WSJ : Iran Strengthens Military Presence on Iraq Border in Push Against Kurdish

Iran Strengthens Military Presence on Iraq Border in Push Against Kurdish Groups
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it is mobilizing on the western border to prevent infiltration of Kurdish separatists from Iraq

Iran is deploying armored and special units along its western border to prevent the infiltration of Kurdish opposition groups based in Iraq, a top commander of the Revolutionary Guard said Friday, exacerbating the risk of a wider military conflict in the volatile area.

The deployment follows an intensification of Tehran’s response to protests sweeping the country, particularly in the Kurdish border areas, which have experienced some of the most consistent antigovernment rallies. Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old woman whose death in police custody in mid-September sparked the unrest, was born in Kurdistan.

Kurdistan could suffer more violence if Tehran amplifies its military confrontations with Kurdish groups on both sides of the border.

Brig. Gen. Sardar Mohammad Pakpour, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s ground forces, said the guard was strengthening forces in the area, “following activities of evil and separatist anti-Iranian terrorist groups.” He accused the groups of destabilizing the northwest of the country, according to Iranian news agencies.

Kurdish areas on both sides of the border are home to separatist groups that Iran has labeled as terrorists, but separatist slogans have largely been absent from recent protests. Since the demonstrations began, Iran has repeatedly attacked northern Iraq with missiles and drones, most recently earlier this week, targeting Kurdish groups that it alleges are fomenting unrest in the Islamic Republic.

More than 400 people have been killed since the protests broke out in mid-September, including about 60 children, according to human-rights organizations. Several protesters have been sentenced to death and more than 1,000 face indictments.

Kurdistan has been one of the main focuses in the crackdown by authorities. As Tehran’s response to the protests has become more militarized, the death toll in the Kurdish areas has increased. Hundreds have been arrested, according to rights activists, and Iranian security forces have circled several Kurdish cities in low-flying military helicopters in the past week.

Iraq’s government condemned Iran’s attack this week on its Kurdish areas as a unilateral, hostile act. Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani said the national security council would meet to discuss the deployment of troops to the area to counter claims that the border was open for separatist infiltration.

Tehran informed Iraqi militias as well as the Baghdad government before it launched its first strikes against the Kurdish areas in Iraq, according to a senior Iraqi Shiite politician allied with Iran. Iran had said it would use missiles and drones on specific targets, not take broader military action or initiate a ground incursion, to avoid embarrassing the new pro-Iranian Shiite government in place in Baghdad, he said.

The United Nations human-rights council on Thursday voted to establish an independent fact-finding mission to investigate alleged human-rights abuses by Iranian authorities since the eruption of protests in mid-September.

As Iranians have challenged security forces in the streets at home, many have looked to the national soccer team, which is participating in the Qatar World Cup, for support. After refusing earlier in the week to sing the country’s national anthem in an apparent gesture of solidarity with protesters, the team on Friday broke its silence before kickoff against Wales, albeit with some players seeming to mouth along rather than sing it.

Following the players’ silent protest, Iranian security forces on Thursday arrested one of Iran’s most famous footballers and a former member of the national team, Voria Ghafouri, accusing him of spreading propaganda against the Islamic Republic. Mr. Ghafouri, who is Kurdish, had called on the government to stop killing Kurdish people.

On Friday, pro-establishment Iranian media immediately reported that the national anthem had been “on the lips of the heroes of the national football team.”

The normally revered national soccer team has been heavily criticized by opponents of the Islamic Republic for failing to speak out sooner, and for meeting with President Ebrahim Raisi ahead of the World Cup. Many Iranians say they hope the team loses.

After the game with Wales, which Iran won 2-0, pro-government crowds celebrated in central Tehran, and uniformed security forces waved the flag of the Islamic Republic.

WSJ : Elon Musk Says Twitter Is Launching ‘Verified’ Service Next Week

Elon Musk Says Twitter Is Launching ‘Verified’ Service Next Week
The social-media platform will manually authenticate accounts and use different colored check marks to designate government and company accounts, he said

Elon Musk said Twitter Inc. will once again try to roll out a new verification service next week that its billionaire owner has championed despite a fumbled launch and numerous problems.

He said Friday that Twitter would use a new color system for verified accounts, departing from the platform’s ubiquitous blue check mark. Companies would get gold check marks and government accounts would get gray check marks, he said. All individuals, whether they are celebrities or not, would have blue check marks.

Mr. Musk said starting on Friday next week, the company would append a check mark to accounts it had manually authenticated. He didn’t say if users would have to pay to be verified.

“Painful, but necessary,” he said on Twitter.

He has been trying to revamp Twitter’s verification service since he closed his $44 billion takeover of the company last month. He has said he wants every user to be verified unless they are a bot account.

The new check-mark system has been plagued with issues. Days after launching it earlier this month, Twitter stopped giving out check marks as people were using the designation to impersonate companies, brands and celebrities. Thousands of users saw fake tweets from accounts including those posing as LeBron James demanding a trade, George W. Bush attacking Iraqis and Eli Lilly & Co. cutting insulin prices to zero.

“Sorry for the delay,” Mr. Musk said Friday, while promising a longer explanation about the verification system would come next week.

Mr. Musk’s reign over Twitter has been marred by chaos. He fired top executives, laid off thousands of employees and told the remaining ones “we will need to be extremely hardcore.” Some advertisers paused their spending on the platform because of the uncertainty surrounding Twitter.

Twitter didn’t immediately return a request for comment Friday.

Mr. Musk said on Thanksgiving Day that he would reinstate suspended accounts, bringing back users who posted hate speech or violated other company policies. Former President Donald Trump and Kanye West, who each had been blocked from the platform, both had their accounts reinstated this month.

In recent weeks, users have been tweeting at Mr. Musk to clarify when they can get a blue check mark. He has announced most of his changes to the verification system by replying to other users, as he did on Friday.

Before Mr. Musk took over, Twitter appended blue check marks to accounts run by politicians, journalists and other users the platform deemed notable. Some of those users have also received a gray “official” badge in recent weeks in addition to keeping their blue check marks.

On Friday, Mr. Musk said “notable” was a subjective designation.

It couldn’t be determined if the verification system Mr. Musk announced Friday was part of his updates to Twitter Blue, the company’s subscription service he wants to expand. Users who pay $7.99 a month for the service would get a blue check mark and access to premium features. The company didn’t elaborate on those features on its website Friday.

Mr. Musk had said earlier this month that he had delayed Twitter Blue’s rollout date to Nov. 29. But earlier this week he said he was pushing back that launch again. “Holding off relaunch of Blue Verified until there is high confidence of stopping impersonation,” he said on Twitter.

FT : SSE sells £1.5bn stake in electricity transmission network

SSE sells £1.5bn stake in electricity transmission network
Proceeds will be used to fund transition to renewable energy

SSE, the FTSE 100 energy company, has sold a 25 per cent stake in its electricity transmission network in Scotland to Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board for £1.5bn, as it seeks to raise cash to invest in renewable energy.

SSE put the business up for sale last November but the process has taken more than a year. The proceeds will be used to pay for the transition to renewables such as investment in wind farms.

London-listed SSE operates gas-fired and hydroelectric power plants and wind farms along with an electricity transmission division. That business is one of three regional infrastructure monopolies in the UK whose pylons and cables carry electricity from power generators to homes and businesses.

As the networks are regional monopolies with no competition, their revenues are set by the regulator Ofgem and funded by levies on consumer energy bills.

Rob McDonald, managing director of SSEN Transmission, said: “With the north of Scotland home to the UK’s greatest resources of renewable electricity we have a critical role to play in helping deliver the UK and Scottish governments’ net zero commitments.

“Our investments will also be key to securing the UK’s future energy independence through enabling the deployment of homegrown, affordable, low-carbon power.”

The business will be chaired by SSE’s finance director, Gregor Alexander, and Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board will get seats on the board.

Investor appetite for infrastructure assets has held strong since the pandemic started, when other industries such as retail were badly affected. However, rising financing costs had made it more difficult to close deals, people close to the negotiations said.

Last year a consortium backed by Ontario Teachers and Brookfield Super-Core Infrastructure Partners agreed to buy SSE’s remaining stake in a Scottish natural gas network for £1.2bn.

A consortium led by Macquarie also bought a 60 per cent stake in National Grid’s UK gas transmission business this year.

However, in June a £15bn takeover of Britain’s largest electricity distributor to a Macquarie-led consortium collapsed after the vendor, Li Ka-shing’s CK Infrastructure Holdings, increased the price two days before the agreement was due to be signed.

Ontario Teachers is one of Canada’s biggest pension funds. It recently lost $95mn on an investment in the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, but said it would have only “limited impact”.

FT : What does crypto look like after FTX?

What does crypto look like after FTX?
CeFi > DeFi, says JPMorgan

For people hoping for a crypto-free day on FT Alphaville, we have bad news. Crypto is still doing its Thing. And there are still a lot of questions about what the space looks like in the wake of the FTX implosion (ie beyond the current Lord-of-the-Flies vibes).

Around here we obviously hope we can go back to blissfully ignoring it. Purists hope that crypto will simply go back to its decentralised roots and build something beyond tradable JPEGs. But JPMorgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou reckons that little may actually change, and centralised exchanges will continue to rule the roost.

Panigirtzoglou also has a good summary of various regulatory efforts to tame crypto in his latest weekly note. Normally we might just dump this note in the Long Room (RIP), but we thought we’d at least put the main bits here for a bit of light Friday reading.

Here you go. (NB we’ve tweaked some of the formatting to be clearer on FTAV):

Not only has the collapse of FTX and its sister company Alameda Research created a cascade of crypto entity collapses and suspension of withdrawals but has initiated an intense debate about the future of the crypto ecosystem. How would the crypto ecosystem be changed following the collapse of FTX?

As we argued previously the collapse of FTX is likely to increase investor and regulatory pressure on crypto entities to disclose more information about their balance sheets, to safeguard client assets, to limit asset concentration and will induce more diligent risk management including management of counterparty risk among crypto market participants. FTX in particular had been preferred over Binance by institutional clients such as hedge funds, so the past weeks events will likely change the way institutional investors interact with exchanges to ensure their assets are protected. Here are the main changes we envisage post FTX:

A) Existing regulatory initiatives already underway are likely to be brought forward. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) bill which has passed most of the EU’s legislative processes except the final approval by the European Parliament. This final approval is likely to take place before year end. After that there would transitional period of up to 18 months before the regulation takes effect at some point in 2024. In our opinion the past week’s events could if anything lead to pressure to reduce this transitional period. As a reminder to our readers MiCA brings crypto assets and markets under the supervision of ESMA and the European Banking Authority and introduces important rules for the crypto industry: marketing guidelines for crypto companies issuing crypto requiring them to provide detailed information about their project, it regulates mining companies by requirement them to disclose energy consumption, it mandates stablecoin issuers to maintain ample liquidity in the form of deposits to prevent crashes like that of Terra USD, it imports rules from existing equity market regulations on market manipulation and investor protection including AML rules that require crypto transfers to include data on the payer and the payee. It also restricts stablecoin issuers on how many tokens they can issue if they are not denominated in euros or other EU currencies and introduces a transaction value cap of 200m euros per day for non-euro stablecoins. This cap is likely to have important implications as most of the biggest stablecoins such as Tether and USDC are already exceeding the proposed cap. Under MiCA, cryptocurrencies are divided into four categories: crypto-assets, utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens (e-money); these will be regulated in accordance with their classification. NFTs which serve as financial instruments such as tokenized bonds or equities will be regulated as securities under existing securities law while those such as digital art and collectibles would not fall under MiCA. It is worth mentioning that crypto-assets that are already regulated by existing EU financial services regulations will not be covered under MiCA and will remain under the existing framework.

The US has lagged Europe in terms of regulatory initiatives and has yet to introduce similarly comprehensive rules. To some extent this reflects fragmentation and disagreements among US regulators. Having said that there have been several regulatory initiatives in the US Congress (i.e. the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, the Digital Commodity Exchange Act, the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act, the Stablecoin Innovation and Protection Act, the House Financial Services Committee stablecoin bill) not necessarily consistent with each other. US regulatory initiatives attracted more interest following Terra’s collapse as there was perceived need for increased oversight and consumer protections. Our guess is that there would be even more urgency following the FTX collapse. A key debate among US regulators centers around the classification of cryptocurrencies as either securities or commodities. The SEC Chair has been resisting the need for special rules for the crypto industry as he argues that most cryptocurrencies should be classified as securities and should thus be regulated under existing securities laws. Crypto intermediaries such as exchanges, brokers-dealers and custodians should be under the SEC purview and should be registered accordingly. Stablecoins could also be classified as securities depending on how they are pegged. The SEC chair has also suggested that the oversight of cryptocurrencies (and their intermediaries) such as bitcoin that are not classified as securities but rather as commodities could fall under CFTC. Instead the CFTC Chair, which regulates the U.S. derivatives markets, had previously argued that at least Bitcoin and Ethereum should be classified as cryptocurrency commodities and that the CFTC should be assigned with spot market authority over cryptocurrency commodities. Following the FTX collapse these differences are likely to be bridged with perhaps bitcoin classified as commodity and the vast majority of the other cryptocurrencies classified as securities. Irrespective of the classification mix, the CFTC will have a prominent role in the cryptocurrency space as the regulator of cryptocurrency derivatives markets. Regarding stablecoins, the most recent initiatives and momentum points to Federal Reserve rather than OCC oversight over stablecoin issuers with new reserve requirements to protect customers in the event of insolvency.

B) New regulatory initiatives are likely to emerge focusing on custody and protection of customers’ digital assets as in the traditional financial system. In the meantime, until these regulations come into place, both retail and institutional investors are already taking steps to protect their digital assets. The FTX collapse has already sparked an increase in crypto self-custody with hardware wallet providers such as Ledger and Trezor seen an exponential increase in sales in recent weeks. But the main beneficiaries post FTX collapse are institutional crypto custodians with large balance sheets and established reputation. Over time these trusted custodians will likely dominate over relatively smaller crypto-native custodians or crypto exchanges.

C) New regulatory initiatives are likely to emerge focusing on unbundling of broker/trading/lending/clearing/custody activities as in the traditional financial system. This unbundling will have most implications for exchanges which like FTX combined all these activities raising issues about customers’ asset protection, market manipulation and conflicts of interest. The above regulatory pressures on exchanges are unlikely to leave offshore exchanges like Binance, the world’s biggest crypto exchange, unaffected. In other words, the pressure to bring important crypto players under some regulatory oversight will pose a bigger challenge for offshore exchanges such as Binance which are largely unregulated.

D) New regulatory initiatives are likely to emerge focusing on transparency mandating regular reporting/auditing of reserves, assets and liabilities across major crypto entities including exchanges, brokers, lenders, custodians, stablecoin issuers etc. Again these regulations are likely to be imported from the traditional financial system, thus causing convergence of the crypto ecosystem towards the traditional financial system. Some crypto exchanges and firms have begun to publish their proof of reserves, while some exchanges have taken one step further to publish reserves to liability ratio (R2L ratio) to gain further trust of the customers when there is mass withdrawals of assets from the exchanges.

E) Crypto derivative markets will likely see a shift into regulated venues with CME emerging as a winner. With several institutional investors such as hedge funds getting trapped via their derivative positions at FTX, there is likely to be greater shift towards regulated venues such as CME for both futures and options. Such shift would naturally increase the role of CFTC in crypto markets given US derivatives markets are regulated by the CFTC.

F) We are skeptical of a structural shift away from centralized exchanges (CEX) into decentralized exchanges (DEX). An argument put forward for DEX was that the bundling of trading/clearing/settlement that centralized exchanges like FTX try to achieve, is more efficiently integrated into smart contracts in a non-custodial (i.e. a user remains in control of their private keys), permissionless and trustless way. This argument may face greater scrutiny given the likely regulatory initiatives noted in C above focusing on unbundling of these activities. And while there has been some increase in the share of DEX in overall crypto trading activity in recent weeks (Figure 12) this is more likely to reflect the collapse in crypto prices and the deleveraging/automatic liquidations that followed the FTX collapse. For larger institutions, DEXs typically would not suffice for their larger orders due to slower transaction speed or their trading strategies and order size to be traceable on the blockchain. As we mentioned previously in our publications until DeFi becomes mainstream it faces several hurdles:

-- 1) Most of the price discovery in crypto markets has been taken places on exchanges, with DeFi protocols relying on oracles to supply price data to smart contracts. In turn these price data come mostly from exchanges. In other words DeFi protocols rely heavily on centralized exchanges to be able to function and it would likely take a long time until the center of the price discovery process in crypto market shifts from centralized exchanges to DeFi.

-- 2) Smart contract risk such as hacking and protocol attacks, smart contract governance failures and controversies. Platform risk, platform vulnerability to attacks, platform governance failures and controversies, high gas fees and platform bottlenecks. Chainalysis estimates $3bn lost due to hacks across DeFi platforms this year.

-- 3) The management, governance and auditing of DeFi protocols without compromising too much on security and centralization is thus a big challenge

-- 4) Systemic risks could arise from a potential cascade of automated liquidations that materialize if the collateral provided drops below certain levels. We saw signs of that after the collapse of Terra as well as after the collapse of FTX.

-- 5) Over-collateralization puts DeFi at a disadvantage relative to traditional finance although some new innovations have been emerging in DeFi lending space such as flash loans (typically used for quick arbitrage trading) which allow for unsecured lending with the capital borrowed and repaid in one almost instant transaction

-- 6) Front running in DEXs (when some participant ,usually a miner, seeing an upcoming trading transaction puts his own transaction ahead by playing with a transaction fee) puts them at a disadvantage relative to centralized exchanges

-- 7) Absence of limit order/stop loss functionality also puts DEXs at a disadvantage relative to centralized exchanges although new generation DEX platforms are currently emerging trying to incorporate this functionality

-- 8) Risk/return tradeoff more difficult to assess in DeFi given the use of different tokens in terms of assets borrowed or lent/collateral posted/received interest payments and given the general absence of limit order/stop loss functionality

-- 9) Pooling of assets into liquidity pools inherent in DeFi might make institutional investors uncomfortable.

As a result we believe that centralized exchanges will continue to play a big role in the crypto ecosystem in the foreseeable future, in particular for larger institutional investors, despite the FTX collapse.

FT : Collateralised fund obligations: How private equity securitised itself

Collateralised fund obligations: How private equity securitised itself
Stakes in hundreds of buyout groups’ companies have been bundled into investments with strong credit ratings

The US hospital staffing company Envision Healthcare, owned by the private equity firm KKR, has the lowest possible junk-grade credit rating and is at risk of bankruptcy, according to Moody’s.

But an ownership stake in Envision, bundled with stakes in hundreds of other private equity-owned companies, has been transformed into a financial security marketed to ordinary savers as a safe investment with a stellar credit rating.

The product is known as a “collateralised fund obligation” and its aim is to diversify risk by parceling up the companies providing returns. CFOs are, in some ways, a private equity variant of “collateralised debt obligations”, the bundles of mortgage-backed securities that only reached the public consciousness when they wreaked havoc during the 2008 financial crisis.

So far, CFOs have flown largely under the radar. Although some of private equity’s largest names such as Blackstone, KKR, Ares and the specialist firm Coller Capital have set up versions, this is often done privately with little or no public disclosure of the vehicle’s contents — or even, in some cases, of its existence, making it all but impossible to build a full picture of who is exposed and on what scale.

CFOs introduce a new layer of leverage into a private capital industry already built on debt. Their rise is one illustration of how post-crisis regulation, rather than ending the use of esoteric structures and risky leverage, has shifted it into a quieter, more lightly regulated corner of the financial world.

And even as a leveraged buyouts boom falters and regulators turn their attention to the risks involved in so-called “shadow banking”, there are signs their use is increasing.

“We represent 50 of the world’s largest asset managers and lots of large private equity shops, and this is the hottest inbound call we get,” said John Timperio, a partner at the law firm Dechert who advises on CFOs.

In marketing materials, Dechert describes CFOs as “the technicolour dreamcoat of fund finance.”

How it works
The vehicle exposed to Envision is one of several CFOs launched by Azalea, an independently-run unit of the Singapore state-owned investor Temasek. It is more transparent than most because it is offered to retail investors, though Azalea does not tell those investors which portfolio companies they are exposed to, citing “confidentiality obligations”.

In effect, the CFO is a box containing stakes in 38 private equity and growth funds that Azalea committed money to. The funds are managed by many of the industry’s biggest names including Blackstone, KKR, Carlyle and General Atlantic.

When the CFO was issued in May, those funds held stakes in 982 companies, including UK defence group Cobham, the Blackstone-owned casino operator Cirsa, the vet business IVC Evidensia and the debt collector Lowell, which in 2020 needed a £600m cash injection from its owners.

The CFO issues senior and junior bonds, which can be bought by retail investors and which offer fixed interest payments of 4.1 per cent and 6 per cent. When the 38 funds hand cash to their investors, the CFO uses it to make interest payments, then holds some back in a reserve account designed to ultimately pay off the principal.

Any remaining cash, after debt repayments and expenses, goes to the holders of the CFO’s equity, in this case Azalea itself. Owning the equity is “nothing more than a levered investment into private equity”, says Jeff Johnston, chairman of the Fund Finance Association.

S&P Global and Fitch rate the senior bonds in Azalea’s CFO as A+, an investment-grade rating that means it is deemed unlikely to default, and is far higher than the typical junk-grade ratings of individual private equity-owned companies.

Azalea told the FT that it structured transactions with “downside risk mitigation in mind”, using “conservative” loan-to-value ratios and putting “various structural safeguards” in place to protect investors.

It had a “diversified pool of quality private equity funds”, the company added, saying that “a focus on the performance of individual underlying companies can lead one to lose sight of the strength of a portfolio approach”. The KKR fund that owns Envision, one of the funds in the CFO, had made 1.9 times its money as of September, corporate filings show.


Private capital firms’ own CFOs are largely a way to raise money, and they work slightly differently. A firm will bundle together stakes in several of its own funds and turn that into a security, offering bonds and equity to investors. Those bundles sometimes include stakes in credit, real estate and infrastructure funds as well as private equity.

KKR, Coller and Ares did not publicly disclose details of their CFOs, even as Ares issued one worth about a billion dollars last year according to a person with knowledge of the transaction. Coller has issued two — one this year and one in 2020 — and KKR has issued at least two. The firms, which are not required to disclose the transactions, declined to comment.

CFOs typically issue bonds worth about 50 to 75 per cent of the value of the holdings in the underlying funds, according to several people with knowledge of the deals. The Azalea CFO’s leverage is lower, at 39.6 per cent when first issued, according to its prospectus.

Layers of leverage
The CFO model was first used in the early 2000s. Six private equity versions worth $3.6bn in total were issued between 2003 and 2006 according to the ratings agency Fitch. 

Some of those CFOs were downgraded or restructured during the downturn, Fitch said, though they ultimately paid off their rated bonds in full. None were issued in the six years from 2007 when “there was limited market appetite for nontraditional securitisation”. 

Private equity started using the structure again during a long era of cheap money. It is just one of the ways in which new layers of leverage have been introduced in that time.

Over the past decade, buyout groups have increasingly levered up not just their portfolio companies but also the funds through which they buy them — often at floating interest rates that are rising fast.

Many use “subscription lines”, in effect a short-term loan against the ability of pension funds and other investors to hand over the money they committed to a buyouts fund. Some use a tool known as “NAV lending”, a loan to the fund that is secured against the value of the equity in the companies it owns.

Here, too, little information is available. Just 8 per cent of the 5,350 funds tracked by Preqin would tell the data provider whether or not they were using subscription lines. The loans can magnify the returns figures that buyout groups disclose to their investors, by making it look like profits were generated in a shorter time period.

Still, it is costing the investors, says James Albertus, assistant professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business: “The interest expense is reducing the distributions that go to the ultimate beneficiaries — that’s the teachers relying on public pension funds.”

CFOs can be built on top of that leverage. Some of the funds in the Azalea CFO may already have borrowed against investors’ commitments, the Singaporean group has told investors, warning that lenders to those private equity funds could lay claim to the funds’ assets, which could “adversely impact the cash flows available” to pay bondholders.

CFOs have received good credit ratings partly because they are a diversified bet on the cashflows from private capital funds, an asset class that has boomed, benefiting from a long period of rising valuations and cheap debt.


But the conditions that fuelled private equity’s boom have gone into reverse. Buyout funds have been on a dealmaking spree for several years, buying record numbers of companies at eye-watering valuations, some of which are now facing an uncertain future as an economic downturn kicks in and borrowing costs rise.

Little data is yet available on whether, or how much, payouts from private equity funds to their investors have slowed this year as dealmaking stalls. But returns from the private equity funds raised in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis were the industry’s worst in the past two decades, figures from Preqin show.

Regulators sound a note of caution
So far, CFOs have escaped much regulatory scrutiny, in part because they are private offerings which require little in terms of public filings.

But, at the Practising Law Institute’s Fund Finance conference this month, Larry Hamilton, head of the law firm Mayer Brown’s US insurance regulatory and enforcement group, warned that at least one regulator is starting to pay attention.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a US regulatory group, is working on reform proposals that could reclassify some CFOs from debt to equity investments, since they are ultimately backed by equity stakes in companies. That could ramp up the cost of holding them and apply retrospectively to CFOs already issued.

“It was bothering some people at the NAIC . . . that you could take fund interests, kind of package them, securitise them, issue this collateralised fund obligation, and lo and behold you’ve gone from a 30 per cent-capital-charge private equity investment to something highly favoured with a lower capital charge,” said Hamilton.

A banker who has worked on CFOs said buyout groups are staying quiet about their use, partly because of the NAIC’s attention, which has emerged because insurance companies sometimes invest in the structures.

“The NAIC finds out about these through media articles, so most [private equity firms] don’t want to be public” about their CFOs, he said. “Some are very concerned about where the NAIC will come out… you don’t want to draw attention to it as you don’t want to be singled out”.

New models as PE suffers
At least two US state pension plans are separately considering setting up CFOs as a way of freeing up cash, the banker said. But “no one wants to be a first mover”.

As raising funds gets tougher, private equity firms are looking to ever-more-complicated types of CFOs as a possible solution.

Ahmet Yetis, a managing director at Evercore, told the conference panel about some “cutting edge technology that we’re working on”.

Under the model, an investor in a private equity fund — such as a pension scheme — would sell its fund stake to a new vehicle, a type of CFO called a “collateralised continuation fund obligation”. The CCFO would be managed by the private equity firm that ran the original fund.

The investor would receive some cash and a share of the equity in the CCFO. The CCFO would issue bonds, and commit the proceeds to the private equity firm’s new funds.

On hearing the description of the complex chain of financial transactions that would bring fresh cash into the buyouts industry at a difficult moment, one of Yetis’ fellow panelists remarked: “You’re truly the magician.”

TechCrunch : What it would mean for Tesla to buy back shares

What it would mean for Tesla to buy back shares

Tesla investors are begging CEO Elon Musk and the board of Tesla to consider buying back shares as the company’s stock price slumps to a two-year low. Tesla stock was trading at $183.20 after hours on Wednesday, and its market capitalization has plunged by almost $700 billion since its peak a year ago.

Musk said during Tesla’s Q3 earnings call that the company is likely to do a “meaningful buyback” next year, possibly between $5 billion and $10 billion. Last week, he said it would be “up to the Tesla board” to decide.

Buying back shares from the marketplace would reduce the number of outstanding shares available, which increases the ownership stake of current shareholders. That’s because reduced supply of shares often causes a price increase. Tesla bull and influencer Alexandra Merz recently put up a petition on Change.org to advocate for a swift buyback before the end of the year. Merz said this would allow Tesla to “benefit from a currently very unvalued stock price” and avoid the 1% excuse tax that any buybacks exceeding $1 million will be subject to by January 1, 2023.

Merz and other investors have also argued a stock buyback would be a show of confidence in Tesla’s future results and would return wealth to shareholders.

“I’m a huge Tesla fan and past stock holder but in order to preserve my capital I’ve been forced to go to the dark side,” commented one petitioner, of which there are currently 5,807. “I’ve recently began to short the stock and have earned back roughly half my loses. I believe in Tesla’s long term growth but I need to see some action from the board before going long again. A nice buy back would show confidence from the board that Tesla is still a good investment.”

Tesla’s stock has taken a hit lately for a variety of reasons, including decreasing investor confidence in Musk to run the company effectively. Many have complained that Musk is, at best, distracted by his recent purchase and takeover of Twitter, a social media platform on which the executive has lately been airing his politics even more than usual. Musk and certain members of Tesla’s board are currently in court over the CEO’s $56 billion pay package after a Tesla shareholder accused Musk of being a “part-time CEO.”

Drops in Tesla shares also followed massive stock sales by Musk who needed liquid cash to finance the $44 billion Twitter deal.

Some analysts, like Adam Jones at Morgan Stanley, worry the Twitter fiasco and Musk’s rampant tweeting could hurt consumer demand for Tesla, as well as commercial deals and government relations.

Musk’s involvement in Twitter isn’t the only reason for plunging shares. While Tesla still remains the market leader of electric vehicles in the U.S., the company is rapidly losing market share to other automakers as new models come online. In the third quarter, Tesla held 64% market share in EVs, which is down from 66% in Q2 and 75% in Q1. Ford, GM and Hyundai brands are quickly catching up as they scale production of popular EV models like the Mustang Mach-E, the Chevy Bolt and the Ioniq 5.

Tesla is also losing ground to Chinese EV makers like BYD and Wuling Motors in China, where the automaker recently slashed prices to lure buyers, receiving reportedly lackluster enthusiasm. On top of that, Beijing is now on lockdown and more restrictions have been imposed in China as coronavirus cases surge. This might not only affect Tesla’s ability to run its gigafactory in Shanghai, but further restrictions will affect China’s weakened economy further and reduce demand for luxury products like Teslas.

Then there are the back-to-back recalls that Tesla issued over the weekend — over 350,000 vehicles from U.S. customers with software glitches that disable tail lights or activate air bags during minor collisions in some cars. That’s on top of the 17 other recalls this year.

Finally, Tesla has gotten plenty of bad press this year around its advanced driver assistance systems Autopilot and “full self-driving,” or FSD, which have been tied to some fatal crashes in the worst case and in the best case have simply not performed as expected. In September, drivers filed suit against the company for falsely advertising the autonomous capabilities of its tech.

All of the above, coupled with a down market, have resulted in Tesla’s market cap going from $1.2 trillion last November to $574 billion as of Wednesday’s close.

Billionaire Leo Koguan, who says he’s the third largest individual shareholder in Tesla, has been advocating for a buyback for months. Last week he tweeted that Musk should stop selling shares and should take advantage of the “right timing” to buy back shares “before Q4.” Musk responded to the tweet saying it was “up to the Tesla board.”

In October, Koguan called on Tesla to buy back at least $5 billion worth of stock, and in the past has argued for up to $15 billion worth of buybacks, saying Tesla should use its free cashflow to fund the buyback.

As of the third quarter, Tesla has a free cash flow of $3.3 billion.

Koguan has said Tesla can still invest in FSD, its Optimus bot and new gigafactories while also buying back “undervalued stocks.”

OilPrice.com : MIT Reports Breakthrough In Solid-State Lithium Battery Developme

MIT Reports Breakthrough In Solid-State Lithium Battery Development

  • MIT researchers have made a new discovery that could pave the way for solid-state lithium battery development.
  • Solid-state lithium batteries could offer a lightweight, compact, and safe alternative to current lithium batteries.
  • Assuming the press release has adequate data for not being certain this work will yield a prototype battery, the odds are that there will be a successful prototype built.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s new discovery could finally usher the development of solid-state lithium batteries, which would be more lightweight, compact, and safe than current lithium batteries. The growth of metallic filaments called dendrites within the solid electrolyte has been a longstanding obstacle, but the new study explains how dendrites form and how to divert them. This is a goal that’s been pursued by labs around the world for years.

The key to this potential leap in battery technology is replacing the liquid electrolyte that sits between the positive and negative electrodes with a much thinner, lighter layer of solid ceramic material, and replacing one of the electrodes with solid lithium metal. This would greatly reduce the overall size and weight of the battery and remove the safety risk associated with liquid electrolytes, which are flammable.

But that quest has been beset with one big problem: dendrites.

Dendrites, whose name comes from the Latin for branches, are projections of metal that can build up on the lithium surface and penetrate into the solid electrolyte, eventually crossing from one electrode to the other and shorting out the battery cell. Researchers haven’t been able to agree on what gives rise to these metal filaments, nor has there been much progress on how to prevent them and thus make lightweight solid-state batteries a practical option.

The new research published in the journal Joule in a paper by MIT Professor Yet-Ming Chiang, graduate student Cole Fincher, and five others at MIT and Brown University, seems to resolve the question of what causes dendrite formation. It also shows how dendrites can be prevented from crossing through the electrolyte.

Chiang said in the group’s earlier work, they made a “surprising and unexpected” finding, which was that the hard, solid electrolyte material used for a solid-state battery can be penetrated by lithium, which is a very soft metal, during the process of charging and discharging the battery, as ions of lithium move between the two sides.

This shuttling back and forth of ions causes the volume of the electrodes to change. That inevitably causes stresses in the solid electrolyte, which has to remain fully in contact with both of the electrodes that it is sandwiched between. “To deposit this metal, there has to be an expansion of the volume because you’re adding new mass,” Chiang said. “So, there’s an increase in volume on the side of the cell where the lithium is being deposited. And if there are even microscopic flaws present, this will generate a pressure on those flaws that can cause cracking.”

Those stresses, the team has now shown, cause the cracks that allow dendrites to form. The solution to the problem turns out to be more stress, applied in just the right direction and with the right amount of force.

While previously, some researchers thought that dendrites formed by a purely electrochemical process, rather than a mechanical one, the team’s experiments demonstrate that it is mechanical stresses that cause the problem.

The process of dendrite formation normally takes place deep within the opaque materials of the battery cell and cannot be observed directly, so Fincher developed a way of making thin cells using a transparent electrolyte, allowing the whole process to be directly seen and recorded. “You can see what happens when you put a compression on the system, and you can see whether or not the dendrites behave in a way that’s commensurate with a corrosion process or a fracture process,” he said.

The team demonstrated that they could directly manipulate the growth of dendrites simply by applying and releasing pressure, causing the dendrites to zig and zag in perfect alignment with the direction of the force.

Applying mechanical stresses to the solid electrolyte doesn’t eliminate the formation of dendrites, but it does control the direction of their growth. This means they can be directed to remain parallel to the two electrodes and prevented from ever crossing to the other side, and thus rendered harmless.

In their tests, the researchers used pressure induced by bending the material, which was formed into a beam with a weight at one end. But they say that in practice, there could be many different ways of producing the needed stress. For example, the electrolyte could be made with two layers of material that have different amounts of thermal expansion, so that there is an inherent bending of the material, as is done in some thermostats.

Another approach would be to “dope” the material with atoms that would become embedded in it, distorting it and leaving it in a permanently stressed state. This is the same method used to produce the super-hard glass used in the screens of smart phones and tablets, Chiang explained. And the amount of pressure needed is not extreme: The experiments showed that pressures of 150 to 200 megapascals were sufficient to stop the dendrites from crossing the electrolyte.

The required pressure is “commensurate with stresses that are commonly induced in commercial film growth processes and many other manufacturing processes,” so should not be difficult to implement in practice, Fincher added.

Fischer explained that in fact, a different kind of stress, called stack pressure, is often applied to battery cells, by essentially squishing the material in the direction perpendicular to the battery’s plates – somewhat like compressing a sandwich by putting a weight on top of it. It was thought that this might help prevent the layers from separating. But the experiments have now demonstrated that pressure in that direction actually exacerbates dendrite formation. “We showed that this type of stack pressure actually accelerates dendrite-induced failure,” he said.

What is needed instead is pressure along the plane of the plates, as if the sandwich were being squeezed from the sides. “What we have shown in this work is that when you apply a compressive force you can force the dendrites to travel in the direction of the compression,” Fincher said, and if that direction is along the plane of the plates, the dendrites “will never get to the other side.”

That could finally make it practical to produce batteries using solid electrolyte and metallic lithium electrodes. Not only would these pack more energy into a given volume and weight, but they would eliminate the need for liquid electrolytes, which are flammable materials.

Having demonstrated the basic principles involved, the team’s next step will be to try to apply these to the creation of a functional prototype battery, Chiang said, and then to figure out exactly what manufacturing processes would be needed to produce such batteries in quantity. Though they have filed for a patent, the researchers don’t plan to commercialize the system themselves, he said, as there are already companies working on the development of solid-state batteries. “I would say this is an understanding of failure modes in solid-state batteries that we believe the industry needs to be aware of and try to use in designing better products,” he said.

The research team included Christos Athanasiou and Brian Sheldon at Brown University, and Colin Gilgenbach, Michael Wang, and W. Craig Carter at MIT. The work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

***

Assuming the press release has adequate data for not being certain this work will yield a prototype battery, the odds are that there will be a successful prototype built. How many models are tried and what works in the end is very much in the air for now.

On the other hand the mechanical formation research result looks quite compelling and actually makes reasoned sense now that it is explained. That raises questions. Does the dendrite formation greatly impede the battery capacity and function or does that added dendrite surface area increase it? Then one wonders how the dendrite formation impacts overall lifespan?

This effort isn’t over yet. But this is a significant milestone with lots of clues and hints on where further research might go. It looks like solid state lithium metal batteries are just a matter of innovation, insight and creativity away from the market.

By Brian Westenhaus via New Energy and Fuel

>>> Europe : Brokers Upgrades & Downgrades - 25th of November 2022 V2(+)

>>> Up
* BCP Raised to Buy at AlphaValue/Baader
* Elekta Raised to Buy at Handelsbanken
* Elia Group Raised to Hold at Bank Degroof Petercam; PT 141 euros
* WithSecure Raised to Buy at Inderes; PT 2 euros

>>> Down
* Adevinta Cut to Hold at SEB Equities; PT 85 kroner
* Carlsberg Cut to Hold at SEB Equities; PT 980 kroner
* Intrum Cut to Hold at Nordea
* NatWest Cut to Sector Perform at RBC; PT 290 pence

>>> Initiation
* Ashtead Technology Rated New Buy at Peel Hunt; PT 375 pence
* BioArctic Rated New Buy at Nordea; PT 356 kronor
* Grifols Resumed Neutral at Credit Suisse; PT 10 euros

>>> Call
* JPMorgan Quant Says European Equity Recovery Is ‘Premature’ (+)
* Credit Suisse’s Underperformance ‘Striking,’ Vontobel Slashes PT (+)
* Deutsche Bank Upgraded at RBC After ‘Unjustified’ De-Rating
* Elia Lifted to Hold at Degroof; Reduce ‘No Longer Warranted’ (+)
* Lloyds Double-Upgraded on Cost Control at RBC, Natwest Cut
* Rockwool Raised at Handelsbanken, Says Margins Have Bottomed Out
* SGS Double-Downgraded at Barclays With Stock Fully Valued
* Uniper’s Recent Rally Unjustified, Drive by Short Squeeze: Citi (+)