Miss Tweed : Private equity firms walk away from bidding for YNAP

Private equity firms walk away from bidding for YNAP

Richemont publishes its full-year results on Friday but the Cartier and Chloé owner is unlikely to give much detail about the ongoing sale of its loss-making online fashion retailer Yoox-Net-A-Porter (YNAP). It will say that some parties have expressed interest, but it will not admit that many have pulled out of the bidding after seeing YNAP’s numbers.

Several private equity firms including Sycamore Partners, Bain Capital and Permira have walked away, spooked by YNAP’s track record, losses and shaky business plan, sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter said. They do not believe YNAP can be turned around, they said.

“Most private equity firms that looked at it are no longer interested,” one of the advisers involved in the talks said. “They’ve all left the process.”

In documents presented by Richemont to potential investors, YNAP loses money for four years and makes a profit only in the fifth year. YNAP’s annual operating losses are estimated to amount to about €220 million, and the cash burn is a bigger number. That’s a lot of money. Richemont has so far booked €1.8 billion in non-cash write-downs on the business and reported an operating loss of €128 million in the first half to September 30 of its current financial year to end-March.

Potential investors question YNAP’s growth prospects. Most big brands belonging to the Kering and LVMH groups have severed ties with online fashion retailers such as YNAP, Farfetch and MatchesFashion in recent months. One wonders what kind of business YNAP will be doing with these brands in a few years’ time. Only small- and medium-sized brands will be left, labels that need such an online retailer to reach out to consumers and sell their products since they have only a few boutiques of their own, if any. Most stock from LVMH and Kering brands you find on online fashion retailers these days is mostly from previous collections or thanks to distribution agreements that will expire soon.

MARKETING PURPOSES
Fashion brands use multi-brand online retailers mostly for marketing purposes and keep their best-sellers for their own website and boutiques. Adding to the pain, big brands have been drastically cutting the margin these websites are allowed to make from selling their wares.

That is also why they have been struggling to make money. Since the end of the pandemic, big brands do not need them as much as when their boutiques were closed because of the lockdowns. Today, most big fashion houses give online multi-brand sites only a few items that allow them to say they carry the brand, but if you look closely at the assortment, their offer is pretty scant.

Last week, on the “New In” section of Net-A-Porter, there was hardly anything from big brands aside from one raffia tote by Loewe and one Bottega Veneta bag. Big labels such as Prada, Miu Miu, Armani, Celine and Loro Piana are absent from the website altogether. For Celine and Dior, there is only eyewear. For Givenchy, two pairs of shoes. Net-A-Porter, on the other hand, offers bigger assortments for Chloé and Alaïa, fashion brands that belong to Richemont.

“There isn’t a single online fashion retailer today that makes money apart from Mytheresa, and Mytheresa’s profitability is declining,” one industry source with knowledge of the process said. “In the current environment, investors are skittish and YNAP’s record is terrible. The truth is that I do not see any big private equity firm willing to invest in this business.” Also, the more time passes, the more it will be hard to find a buyer, the source added.

Complicating the deal is the fact that Richemont wants to retain a minority stake in YNAP. Since the company sells many of its brands, including watchmakers IWC and Vacheron Constantin, the Swiss group wants to make sure that they are not sold at a discount or presented badly, as this would affect their desirability and brand equity.

MYTHERESA APPROACH
Rival online fashion retailer Mytheresa has been approached by Goldman Sachs, Richemont’s advisers, about making a bid. However, the Munich-based retailer is not oozing enthusiasm either. There could be some synergies in terms of warehousing and shipping costs but “merging the two companies presents many risks and difficulties”, a source close to the company said. It is still early in the process and Mytheresa is “far from any concrete discussions with Richemont for now,” the source added.

In an ideal world, it would make sense for Mytheresa to merge with Net-A-Porter (NAP) and Mr Porter (NAP’s menswear online arm) whose brands are still strong. Their business is close to that of Mytheresa in that these two companies provide editorial content and a curated selection of brands like the German retailer does. Yoox, on the other hand, is a discount online retailer, specializing in selling stock from previous seasons. Yoox also provides white-label e-commerce services to some brands. It still powers Armani’s online boutique and Federico Marchetti, Yoox founder and ex-YNAP CEO, still sits on Armani’s board.

It would be complicated and costly to separate NAP from Yoox, several sources close to the two companies have said. Many aspects of their back-office operations, such as warehousing, customer service and IT, are integrated. “It would be a nightmare to try to rebuild them into two separate entities,” one person close to the company said. Hence, NAP and Mytheresa make sense on paper but in reality, any buyer will have to take on both companies. It is not clear whether Mytheresa would have the money to fund YNAP’s losses.

In the quarter to March 31, it is expecting to report a net loss ranging from €3.4 million to €4 million. Mytheresa has been the most successful of all online fashion retailers thanks to its strong fashion point of view and affluent customer base. It has positioned itself as the go-to place for fashion-conscious buyers and regularly organizes events to cultivate good relations with them.

Earlier this month, Mytheresa organized a glamorous party with Brunello Cucinelli on the romantic Lake Orta in Piedmont, in Italy.

This category continues to spend money, but the revenue Mytheresa generates from them has not been enough to compensate for the exodus of thrifty aspirational customers in the past year. Consumers have been tightening their purse strings because of inflation and high interest rates. They are looking for highly discounted items, which are not Mytheresa’s core business. Mytheresa focuses on selling products at full price. That’s why it has good relations with brands and these in turn allow platform to sell of their best-selling items. In addition, Mytheresa’s cash reserves are small. In June 30 last year, its last fiscal year-end, it had only €30.1 million left, down from €113.5 million the previous year.

Mytheresa CEO Michael Kliger outlined the company’s strengths when it published its first-quarter sales on April 18. “We build a community for luxury enthusiasts and create desirability through digital and physical experiences,” Kliger said in a statement. “This makes us the winner in an otherwise still tough market environment.” The company said its net sales would reach €230 million-€235 million, representing an increase of between 15 and 18 percent compared with the same period last year.

“What is not helping is that Richemont is not giving any details of how much money they are ready to inject in the company to offload it,” one of the people involved in the talks said.

Richemont has classified YNAP as assets for sale on its balance sheet. The Swiss luxury group knows that this description is only valid for a year. Technically, it became applicable after the deal to sell 47.5 percent of YNAP to Farfetch and 3.2 percent to the Emirati businessman Mohamed Alabbar foundered in November. Hence, from then on, the business was put back on the market.

Shocked by Farfetch’s mounting losses, Richemont Chairman Johann Rupert lost faith in the company and in its founder and CEO José Neves and pulled the plug. As part of the deal with Farfetch, Rupert was ready to inject $290 million of cash into YNAP to help cover its losses in the short term and provide a $450 million 10-year credit facility to mop up future losses.

Neves was counting on future business with Richemont brands such as Cartier to boost its revenues and profitability. Richemont’s retreat most probably accelerated Farfetch’s downfall. In December, the company narrowly escaped bankruptcy when it was acquired by South Korea’s online retail and delivery company Coupang. Since that deal took place, most of Farfetch’s top management have left and Neves has resigned. It is not clear what will happen to the company. However, for now the website continues to operate.

Richemont needs to secure a sale of YNAP soon or consider alternative solutions such as offloading the business and letting it survive on its own, or shutting it down.

ALIBABA AND AMAZON
In theory, it would seem there could be interest from trade buyers such as Alibaba, with which Richemont has a joint venture in China with Farfetch. There also is America’s Amazon, which is desperate to get into fashion and luxury. Alibaba is present in the sector with its luxury platform Tmall Luxury Pavilion, on which many of Richemont’s brands do business.

However, China’s Alibaba is not keen on buying YNAP. It has bigger fish to fry. The company is struggling with declining demand for luxury goods in China and is undergoing a restructuring as it is being split into several entities. It is also facing growing competition from the social media platforms TikTok and Pinduoduo which are stealing market share.

Also, why would Alibaba buy YNAP, a lossmaking company, when it is already doing business with the brands of its owner Richemont? Amazon, on the other hand, is likely to be a much more serious contender. Its entry into fashion and luxury has been a flop. The only luxury items the U.S. company sells are second-hand, from brands such as Gucci, Burberry and Saint Laurent.

None of the big brands want to work with Amazon because it has carried counterfeits for too long. Amazon has always been seen as the enemy of the luxury industry. If Amazon bought YNAP, it is not clear how small and medium fashion and luxury brands would respond. They might be desperate to boost their top line, but perhaps not to the extent of doing business with the mighty Amazon.

Investors always have always known that finding a buyer for YNAP was going to be difficult. However, it is proving much harder than they expected.

Electrek : Trump reportedly told oil execs he’ll end electric car incentives for

Trump reportedly told oil execs he’ll end electric car incentives for $1 billion in donations

Donald Trump has reportedly told oil executives that he will end electric car incentives if they contribute $1 billion to his election campaign.

The former president has been all over the place with his comments on electric vehicles.

Most of the time, in his rallies, he has brought them up as a talking point to ridicule them – focusing on the premise that “don’t go far” and “charging is a pain”. He went as far as calling them a “hoax”.

But he has also claimed that he is “all for electric cars” and during his 2020 campaign, he tried to take credit for incentives put in place during the Obama administration.

In practice, the former president was trying to put in place policies to slow down electric car adoption – at the request of some automakers, to be fair. The Trump administration attempted to eliminate the tax credit for electric vehicles in the original version of their 2020 budget, though the provision never passed.

Furthermore, Trump was actively seeking to roll back vehicle emission standards that were encouraging automakers to produce more electric cars.

With this new 2024 campaign, the former president has been clearer about the fact that he is against any initiatives that would accelerate the rollout of electric vehicles.

Now, the Washington Post reports that it had sources in a meeting between Trump and oil executives in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club last month. In the report, the publication claimed that Trump made them an offer when asked about his plan recording environmental regulations:

Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

The former president reportedly specifically mention rolling back policies on electric vehicles and wind energy.

Electrek’s Take
I don’t like to get too political at Electrek. Those who know me personally know I’m as apolitical as it gets. I don’t believe the biggest changes come from politics. I’m not biased toward any side in politics, but I am biased toward electric vehicles and I do like policies that encourage them, especially those that incentivize them in a way that represents their benefits for the environment. Since Trump has a real chance of becoming president again, it’s important to cover his views and policies on electric vehicles.

I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Trump would roll back incentives if reelected, which I would have no problem with as long as he implements a carbon tax to properly represent the cost of fossil fuel burning, but who are we kidding?

Even if you don’t believe in human’s contribution to climate change, you must at least believe in clean air?

Everyone agrees that burning fossil fuels is extremely polluting. That’s why you don’t start your car’s engine inside your garage. Now, that’s for a small, closed environment, but the science is also clear that this affects general air pollution when you have millions of cars in the same area, which is most cities today.

This air pollution has a massive health cost calculated in the billions of dollars in the US alone.

From this perspective alone, it makes sense to encourage the purchase of EVs over ICE vehicles. Then, there’s also the clear fact that the rest of the world is moving to EVs at an incredible pace.

A strong market helps a strong industry. If the US auto market falls behind in electrification, the US auto industry will also fall behind and it will be another manufacturing industry that the US is going to lose.

You don’t want to be the last country with a strong fossil fuel industry.