WSJ : Activist Shareholder Plans Proxy Battle at Shake Shack

Activist Shareholder Plans Proxy Battle at Shake Shack
Engaged Capital seeks three seats on burger chain’s board, has 6.6% stake

Activist investor Engaged Capital is planning to run a proxy fight for three board seats at high-end burger chain Shake Shack SHAK -1.93%decrease; red down pointing triangle, according to people familiar with the matter.

Including swaps, Engaged has a roughly 6.6% stake, the people said.

Shake Shack had a market capitalization of roughly $2.8 billion as of Friday. Its shares have been cut nearly in half from an early-2021 high—even after rallying more than 50% this year—as inflation pressures have led some customers to pull back on spending and compressed margins. Shake Shack has also struggled to bring back lunchtime diners in bigger cities as fewer people commute to offices daily.

Engaged, which has been in talks with Shake Shack’s management for over six months, sent a letter to the company’s board in March detailing its proposal for new directors and other changes to help boost the restaurant chain’s lagging stock price, but the two sides have thus far failed to reach an agreement, the people said.

“We are executing our strategic plan and making substantial operational and financial progress,” a spokesman for Shake Shack said in a statement. “We are well positioned to continue enhancing value for shareholders.”

Shake Shack was founded by New York City restaurateur Danny Meyer, who has served as chairman of board since January 2010. Current Chief Executive Randy Garutti, who also has a spot on the 11-person board, has held his role since April 2012.

The company now operates more than 460 locations globally, including about 300 in the U.S., and recently has invested more money into drive-through lanes to serve suburban customers.

Engaged’s nominees are Kevin Reddy, a restaurant-industry veteran who previously served as chief executive of Noodles & Co.; Joel Bines, who led the global retail practice at consulting firm AlixPartners; and Christopher Hetrick, co-founder of Engaged and the firm’s director of research.

In addition to the new directors, Engaged has asked Shake Shack to retain a consulting firm to help improve operating efficiency and make changes to its supervoting share structure, which dates back to the company’s 2015 initial public offering.

Engaged said it has determined ways to double Shake Shack’s profitability within two years and believes the burger chain should get rid of its staggered board, which means that not all directors are up for election at the same time, the people said.

“Thus far, management has been reluctant to commit to a timeframe for regaining lost profitability,” Engaged founder and Chief Investment Officer Glenn Welling said in the letter, which was seen by The Wall Street Journal.

“In order for the company to reach its full growth potential and profitably scale this brand across the U.S. and the world, we believe significant adjustments to the company’s real estate strategy, store design, labor planning and supply chain framework will be required,” Mr. Welling said.

Shake Shack earlier this month said it was anticipating fiscal 2023 to be a record year for adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, with its restaurant-level margins returning to between 19% and 20%.

Newport Beach, Calif.-based Engaged, which was founded in 2012, manages roughly $1 billion. The firm previously pushed Jamba Juice’s parent company to slash costs, with Mr. Welling gaining a seat on the chain’s board in 2015, and it helped shake up apparel retailer Abercrombie & Fitch’s board.

Shake Shack’s annual shareholder meeting is expected to be held in June, according to proxy materials. A window for shareholder nominations ran from Feb. 15 through March 17.

WSJ : The World’s Biggest Gold Miner Bets Big on Copper

The World’s Biggest Gold Miner Bets Big on Copper
Newmont’s $17.5 billion recommended takeover of Australia’s Newcrest boosts its exposure to key metal in energy transition

SYDNEY—Newmont NEM 0.13%increase; green up pointing triangle said it has agreed to acquire Australia’s Newcrest Mining NCMGY 0.37%increase; green up pointing triangle for $17.5 billion, concluding weeks of talks over a sweetened offer by the U.S. company that wants to complete the largest-ever M&A deal in the gold-mining industry.

Newmont’s pursuit of Newcrest illustrates how gold producers are seeking to make deals as the industry is struggling to make large discoveries of the precious metal. It also extends a battle for control among miners for commodities essential for making electric vehicles and renewable-energy infrastructure, as Newcrest’s gold mines also produce significant amounts of copper.

The global mining sector is experiencing a wave of deal making not seen for years, contrasting with a lull in overall global M&A activity. While gold producers, including Newmont, had been active as they sought mines that could replace aging operations and lower costs, the industry’s hunger for deals has broadened out to encompass many of the world’s biggest mining companies, such as BHP and Glencore GLNCY 1.22%increase; green up pointing triangle.

The energy transition and government policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. are driving miners’ desire for deals as the run-up in commodity prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine early in 2022 has left companies flush with cash. Gold prices are hovering close to their record high, up more than 10%, as investors bet that inflation will remain elevated despite central bank action to bring it under control.

Copper is at the heart of the latest spending spree by miners, amid expectations that demand for the metal will rise as the world decarbonizes. Electric vehicles and wind farms use copper in much greater quantities than gasoline-powered cars and coal-fired power stations.

Tom Palmer, Newmont’s president and chief executive, said the opportunity to produce more copper had been a key attraction of a deal to acquire Newcrest along with the size of its resource base that can sustain mining for decades. The location of Newcrest’s mines in low-risk jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia also bolstered the appeal of a takeover.

“We will still be clearly known as a gold-mining company,” Mr. Palmer said in an interview. “But we’ll have a good exposure to copper and a growing exposure to copper, and certainly that rationale is landing with everyone that we engage with.”

Some mining companies and analysts predict the industry will struggle to raise production of copper to keep pace with demand, amid a lack of discoveries and permitting challenges. Unlike battery materials such as nickel and cobalt, copper is difficult to substitute in most applications.

Wood Mackenzie, a U.K.-based consulting firm, forecasts a deepening shortfall in copper from the middle of this decade, which could send prices of the metal higher amid a scramble for scarce supply.

To meet Paris climate targets, more than $23 billion a year will need to be spent on new copper projects over the next 30 years, 64% higher than the average annual spend over the past three decades, Wood Mackenzie said.

Already this year, BHP has completed its biggest deal in a decade by acquiring Australian copper-and-gold miner OZ Minerals. Copper is also part of the appeal for Glencore’s roughly $23 billion merger proposal for Teck Resources. Teck has so far resisted Glencore’s advances.

Newmont estimates that roughly 30% of its global reserves would be copper once it has completed the takeover of Newcrest. Copper is often found in areas with large deposits of gold.

The agreed deal for Newcrest involves Newmont exchanging 0.400 of its own shares for each Newcrest share. In addition, the U.S. company will allow Newcrest to pay a special dividend of up to $1.10 a share around the time that the deal completes. Those terms are in line with a revised offer pitched by Newmont roughly a month ago.

Mr. Palmer said the company could look to sell some assets in future, but didn’t specify where in the world those operations might be. He described Newcrest’s Lihir operation in Papua New Guinea, as “one of the great gold mines in the world” that would help to balance Newmont’s asset portfolio. Some analysts had speculated that Newmont could look to exit Papua New Guinea after completing the takeover of Newcrest, given the country’s history of political instability.

Newcrest, confirming the deal in a separate statement on Monday, said it implies a price for its own stock of 29.27 Australian dollars, equivalent to $19.53. That represents a 30.4% premium to where its shares were trading in early February prior to Newmont’s interest becoming known. Still, that is lower than the implied value of A$32.87 a Newcrest share in early April and largely reflects a fall in Newmont’s stock price on the New York Stock Exchange since then.

WSJ : $14 Billion Deal to Create Mega-Pipeline Company

$14 Billion Deal to Create Mega-Pipeline Company
Energy deal combines Oneok and Magellan, forming the second-largest U.S.-based pipeline company by stock-market value

Pipeline operator Oneok agreed Sunday to buy smaller rival Magellan Midstream Partners for about $14 billion, a deal that would form one of the biggest U.S. companies involved in transporting and storing energy.

The deal’s price tag, including $8.8 billion in equity and $5.1 billion in cash, amounted to a 22% premium over Magellan’s common units as of Friday. Oneok said it would assume Magellan’s $5 billion in net debt. The deal was expected to close in the third quarter, pending the approval of regulators and investors.

The proposed tie-up would be by far the biggest U.S. energy deal announced so far this year. Some analysts have said the U.S. oil-and-gas sector is ripe for major corporate transactions this year, after energy prices surged last year and left companies with a large windfall of cash. In Oneok’s case, much of the cash portion would be financed through a debt offering, it said.

As of Friday, the companies’ combined stock-market value of nearly $40 billion exceeded that of large U.S. competitors Energy Transfer, Kinder Morgan, and Williams Cos. Among operators based in the U.S., only Enterprise Products Partners was valued at a higher amount, at $56.4 billion. Canadian rivals Enbridge and TC Energy were also worth more.

Magellan owns almost 10,000 miles of pipelines carrying refined products, such as gasoline, with dozens of interconnected storage facilities in Texas and Oklahoma through the Midwestern U.S. to North Dakota. It also owns marine storage facilities in the Houston area and Corpus Christi, Texas.

Oneok has a vast network of natural gas liquids pipelines, storage terminals and natural gas pipelines in many of the same regions in the Midwestern U.S., particularly in its home state of Oklahoma and in Texas.

Oneok expects it will be able to generate $1 billion of free cash flow in the first four years after the transaction closes.

Oneok Chief Executive Pierce Norton said the tie-up, in addition to being a vast expansion into a refined products pipeline network, would enable it to eventually grow into green energy businesses, such as so-called sustainable fuels and hydrogen.

“Our expanded products platform will present further opportunities in our core businesses as well as enhance our ability to participate in the ongoing energy transformation,” he said.

Goldman Sachs was the lead financial adviser for Oneok, while Kirkland & Ellis was the company’s legal adviser. Magellan’s financial adviser was Morgan Stanley & Co., and Latham & Watkins and Richards, Layton & Finger were Magellan’s legal advisers.

FT : Gold miner Newmont seals $19bn deal for Australia’s Newcrest

Gold miner Newmont seals $19bn deal for Australia’s Newcrest
Newcrest board recommends shareholders vote in favour of takeover in latest mining industry consolidation

The board of Australia’s Newcrest Mining has unanimously backed a A$29bn ($19bn) takeover offer by its US rival Newmont, paving the way for the world’s largest gold miner to strengthen its grip on the sector.

Subject to a shareholder vote and regulatory approval, Newmont will acquire Newcrest — which it originally founded in the 1960s before spinning off through a merger with BHP — with an offer of 0.4 shares for every one in the Australian business.

The deal will strengthen Denver-based Newmont’s operations in Australia, Canada and Papua New Guinea and potentially create a ripple effect in the industry as smaller mines owned by the combined business are shed.

It is the latest example of consolidation within the global mining industry as major companies look to buy promising operations to increase scale and exposure to critical minerals needed for the energy transition. Newmont’s move significantly increases its exposure to copper and follows BHP’s takeover of rival Oz Minerals, Rio Tinto’s buyout of Turquoise Hill and Allkem’s merger with Livent to create a more substantial lithium player.

Newmont first approached Newcrest in February with an all-share offer but was rebuffed. It raised its bid in April to A$29.4bn, which led Newcrest’s board to open its books.

The slightly lower value of the deal, which includes debt, reflects a decline in Newmont’s share price in the past two months but still amounts to a more than 30 per cent premium on where it stood just before the initial offer was made.

US-listed Newmont’s chief executive Tom Palmer — an Australian who hails from the mining town of Broken Hill — said the takeover represented “exceptional value” for shareholders. “It creates an industry-leading portfolio with a multi-decade gold and copper production profile in the world’s most favourable mining jurisdictions,” he said.

The deal comes against a backdrop of gold prices rising to near record highs as banking sector issues, a dovish stance from the Federal Reserve and uncertainty around the US debt ceiling boosted gold’s safe haven status, said ANZ bank.

Rahul Anand, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, said in a note: “We see the deal, if approved, yielding operational synergies around project sequencing and growth optionality, as well as the combined entity increasing its diversification of operations in low-risk jurisdictions.”

Palmer said due diligence had identified synergies of $500mn that the company expected to achieve within two years of the deal completing, as well as opportunities to enhance cash flow by $2bn in that period.

Newcrest will pay a final dividend to shareholders as part of the takeover agreement. The combined business will retain a secondary listing on Australia’s stock exchange.

FT : Shares jump in Chinese state enterprises as investors seek high yield

Shares jump in Chinese state enterprises as investors seek high yield
Government-run organisations offer better returns than bond market

Investors are ploughing money into shares of China’s state-run enterprises as they seek a haven from weakness in the Chinese economy and better returns than those offered by the country’s government bond market.

Since the start of April, shares in government-run banks have rocketed with state lenders Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China up more than 20 and 10 per cent, respectively, in a rare rally for the country’s bank shares.

More generally, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Red Chips index of state-run enterprises has climbed about 10 per cent this year compared with a slight loss for the broader Hang Seng China Enterprises index.

The rally in SOE stocks reflects a hunt for higher dividend yield, analysts said, as a range of China-focused investors lose their appetite for government bond yields that have been driven sharply lower by investors’ flight to safety in the face of economic uncertainty.

“Funds that chase after absolute returns are hunting for stocks with high dividend yield,” said Wang Xin, an analyst with Guosen Securities. Wang added that the recent gains had been fuelled by buying from a wide range of investors, including local punters, foreign investors, insurers and even the banks’ own investment funds.

The shift into bank stocks reflects investors’ appetite for steady and low-risk returns on investment, which is now more easily satisfied by dividend payments from state stocks than Chinese sovereign bonds.

Where easing measures have pushed yields on 10-year Chinese government debt below 3 per cent, the country’s biggest banks, which as pillars of China’s financial system enjoy substantial state support, are expected to pay out yearly dividends of around 6 to 7 per cent, according to estimates from Macquarie Group.

Dexter Hsu, an analyst with Macquarie, said support from Beijing helped ensure steady and relatively high dividend payments by state banks, allowing them to outperform renminbi bond yields while providing investors with a safer play than private companies.

Wang Qi, chief executive at fund manager MegaTrust Investment in Hong Kong, said SOEs had also become “prime candidates for trading” thanks to a years-long deleveraging campaign by Beijing that had helped make their balance sheets healthier.

Top officials have also been talking up the valuations in the state sector. Last year, China Securities Regulatory Commission chair Yi Huiman used a high-profile speech to introduce the phrase “valuation system with Chinese characteristics” that has since become a popular term in the industry when analysing the recent surge in value of SOE stocks. Yi also singled out SOEs and state-run financial firms for their “role as pillars of the economy”.

“There aren’t any specific policies there beyond the slogan,” said Wang, at MegaTrust. These stocks have typically lagged behind the market and “the leading SOEs have been directed by the government to find ways to increase their stock valuation — or at least narrow their valuation discount.”

But while the state sector has found renewed favour, especially among China’s many retail investors, analysts said private sector stocks were more likely to outperform if the economy found its footing.

“We indeed see the government wanting to push valuations higher for SOEs,” said Liu Minyue, investment specialist for Asian and global emerging markets equities at BNP Paribas Asset Management. “But this looks more like a short-term trend for share prices. In the longer term, private companies will still have to be the primary drivers of China’s growth.”

FT : The DeFi world faces a jarring transition

The DeFi world faces a jarring transition
Regulators are stepping up scrutiny of crypto marketplaces that operate without meaningful oversight

US regulators have been stepping up their scrutiny of decentralised finance, a burgeoning marketplace for crypto assets that operates without meaningful regulatory oversight.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a revised proposal last month clarifying that DeFi crypto trading systems should be regulated like stock exchanges. And the US Treasury also issued a paper in April that pointed out the illicit finance risks in DeFi.

These moves are the latest sign that, even as regulators crack down on crypto’s centralised intermediaries in the wake of the FTX bankruptcy, they are attempting to prevent DeFi from becoming a crypto haven. Doing so will challenge the central animating principles underlying DeFi: self-reliance and the credo that “code is law”.

The failure of FTX exposed the conflicts inherent in the business model of crypto platforms. These platforms play the role of broker, exchange, market maker and custodian — all required to be independent in traditional markets. FTX allegedly used customer assets to prop up its affiliated trading firm, putting those assets at risk and, ultimately, resulting in customer losses.

In the wake of FTX, some in the crypto community pointed to DeFi as the answer. In DeFi, market participants maintain custody of their own crypto assets and transact using protocols — a set of code, standards and processes. This happens without the overt participation of centralised intermediaries. Decentralised exchanges and lending protocols have accounted for more than 10 per cent of daily crypto trading activity at times in 2023.

Regulators around the world, anticipating DeFi as the next frontier in crypto, have studied its risks, guided by the principle that risks should be regulated. The SEC points out that, despite undertaking functions commonly performed by a stock exchange, DeFi trading protocols have not even attempted to comply with securities laws.

But while complying with securities laws is necessary, it is hardly sufficient to make DeFi a trustworthy market. What would it take? At a minimum, market participants must trust they will receive the basic benefit of their bargain, and have recourse if they do not.

DeFi does not adhere to that principle — and arguably turns it on its head. DeFi purports to replace trust in institutions — intermediaries, laws, regulations — with trust in the DeFi protocols. In DeFi, in other words, “code is law”. But, as discussed in a paper by Antonio Weiss, Jonathan Everhart and myself, DeFi has no answer to the simple question: what happens if something goes wrong?

Smart contracts — the “instructions” that enable transactions to be executed on blockchains — will robotically execute the task they are programmed to carry out. However, smart contracts cannot be programmed to address all circumstances that arise in markets.

In traditional markets, participants who suffer harm can seek recourse from intermediaries, regulators and, ultimately, from any counterparty through the legal system. DeFi participants, on the other hand, are expected to accept the outcome even when they are scammed. And DeFi protocols are hacked or exploited on a seemingly daily basis. In 2022 alone, more than $3.1bn of crypto assets were stolen from DeFi protocols, representing more than 80 per cent of all thefts involving crypto assets, according to Chainanalysis.

Ultimately, “code is law” means “caveat emptor”. That doctrine, with its sense of self-reliance, resonates with many in the crypto world. But every meaningful financial market in the world provides recourse to investors who are harmed and accountability for actions that undermine market integrity.

This would require a sea change in DeFi and puncture its aesthetic of self-reliance, which seems driven by nostalgia for a (largely fictional) time before the purity of markets was disturbed by messy laws and regulations designed to bring financial market activities within societal norms.

Indeed, crypto advocates have all but ruled out the possibility of adhering to existing standards, some saying it would actually be impossible. SEC chair Gary Gensler made clear that approach will fall on deaf ears at the regulator. “Calling yourself a DeFi platform is not an excuse to defy the securities laws,” he said last month.

In the end, DeFi is unlikely to flourish if it remains outside regulatory parameters. And yet, it is not clear what remains of the concept if it is brought fully within scope. The transition will be jarring for those who believe that laws and regulations can be replaced by trustless markets where code reigns supreme.

FT : ‘Biotech is the ultimate impact investment’ — family offices can’t get enou

‘Biotech is the ultimate impact investment’ — family offices can’t get enough of it
Strong personal interest in healthcare among reasons for increase in flow of family office money into venture capital

The Lauber family built its wealth in real estate, and that’s where it stayed for decades. But, lately, some of the family money has a buzzy new destination: biotech.

“I’m kind of like a hypochondriac,” says Robin Lauber, the third-generation heir who is diversifying the Swiss family’s wealth, mainly into companies working in cutting-edge biology. Lauber, 30, is particularly interested in longevity medicine, a nascent strand of research that aims to slow down the ageing process.

“I want to continue living as long as possible,” he says, pointing out that there are other animal species that have a lifespan of as long as 200 years.

Lauber is hardly alone among rich people seeking to use science to extend their lives. US tech billionaires are also pouring money into longevity projects, not least the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

And old age is only one focus in a wider movement of rich families’ money into healthcare. Around a fifth of single family offices have invested in healthcare or biotech in the past two to three years, according to Alastair Graham, who tracks the investments of some 2,145 single family offices through his database, Highworth Research. The vast majority of those investing in healthcare are in North America and Europe.

“There is a tremendous movement into conversations about the healthcare space,” says Eric Casaburi, who chairs a Florida-based group of Tiger 21, a membership network of around 1,200 wealthy individuals who advise one another on investments and philanthropy. A survey of Tiger 21 members, who are based in the US, Britain, Canada, Switzerland and Portugal, found that nearly a quarter planned to invest in healthcare this year.

The emphasis on healthcare is reflected in the flow of family office money into venture capital — a fast-growing investment channel for young companies. A report in January by Campden Wealth and Silicon Valley Bank, the Californian lender that was rescued from collapse in March, found that, while overall family office investment in venture capital fell back in last year’s market turmoil, from a record $136.9bn in 2021 to $65bn, healthcare investment has remained robust.

The report, which surveyed 139 ultra-high net worth families or family offices, identified popular healthcare themes including the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning for drug discovery and advances in cancer treatment.

Max Kunkel, chief investment officer for global family and institutional wealth in the global wealth management arm of UBS, the Swiss bank, says that healthcare appeals to family offices because three significant trends are driving growth and innovation in the sector: demographics; technological progress; and the unsustainable trajectory of healthcare costs.

“Family offices, especially the more established ones, have a very long term time horizon, and they look at broad trends,” he says. They are also willing to undertake the longer-term investments that are often needed in early-stage biotech because “they don’t fear illiquidity.”

The recent increase in healthcare investment by family offices comes despite the sector’s difficulties in the public markets, where it has suffered from the general move out of growth stocks. The Nasdaq biotechnology index is trading more than 20 per cent lower than its 2021 peak, compared with a decline of about 10 per cent in the wider S&P 500 for the same period.

Lauber’s investment comes from a family fortune built by his grandparents, from property across Switzerland, mainly affordable housing. For two decades the family drew on the income generated by that portfolio without investing it more widely. Then, in 2015, Lauber set up a family office to put the money to work and made his first biotech investments in 2018.

The Lauber family office, Infinitas Capital, still invests in real estate. But about half of the family-office investment now goes into venture capital through two funds, Prediction Capital, which invests in consumer tech and fintech, and Korify Capital, a healthcare-focused fund. About 70 per cent of Korify’s investments are in biotech, and Lauber intends to increase that proportion over time. As well as longevity medicine, Korify focuses on mental health.

Meanwhile, Lauber says almost all his personal wealth — which comes separately from his own entrepreneurial activities, including bringing the US chain Dunkin’ Donuts to Switzerland — goes into biotech investment.

Among Korify’s holdings is New York-based Gameto, which is applying cell-based therapies to areas such as fertility treatment and menopause-linked health problems. Another is Cambrian Bio, also based in New York, which is developing various drugs to target the biological drivers of ageing.

Lauber’s enthusiasm for biotech has proven contagious. He says he has brought about 30 other family offices and wealthy individuals, from Switzerland and further afield, including the UK and US, into Korify Capital. For most of them, he adds, this was their first foray into biotech.

Biotech comes with more risk than many other sectors. Scientific breakthroughs that show promise in test tubes and animals sometimes hit barriers when confronted with the complexities and quirks of the human body. Sometimes, innovations that seem to work when tested on a small group of people fall down when they move into larger, more robust trials.

In 2014, Oxford-based Circassia Pharmaceuticals, an allergy specialist, launched a £581mn initial public offering, a record at the time for a London-listed biotech. But it crashed two years later, after a large trial found its cat allergy treatment was no more effective than a placebo.

While well-connected wealthy investors can play a role in influencing the success or failure of companies in sectors such as real estate or finance — for example, through business contacts — have no levers to pull if the science says the treatment does not work.

Still, the rewards in healthcare can be substantial. The biggest shareholder in BioNTech, the German vaccine maker which partnered with Pfizer to produce one of the world’s most widely used Covid-19 shots, is the family office of twin brothers Thomas and Andreas Strüngmann, who, in 1986, founded generic drugmaker Hexal and later sold it to Novartis for about $7bn.

In 2008, the Strüngmann brothers supported BioNTech with a €136.5mn seed investment in a €150mn round that enabled the founding of the company, according to Highworth Research.

They own 43.5 per cent of BioNTech through an investment vehicle called AT Impf, according to a recent SEC filing, making their stake worth around $14bn. “It’s a great example of the capacity of a single family office to deploy patient capital,” says Highworth’s Graham.

Examples such as this have helped Lauber to make the case to other family offices for investing in the sector. “Covid has shown them that biotech investing can be super rewarding,” he says. “Biotech is the ultimate impact investment.”

As family offices embrace biotech, they are getting smarter about it. Over the past 10 years, family offices have become more professional in how they assess potential investments in healthcare, says Masha Strømme, a former investment banker and research scientist whose Oslo-based family office funds and mentors early-stage biotechs. Her family office’s holdings include Exact Therapeutics, which is developing the use of ultrasound to deliver cancer therapy more effectively.

“PhDs in microbiology and biochemistry as well as medical doctors are now running investments for some of these family offices,” she says. “People are gearing up to know what they invest in,” she says. In the past, many family-office investments into biotech were made “with the heart” into diseases that affected a member of the family, or its close associates, she notes.

Biotech itself may be a relatively risky proposition, but there are ways of reducing risk. The buildings used by the sector, for example, could be a safer bet. That is the view of the Noé Group, the family office of the UK-based Noé family, which made its money in property and is now headed by Leo Noé, son of the founder, Salomon.

In 2020, the Noé Group invested in a large campus in Eindhoven in the Netherlands that brings together laboratories, clean rooms and manufacturing facilities alongside spaces for offices and university lectures. The campus aims to attract a broad range of tenants, from universities to start-ups and larger companies, in order to create a scientific ecosystem.

Noé’s sons, Zvi and Raphael, first visited the site in 2018 and were ready to make an investment in early 2020. The pandemic delayed the investment by a few months, but it also helped to reinforce the case. While people stayed away from offices and retail spaces, laboratories and manufacturing sites were still humming.

Earlier this year, the Noé Group invested €30mn in three buildings with laboratory space in Madrid, Spain, and the brothers say they intend to further expand their portfolio of life science real estate.

Life science is a sector with fast-growing space requirements, says David Bloom, Leo Noé’s son-in-law. That’s in part because biological research increasingly depends on sifting through enormous data sets produced by advances such as large scale genomic sequencing, and those data centres need space. “From a real estate perspective, that’s a good thing,” he says. Bloom’s arm of the Noé Group invests in data centres. Its portfolio includes the Kao Data Campus, in Harlow, which houses Cambridge-1, one of the most powerful computers in the UK.

The Covid-19 pandemic put life sciences under a spotlight, accelerating a growing interest in healthcare that was already under way among family offices, says Nooman Haque, a life sciences investor based in the UK. He says family offices have risen in prominence as sources of capital for venture funding rounds. “It’s not unusual now, even in the UK, for a company when on a fundraising trail to identify a handful of family offices,” he says. “That door has been opened a little bit.”

For some family offices, investment in healthcare is deeply personal, says Los Angeles-based Greg Suess, an adviser to Forbes 400 families for Activist Artists Management, a talent management and advisory group. A few years ago, Suess set up a fund whose key investment themes include the therapeutic applications of cannabis after several of his clients asked about it. Many had personal reasons for their interest, such as a relative with arthritis or anxiety. He says about 20 families are involved in the Activist Green Fund, which manages $2.2mn.

“I got the life-science bug early on,” says veteran tech entrepreneur Hermann Hauser, who co-founded Acorn Computers in 1978, then the chipmaker Arm in 1990. His first meaningful foray into biotech was an early investment in Cambridge-based genome sequencing company Solexa, which was founded in 1998 and later acquired by San Diego-based Illumina for $600mn.

Hauser was impressed by the rate of progress: the cost of sequencing the human genome fell from $10mn to $1,000 — or a factor of 10,000 — between 2007 and 2014. By comparison, the cost of semiconductors took a decade to reduce by a factor of 30, he says. His conclusion: “Computing is incredibly slow compared to life sciences.”

Since then, Hauser has been a key investor in life sciences, both through his family office and the venture capital firm that he co-founded, Amadeus Capital Partners. He says his personal portfolio is split equally between bioscience and tech.

Many figures from the tech world are putting their money into healthcare. Bezos is reported to be a key investor in Altos Labs, a start-up with sites in San Francisco, San Diego and Cambridge, UK, which says its mission is to use “cellular rejuvenation programming to reverse disease, injury and the disabilities that can occur throughout life”. In 2021, PayPal founder and billionaire, Peter Thiel invested heavily in Utah-based Blackrock Neurotech, which aims to help neurologically impaired patients regain lost skills.

Fidji Simo, chief executive of the delivery company Instacart, has co-founded a new medical and research centre in Salt Lake City, Utah, focusing on diseases that involve both the immune and nervous systems.

Paul Kessler and Diana Derycz-Kessler, a husband-and-wife team who are longtime investors in biotech and also founded the Los Angeles Film School, prefer to invest in later-stage public companies via private investment in public equities, or Pipe. During the 1990s, Kessler was one of the pioneers of this investment style, where companies issue shares to private investors directly, rather than through the stock market, although those shares may subsequently be traded publicly. Kessler says Pipe investing allows him to get closer to the management teams and better understand the science.

He says the majority of the couple’s investments are in biotech, although they also invest in energy and tech. “What fascinated me about biotechnology and drug development was how it could extend, improve and create happier lives for people who’ve been afflicted by a horrible disease,” he says. “How many can say they don’t know someone afflicted by cancer?”

Sometimes, the personal aspect comes later. A few years ago, the Kesslers invested in Iovance Biotherapeutics, a cancer immunotherapy company whose most advanced experimental treatment is for melanoma. They were impressed by the science behind the company, which arose from research conducted at the National Cancer Institute in the US under top scientist Steven Rosenberg.

After investing in Iovance, Kessler received a melanoma diagnosis, which has since been treated successfully by surgery. He says: “Because of my melanoma diagnosis — and thereafter surgery — that became very personal.” 

FT : James Anderson returns with Agnelli family backing

James Anderson returns with Agnelli family backing
Former Baillie Gifford partner to launch innovation fund as part of new $3bn investment group

James Anderson, the maverick fund manager, is returning to full-time investing a year after retiring from Baillie Gifford and is teaming up with the Agnelli family holding company for an entrepreneurial venture.

Lingotto Investment Management, a new $3bn firm that is owned by Exor, has appointed Anderson to its team of investors. He will launch a new fund focused on innovation in both public and private markets, starting with about $500mn in assets.

John Elkann, chair of Stellantis and scion of the billionaire Agnelli industrial dynasty, told the Financial Times that his vision for Lingotto was to “provide a home for very talented investment management professionals to join a place which is entrepreneurial and much focused on letting them do what they’re good at and what they love”. 

He added: “We’re not saying we want to play in the alternatives space and we want to build a $100bn business in three years. That’s not the way we reflect. We feel there are very capable investors out there . . . and they don’t necessarily want to be part of a big platform and they don’t necessarily want to be alone.” 

Lingotto will be chaired by George Osborne, the former UK chancellor who is now a banker at boutique advisory firm Robey Warshaw. Osborne has been working with Elkann over the past five years as the chair of Exor’s partners’ council, a role he is stepping back from.

Anderson, 63, is chair of Swedish investment firm Kinnevik. But he is best known for the almost four decades he spent at Baillie Gifford, where he helped turn the Edinburgh-based private partnership into an unlikely star of tech investing through early bets on the likes of Tesla and Amazon.

During Anderson’s tenure as manager of Baillie Gifford’s flagship Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, from April 30 2000 to March 31 2022, the company gained 1,155 per cent against a 354 per cent return for its benchmark FTSE All-World index during the same period.

However, Scottish Mortage’s performance has soured since Anderson’s exit, which coincided with a regime change in monetary policy. Scottish Mortgage’s shares lost a third of their value in the 12 months to March 31 as growth stocks were curbed by higher interest rates.

Anderson, who at Baillie Gifford was a longtime shareholder in Exor companies, including Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Ferrari, acknowledged that “it’s been a difficult 18 months” for growth investing but said that the long-term opportunity in sectors including artificial intelligence, healthcare and renewable energy was greater than ever.

“One of the great puzzles to me is that markets have become so sceptical and short term at a time when the pace of innovation and change, and the prospects of returns over five, 10 and 20 years, has got greater than less,” he said.

He added: “It’s essential that we carry on investing in these sectors rather than worrying about what the Federal Reserve is going to do next.” 

The initial $3bn funding for the new venture will be split evenly between Exor and Covea, the French insurer. The joint investment into Lingotto comes out of the relationship built between the two companies after Covea agreed to buy Bermuda-based reinsurer PartnerRe from Exor in 2021 for $9bn. 

In addition to Anderson, Lingotto begins with two other managing partners who are already working at Exor. Matteo Scolari, who joined Exor in 2015 from hedge fund Eton Park, will run a hedge fund strategy focused on public equities investing.

Nikhil Srinivasan, who joined Exor in 2018 after serving as the chief investment officer at Generali and Allianz, will focus on shorter-duration investments in private companies and special situations. His fund was among the backers of a recent $130mn fundraising in UK biotech group Ascend, taking a near 7 per cent stake.

Anderson will continue to be based in Edinburgh but will also have an office in London where Lingotto is based. The company is led by Exor’s longtime chief financial officer Enrico Vellano. In time, it plans to raise money from external investors and add other portfolio managers to the venture.

“It’s an entrepreneurial project,” Vellano said. “We don’t want to judge success in terms of the size of assets under management but in terms of the quality. We want to find people who share our view about how to manage capital.”

Lingotto is named after the historic Fiat factory in Turin, which was inaugurated in 1923 and whose rooftop racetrack featured in the 1969 film The Italian Job.

Last year, Anderson donated $100mn to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins university in Bologna, one of the largest known donations to a university in continental Europe.