FT : EU plan for buying key commodities centrally is over-reach, warn tech group

EU plan for buying key commodities centrally is over-reach, warn tech groups
Trading software companies fear project will make Brussels a major competitor and believe tender misconceived

Commodity trading platforms have lashed out at EU proposals to centralise the purchase of natural gas, hydrogen and critical minerals for being bureaucratic over-reach that will make the bloc a commercial competitor.

Leading industry software suppliers have warned that the EU’s plans, which would require the companies to build a new trading system and then transfer ownership to Brussels, would also undermine European efforts to foster local tech champions. They also warned that the plans were not fit for purpose for how the target commodities were traded.

The criticisms are the starkest yet of EU efforts to aggregate demand for commodities in the hope of pushing prices down and jump-starting nascent or localised markets, in the way the bloc managed successfully for Covid-19 vaccines. Brussels also turned to joint purchases of gas after record price spikes following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

But Enmacc and MetalsHub, two of the continent’s leading software providers for commodities procurement, said the tender threatened to undercut the business model of tech groups in the region.

The document, released in early June and putting a value of €9mn on the project, states that “the contractor will transfer the entirety of the modular IT platform and its operation to the European Commission” after operating it for five years.

“The biggest problem that makes me choke is that my biggest competitor is the European Commission,” said Jens Hartmann, chief executive of Enmacc, a gas and green energy trading platform that handled €35bn of trades last year. “Why should the EU operate a platform if European companies already operate similar infrastructure?”

He added: “We can offer technology that we have invested €20mn in but we cannot hand over our intellectual property. As a venture-based company, we need to protect the IP.”

A commission spokesperson said that “the intention is that we have a contractor that manages this platform”, adding that the executive body needed “specific expertise” and would work “in very close co-ordination with the contractor”.

The bloc is hoping to emulate its use of a platform called Aggregate EU, run by software company Prisma, which sold 42bn cubic metres of gas last year. The new IT platform will replace AggregateEU.

Maroš Šefčovič, the European commissioner in charge of AggregateEU, said in May that there was “very high political demand for this platform” and that it would form the “blueprint” for joint buying of other strategic commodities. EU officials have said the commission could request to take over the running of the platform even earlier.

But Frank Jackel, co-founder and managing director of MetalsHub, said his company had told the bloc that “we are not happy for the EU to operate” their software platform.

“Does the European Commission want to become a competitor to leading private companies in the EU? We don’t have a huge amount of tech companies in Europe as global leaders,” he said. Policymakers were not qualified to build and operate commodity trading platforms, he went on.

One European automotive executive said joint purchasing could strengthen the supply chain for smaller suppliers but warned that the EU might use its control over market infrastructure to introduce mandatory stockpiling or requirements to reduce dependency on China.

“If the infrastructure is built by the European Commission, then we don’t want policymakers or European governments to have too much force about raw material market exchange trading platforms,” the executive said. “We don’t want to have mandatory stockpiling for industry.”

The two trading software producers also found fault with the EU plans to jointly purchase multiple commodities that have little in common.

Gas is a large and established global market, while hydrogen remains a nascent market traded exclusively on long-term contracts. And critical minerals such as lithium, graphite and rare earths are highly specialised raw materials made to customer specifications with illiquid, opaque markets.

The two groups have teamed up to bid for the tender and insist they are keen to help the EU achieve its aims on commodities purchases.

But they urged the bloc to reconsider the proposal. “It makes no sense,” said Hartmann. “They are traded differently.”

FT : Trump’s idea of a bitcoin strategic reserve is a very bad idea

Trump’s idea of a bitcoin strategic reserve is a very bad idea
Crypto promotion by the White House would chip away at the reserve currency status of the dollar at a time when it is facing more challenges

Politics in the US has turned into one of our biggest sports. Politics has also turned us tribal — we want to win at any cost. Most importantly, we get so engrossed in the sport that we don’t realise that our future — and the future of our children — is the ball we are playing with.

At the end of July, Donald Trump called for the US to be “crypto capital of the planet” and a “bitcoin superpower”. As part of that, he promised to build a bitcoin strategic reserve. I understand why Trump is doing this; he is a politician and support for cryptocurrency means endorsements from crypto bros.

Who knows whether any policy idea offered as a campaign promise would become a reality if he is re-elected to the White House? But if this one did, it would be dangerous for the US. It is not a game where tribal support should override common sense. Let me explain why.

Bitcoin promotion by the White House would chip away at the status of the dollar at a time when sentiment towards the currency is likely to be tested.

Money is more than just green paper with the faces of dead presidents. There are many ways to define it. One way to look at it is as a claim on a country’s productive power and assets, reflecting the value of a nation’s economic output.

Another way to look at money is as a story. It’s a narrative told through everyday actions such as going to the grocery store and trading dollar bills for milk, eggs and doughnuts. As a society, we believe in the story of the intrinsic value of currency. This mass belief is incredibly important for society’s wellbeing.

A reserve currency is a global story. Many people in many countries, who may or may not have visited the US or done business with it, bought into the story that it was a democracy and that its capitalist, free-market economy made it the strongest in the world. And hey, we were responsible with our finances — our debt was manageable, and though we ran budget deficits, they were not huge.

No longer. Today our $27tn economy has $35tn in debt. We collect $4.4tn in taxes, but we spend $6.3tn — we’re running a 5.6 per cent budget deficit. Already, our finances don’t inspire a lot of confidence in the dollar. As we print more dollars every year to finance our growing budget deficits, the dollar story of an all-mighty reserve currency is losing its lustre.

Anyone who is paying attention is already starting to question the trajectory of our finances as well as the state of our political system. We used to have the undisputed reserve currency because we were great on both an absolute and a relative basis. Today, for some, we are just the best alternative, not because we are so awesome but because we are a less-dirty shirt in the old laundry basket.

This brings us to Trump’s rhetoric about wanting the US to build bitcoin strategic reserves. If he’s elected, this governmental policy would change bitcoin’s story, legitimising it and boosting the case to use it as reserve currency.

Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone, including the US government. We cannot print more of it to finance student or medical debt forgiveness, help out with first-time buyer downpayments, or deliver tax cuts when we are running huge budget deficits. Nor can our politicians print more of it to finance their campaign promises that we as a country cannot afford, just to buy themselves more votes. Yet bitcoin, just like gold, looks shinier with every empty campaign promise and every trillion dollars we add to our debt. What will happen if strangers fall in love with another story that is not green and doesn’t have pictures of the US presidents?

Well, the dollar is very unlikely to be replaced as the dominant reserve currency by an alternative any time soon given its role in trade and the global financial system. But it is being increasingly challenged by both fiat and digital currencies. This is not just a question of the economic fundamentals; other countries are diversifying their reserve holdings of currencies.

In such an environment, the US president and presidential candidates should be the dollar’s biggest salespeople rather than supporting an alternative. The bitcoin story should not be promoted — it should not even be accepted as a form of donation to candidates for the position of US president. Bitcoin is not going to make America great. What will help this country continue to be great is getting our debt and deficits under our control.

FT : The takeover fight that could reshape Japan

The takeover fight that could reshape Japan
Couche-Tard’s approach to the owner of 7-Eleven could kick-start a wave of M&A activity in a country that has tended to avoid it

At shortly after 10am on Friday, with torrential rain lashing the doors and a potential $50bn takeover bid in the air, three people are queueing at the original Toyosu branch of 7-Eleven in Tokyo.

One of them is buying a croissant and coffee; one is buying a Yakult, a salmon roe rice ball and a limited edition bag of grape-flavoured fruit gums; one is buying a bag of cat treats. A batch of fried chicken emerges from the back of the store, carried by a woman wearing a jacket in the world-famous corporate livery of green, red and orange. 

“I probably spend more money in 7-Eleven than in any other shop, they are just always there, they are part of life and the food has kept getting better,” says the coffee-and-croissant purchaser. “I heard they might be sold, but I don’t think that can happen, can it?”

It can, and to a foreign entity at that. The Canadian convenience store giant Alimentation Couche-Tard, best known for its Circle K brand, has approached 7-Eleven’s parent company Seven & i Holdings with an unsolicited — but so far friendly — buyout bid. 

There is not yet a formal proposal for Seven & i’s shareholders to consider, but already many bankers, investors, lawyers and government officials are talking of it as the most important and transformative M&A deal Japan has ever seen.

Bankers talk excitedly of a “day zero” that, irrespective of the eventual outcome, could put a number of global household names in play for takeover. This is, in many respects, a battle for Japan and for its willingness to become a vibrant market for corporate control.

“I think the Couche-Tard bid accelerates and exposes everything,” says the manager of one of the world’s biggest event-driven investment funds and now a shareholder in Seven & i.

“The game is on now, and there is a good chance that Japan becomes the M&A deal centre of the world for the next 10 years.”


The history of Couche-Tard’s interest mirrors that of western investors in Japan more widely. It has courted the company on and off for two decades, but been deterred by a combination of factors. These include Japanese companies’ instinctive resistance to being acquired, the historic absence of governance pressure on them to put shareholder interests first and the ready availability of poison pills and other defence mechanisms.

Its target had been softened by two different activist investors — a relatively new phenomenon in Japan — who mounted noisy campaigns urging management to rationalise the group to improve returns.

The approach itself has been facilitated by shareholder-friendly M&A guidelines introduced last year by the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry (Meti), which all but oblige Japanese companies to consider bona fide takeover approaches rather than simply ignoring them.

But even in this new environment, there is now an open question over whether the government is ready to countenance a non-Japanese owner of Seven & i, while companies, in the absence of examples to the contrary, are able to convince a domestic audience that foreigners could never run such an intrinsically Japanese company better.

Convenience stores or konbini are the pinnacle of what Japan does best. They sell fresh bento, reasonably priced Cabernet Sauvignon, gelato, shirts, funeral offerings, cosmetics, metal dinosaur kits and concert tickets. Customers can pay their tax bills there, or do their banking.

They have strived to become indispensable, and won. Behind the scenes, the operation is powered by automation, robots, finely tuned supply chains and efficient distribution logistics.

“I think foreigners should be able to buy Japanese companies,” says the customer buying cat treats. “But I do not believe a foreigner could run this particular company.”

The 7-Eleven convenience store began life in Dallas, Texas, in 1927, even though the name itself wasn’t adopted for another two decades.

Executives at its parent company, Southland Corporation, were known as the “7-7-7” crowd because of their ability to work from 7am to 7pm, seven days a week.


Ito-Yokado, the forerunner company to Seven & i, struck a licensing agreement with Southland to develop the concept in Japan in 1973. After the US parent filed for bankruptcy, it seized the chance to take control of the whole group in 1991 — a time when angst in corporate America about Japanese technological, managerial and financial prowess was close to its peak.

Since then konbini have evolved into Japan’s most powerful conduit of consumption, temptation and retail innovation. After years of consolidation, the country now has three significant competitors: 7-Eleven, Family Mart and Lawson, who together control more than 50,000 stores in their home market.

Almost half of those are run by Seven & i, and pull in 22mn customers a day. The group also has convenience operations overseas, notably in the US, where in 2020 it agreed to spend $21bn in cash buying Speedway, the petrol station chain owned by oil refiner Marathon Petroleum. 

But as with many other Japanese corporations, domestic dominance and operational savoir-faire have not translated into shareholder returns. In many ways, say investors who have held the stock for years, Seven & i represents both the best of Japan and the worst.

Behind the core convenience store business sits a hinterland of supermarkets, restaurants and other often unrelated operations that have generated mixed returns and long looked ripe for sale.

An activist campaign by Dan Loeb’s Third Point hedge fund helped oust chair and chief executive Toshifumi Suzuki — once known as “the king of konbini” — in 2016, with Ryuichi Isaka taking over as chief executive.

Over the past few years Isaka has overhauled the company’s board, installing a progressive international chair, and sold off some non-core assets while promising to accelerate international expansion.

But these efforts have not been sufficient, say some investors. Alicia Ogawa, a board member at the Nippon Active Value Fund and an expert in Japanese governance reform, points out that many of the new non-executive board directors are not really independent, having come from suppliers or companies with deep ties to Seven & i.

Even allowing for the spike since Couche-Tard’s offer was made public, the company’s share price has lagged behind Japan’s benchmark Topix so far this year and over five years.


Benjamin Herrick, an investor in Seven & i with Artisan Partners, points out that since Isaka’s appointment, the company “has deployed $25bn in acquisitions, but its market capitalisation has done nothing in yen terms, and even less in dollar terms”.

“The total shareholder returns over that period are minus 1 per cent,” Herrick adds. “Over the same period, the total shareholder return for Couche-Tard is 191 per cent after deploying $12bn of capital.”

That gulf in performance has opened up a gap in both market capitalisation and valuation between Couche-Tard and Seven & i. That, along with the changing M&A guidelines and the company’s need to appear more receptive to the priorities of shareholders, has opened a rare opportunity for the Canadian group.

“What Couche-Tard is doing is taking advantage of the conglomerate discount that Seven & i has been experiencing for a long time,” says Shunsuke Kuriyama, an analyst with Jefferies in Tokyo.

“Buying the entire company is probably cheaper than just buying the international business, especially with the potential divestiture of other assets.” 

It has been almost 10 years since Japan introduced its first corporate governance and stewardship codes.

During that time there have been clear signs of progress — and a degree of disappointment that the reforms have not made as much difference as originally hoped.

But the announcement of Couche-Tard’s deal has electrified Japan’s financial industry. In more than 30 interviews with bankers, lawyers, fund managers and government officials, the majority described the bid as a turning point, a catalyst or a litmus test of Japan’s willingness to embrace a version of shareholder capitalism that it has long avoided.

Herrick, at Artisan Partners, says any rejection of Couche-Tard’s bid would set an important precedent for the rest of the market. “If [Seven & i] walk away, shareholders need to understand what was on offer. We need to know, if Seven & i is saying that the offer isn’t good enough, what exactly wasn’t good enough.” 

On Friday, Artisan sent a letter to the board of Seven & i setting a deadline for it to update investors on the takeover bid, warning that management will be “held accountable” if it dismissed the approach out of hand.

Many analysts and investors suspect that managements across Japan, watching this saga unfold, are growing concerned they will find themselves in a similar position before long.

Several prominent activist funds — two of which were involved in epic battles with the electronics group Toshiba — have previously said that their power to change Japan would ultimately be eclipsed if more overseas corporations and private equity funds followed Couche-Tard’s lead.

Japanese M&A lawyers say that, since Meti’s revisions to the guidelines last year, they have been inundated with requests from listed Japanese companies for advice on the options available should an unsolicited bid emerge.

Whatever happens with Couche-Tard, its takeover attempt will have profound implications for Seven & i and the rest of Japan, according to veteran fund managers. This is a market, says one, where companies have for decades managed to convince the outside world that they were simply not for sale at any price, and that an unsolicited approach would be doomed to more or less instant failure.

Many of the gems of corporate Japan, some of which have also posted mixed financial returns, or whose shares trade at notable discounts to their US or European rivals, can now reasonably expect to receive serious takeover approaches that they cannot simply dismiss, says one senior Japanese lawyer.

The head of one global fund that has invested in Japan for several decades says he had expected that the first significant tests of the new M&A guidelines would come from Japanese companies looking for domestic consolidation. He adds that this was the outcome probably intended by Meti when it updated the corporate governance regime.

But the Couche-Tard bid leapfrogs that process, bringing a foreign company in as an unsolicited bidder and potentially paving the way for many more. 

Some have talked about Calbee, the snack maker, consumer products group Kao, video game developer Square Enix, sportswear brand Asics and brewer Sapporo as examples of Japanese companies that would be prized additions for larger overseas rivals.

Japan’s M&A market, the investor continues, is perfectly set up for aggressive takeover tactics. Companies are not used to running defence campaigns, reflexively seeking a friendly domestic bidder rather than standing their ground. There is no shortage of these “white knights” because so many Japanese industries are highly fragmented.

Nigel Muston, a Japan retail analyst at CLSA Securities, says investor behaviour suggests a widespread belief that a Rubicon has now been crossed.

“Even if most investors feel that [the Couche-Tard] deal is not going to happen, they are staying in Seven & i stock because they believe it can never go back to where it was before the bid was announced,” he says.

7-Eleven’s image of permanence and centrality to Japanese daily life could yet become a key factor in this particular battle, say analysts, and ensure that every twist in the tale will come under intense scrutiny.

Meti in particular will be closely watched for signals that its more progressive faction, which seems happy for Japan to become a centre of global M&A activity even if that means some famous companies falling into foreign hands, is in the ascendancy.

The target may yet find itself protected, say analysts at JPMorgan. In a country where earthquakes, tsunamis and tropical storms are relatively frequent, the government sees the nation’s convenience stores as “lifeline infrastructure” that should not be under the control of non-Japanese owners.

But Ellen Lee, a portfolio manager at Los Angeles-based Causeway Capital Management, which is a top-30 shareholder, says Seven & i’s board “should not seek government protection without merit”.

“Maximising shareholder value should be a key criterion,” she adds. “To disregard it will jeopardise global investors’ confidence in governance at Seven & i and the effectiveness of Japan’s corporate governance reforms.”

The primacy of shareholder value, largely unquestioned in other large developed markets, is still very much up for debate in Japan. Ogawa, at Nippon Active Value Fund, describes it as “the eternal question: for whom is a Japanese company run?”

There appears little doubt about the bidder’s views on the matter. Couche-Tard is “the thing that was always missing”, according to the veteran investor. “Someone to step up and accept the risk of becoming known as a horrible person, an aggressive bidder prepared to take a reputational hit in Japan. But Couche-Tard hasn’t got anything else it will ever want in Japan, so what has it got to lose?”

Travis Lundy, an independent special situations analyst who publishes on the Smartkarma platform, says the Canadian group “is very aggressive and religious about costs, while Seven & i is religious about customer experience, offering multiple kinds of delicious onigiri, freshly made sandwiches, fluffy bread, yoghurts, the lot”.

For many Japanese, that is what the takeover battle could ultimately boil down to. “If Couche-Tard’s goal is to increase margins,” says Ogawa, “it’s hard to figure out how that can happen without a degradation of customer experience.”

FT : Rightmove targeted for takeover offer by News Corp’s REA

Rightmove targeted for takeover offer by News Corp’s REA
Murdoch-owned property listings group says deal for £4.4bn UK peer would be ‘transformational’

Australia’s largest property listings company REA Group, majority owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, is considering a cash and shares offer for its £4.4bn-valued UK peer Rightmove, as it aims to become the largest online real estate business across both markets.

REA, one of Australia’s largest listed companies, said it saw “clear similarities” between the two businesses and a potential acquisition as a “transformational opportunity”.

It has yet to make an approach, but the company revealed it was considering the move after reports that it was working with Deutsche Bank on a large overseas acquisition. Rightmove had a market value of £4.36bn at Friday’s close in London.

REA has until the end of September to formally make an offer or walk away under UK takeover laws now that it has publicly expressed its interest. The company’s stock value has increased by 25 per cent in the past year, with the strength of the Australian housing market boosting profit growth.

Shares in REA dropped 7 per cent after it revealed the potential UK expansion, which is likely to involve an equity raising given the deal’s size.

In a note, stockbroker Angus Aitken described Owen Wilson, a former investment banker appointed REA chief executive in 2018, as a “sensible” executive looking to make a “common sense” acquisition.

“In the end, the worst M&A is ego-driven,” he wrote. “There is no ego here in our view, this is all about long-term economic returns.”

REA was founded in the mid-1990s in a garage in the Melbourne suburb of Doncaster and briefly became a stock market darling during the dotcom bubble after it floated on the Australian Securities Exchange in 1999.

Its shares then crashed and News Corp bought a 44 per cent stake in 2001 for about A$2mn, in what has been described as one of Lachlan Murdoch’s smartest moves. News Corp increased its stake to 62 per cent in 2005 after it tried to buy out REA for A$120mn but was rebuffed. The company is now worth A$26bn (US$17.6bn).

The activist investor Starboard Value last year put pressure on News Corp to separate its property businesses — including the REA stake — from the broader media business in order to unlock value.

REA has operations in India and a 20 per cent stake in Move Inc — the US online listings company also controlled by News Corp — but it has also quit some international markets.

It built a European online listings business that was sold to the UK’s Oakley Capital Private Equity in 2016. Last month, it sold its minority stake in south-east Asian real estate listings company PropertyGuru after it was sold to Swedish investor EQT.

FT : UK government to probe ‘dynamic’ pricing behind Oasis ticket price surge

UK government to probe ‘dynamic’ pricing behind Oasis ticket price surge
Cost jumped by hundreds of pounds during online sale as a result of ‘dynamic’ pricing system

Ministers are planning to probe the use of “dynamic” pricing that has forced up costs for thousands of music fans who struggled to secure tickets for rock band Oasis.

The government will include the practice used by sites such as Ticketmaster in a forthcoming consultation into the ticketing market in the UK, which will be aimed at cracking down on unfair pricing and ticket touts.

In a statement on Sunday night, UK culture secretary Lisa Nandy said it had been “depressing to see vastly inflated prices excluding ordinary fans from having a chance of enjoying their favourite band live”. 

She said the government will include “issues around the transparency and use of dynamic pricing, including the technology around queueing systems which incentivise it, in our forthcoming consultation on consumer protections for ticket resales”.

She added: “Working with artists, industry and fans we can create a fairer system that ends the scourge of touts, rip-off resales and ensures tickets at fair prices.”

Ticketmaster, the world’s biggest seller of music and sporting tickets, has come under fire for using a “dynamic” pricing system that changes the cost of tickets according to demand, a practice often adopted in the US. Ticketmaster says the system helps stop ticket touts, and gives more money to artists by allowing them to price their tickets nearer market value.

The reunion of the Mancunian band sparked fevered demand for tickets among its millions of fans, including not just the original audiences but also their children given a resurgence in 1990s music among younger generations.

Tickets for the first Oasis gigs in the UK and Ireland in 16 years went on sale on Saturday morning, with the tour expected to generate hundreds of millions of pounds across ticket sales, hospitality and hotel packaging, merchandise and possible media rights sales. The band has already benefited from a surge on streaming services for its tracks.

However, fans were left angered after waiting for many hours to access tickets, and then finding that seats were priced much higher than initially stated. Hundreds took to social media complaining of the spiralling cost, with standing tickets for some venues jumping by hundreds of pounds. Many also reported being thrown out of the queue after waiting for hours.

David Baines, Labour MP for St Helens North, said it was “shocking to hear that Ticketmaster UK are now using ‘dynamic pricing’ to fleece fans and rake in the cash”, adding that it was “especially insulting for those who have queued all day”. 

The Labour government has made tackling higher prices caused by ticket touts — who often buy up large numbers of tickets and sell them on at a massive profit — a priority for its first year in power, and said it was committed to supporting fair and transparent ticket pricing.

Dublin MEP Regina Doherty said Ireland’s Competition and Consumer Protection Commission should investigate Ticketmaster following the surge in pricing for tickets at the city’s Croke Park.

“The EU’s Digital Services Act has sections included specifically to ensure large platforms that control aspects of the digital economy don’t just make up their own rules that are unfair for consumers,” she said. “I think TicketMaster’s ‘in-demand’ pricing structure certainly needs investigating in this context.”

Ticketmaster is owned by US media company Live Nation, which manages music venues and festivals. The outrage will add to the concerns among music executives and artists over Live Nation’s power after it acquired the ticketing platform in 2009, allowing it to span management of venues and artists as well as ticket sales.

The US Department of Justice, along with 30 state and district attorneys-general, filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster in May for “monopolisation and other unlawful conduct that thwarts competition in markets across the live entertainment industry”. 

The lawsuit seeks to restore competition, and provide better choices at lower prices for fans. US attorney-general Merrick B Garland said it was “time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster”.

Cris Miller, global managing director of Viagogo, the world’s largest ticket resale marketplace for live events, said he was “glad to see the Department of Justice act finally” to sue Live Nation for monopolising. “Ticketmaster has a monopoly [in the UK] too . . . they have a disproportionate amount of control over the concerts.”

Pricing strategies are also agreed with artists, however, which has sparked criticism of Oasis. Artists and promoters can turn down dynamic pricing to create a level playing field for all fans.

Aidan Moffat, of Scottish band Arab Strap, said on X that as “many people are finding out today, dynamic pricing is an utterly despicable practice, and acts who do it are no better than the touts they claim to oppose . . . Voice of the working classes? Pfft.”

On its website, Ticketmaster said “prices are adjusted according to supply and demand. The goal is to give fans fair and safe access to the best tickets while enabling artists and other people involved in staging live events to price tickets closer to their true market value.”

Ticketmaster was not available for comment on Sunday, while promoter SJM Concerts did not immediately respond to a request for comment.