FT : DOxford BioMedica leaves door open to private equity takeover

Oxford BioMedica leaves door open to private equity takeover
UK-listed group has already rejected multiple unsolicited offers from EQT and says a deal would have to be the right fit

The chief executive of Oxford BioMedica has left the door open to a possible takeover, saying some private equity groups could be a good match for the cell and gene therapy developer which rejected multiple unsolicited offers from EQT this year.

Frank Mathias, who has led the FTSE 250 company since 2023, told the FT in an interview that although the group declined a final bid from Sweden’s EQT in February for an undisclosed amount, his company would always consider offers that could be beneficial to growth and shareholders.

“In life, you have different profiles of private equity firms,” Mathias said ahead of Oxford BioMedica’s capital markets day in London on Tuesday. “Not all will fit us but I believe there are a few that can fit us because maybe under a private situation we [would] be able to grow quicker, because they would be able to give us more financial means. This is something that is fair to at least be considered.”

However he added that any take-private offers would have to reflect a value deemed worthy by the company and match the group’s vision for its future.

“It’s not only the financial figures that drives us here, it’s also what will happen with the vision of the company, how can the private equity firm help us grow quicker,” he said. “These are also very important questions that need to be discussed in advance and that’s where we are. It might be that we might become private but also there are advantages to being on the stock exchange.”

Oxford BioMedica, which began life as a spinout from Oxford university in 1995, shot to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic when it manufactured vaccines on behalf of pharma giant AstraZeneca. The company has since pivoted to become a contract development and manufacturing organisation that manufactures viral vectors for cell and gene therapies. The group focuses on autoimmune disorders and cancer therapies.

Its share price has risen by about 90 per cent over the past 12 months, although it has dipped slightly since the start of the year. The company has a market capitalisation of about £744mn.

EQT’s series of unsolicited private bids for Oxford BioMedica forms part of a broader trend of the buyout sector targeting Europe’s listed groups. UK-based biotechs have also been the subject of takeover bids by US pharma groups with superior financial firepower.

Mathias said the company had to confirm EQT’s bids when news of its interest leaked to the press in January because of UK stock market rules. However, the French executive said they always made it clear that the company was not for sale — a decision that was backed by its largest shareholders, including Novo Holdings, who he said believed in the trajectory of the group.

Oxford BioMedica recorded revenues of £171mn last year, an increase of 33 per cent compared to 2024. Mathias expects the group to keep growing given its experience in the niche market of contract manufacturing viral vectors in cell and gene therapy and its investment in the key US market where there is growing demand.

“We believe that the potential of the company, and this is backed by our long-range plan, is phenomenal,” said Mathias. “Our expectation is that we continue to grow at the pace which will be higher than the market.”

FT : Did BP miss CRH warning signs before hiring Albert Manifold?

Did BP miss CRH warning signs before hiring Albert Manifold?
Former colleagues say businessman’s management style should have raised concerns as oil group weighed him as chair

BP’s sudden decision last week to oust chair Albert Manifold eight months into the job stunned the City. For some who worked under him at his previous employer CRH, however, the mystery was why the oil major hired him in the first place.

Interviews with 10 former colleagues and advisers from his time at the Irish cement group portray a leader whose business acumen was admired but whose management style could leave staff feeling humiliated or sidelined.

They also depict a company where top performers were treated to luxury foreign gatherings featuring Ferraris, private jets and a travelling sommelier, in contrast to Manifold’s stated mission to cut unnecessary spending at BP.

The accounts raise questions over decision-making at BP, whose board last week unanimously agreed to remove Manifold amid “serious concerns” about his behaviour, including allegations of bullying, as well as over the process by which recruiter Egon Zehnder brought him to the company.

While the former colleagues differ on whether he crossed the line from demanding and ambitious to abrasive and confrontational, many expressed surprise that BP’s due diligence had not uncovered potential concerns over a leadership style that later came under scrutiny at the energy group.

Several of the people who spoke to the FT painted Manifold as charming, magnanimous and determined, but they also said he could react badly when challenged.

One former manager described his approach as “his way or the highway”, while another said he had a “volcanic” temper.

Some talked of Manifold losing his cool in meetings if a subordinate disagreed with him, missed targets or presented an idea he deemed unworthy, saying he could belittle them or resort to personal criticism.

Two recalled instances of him publicly reprimanding staff. One cited a colleague being berated as lazy in an email copied to several people, while the other said they had witnessed Manifold telling people to “shut the f*ck up”.

All spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid repercussions.

Lawyers for Manifold disputed the former colleagues’ characterisation of his management style, adding that the incidents described to the FT were “not true”.

The businessman has previously hit out at “lies” surrounding his departure from BP by those “allowed to hide behind anonymity”.

In a statement following his ousting from the oil major, Manifold said: “in my 40-year working career, I have never once had accusations made against me such as those made in recent days. I dispute entirely this characterisation of my conduct.”

BP and CRH declined to comment.

Not everyone agreed that Manifold’s conduct was unacceptable, with some arguing he was simply a demanding leader with high standards.

One person who worked closely with Manifold at CRH described him as “a force”, saying he was “hard-charging” and “tough” but “never crossed the line”.

Several praised him for his strategic vision and ability to oversee a vast corporate empire with almost 80,000 employees across nearly 30 countries.

Under his leadership from 2014 to 2024, the company’s stock surged almost 400 per cent, helped by steadily improving profitability, raising its market capitalisation to more than $60bn.

CRH continued a deal streak under Manifold, operating like a buyout firm that bought and sold assets and then used the proceeds to invest in other operations or conduct share buybacks.

But the Irishman also brought greater focus, realising that CRH needed to prioritise core businesses and simplify its structure to win over investors — and spearheading two of the company’s transformative moves.

CRH’s 2015 acquisition of assets from Holcim and Lafarge, which cleared the way for a merger between the Swiss and French cement giants, turned it into the world’s third-largest building materials supplier.

That €6.5bn deal added 15,000 employees and a much stronger presence in cement and aggregates in the US and Canada, as well as core European locations such as France, Germany and the UK and some emerging markets.

Manifold also oversaw the 2023 move of CRH’s primary listing from London to New York to tap deeper capital pools, economic growth and construction demand in North America, which accounted for almost 75 per cent of group earnings.

He was rewarded for his success. Manifold was the third-best-paid executive in the FTSE 100 in 2022 with a package worth £11.68mn, according to an annual study from the High Pay Centre. The following year he was listed as the highest-paid Irish executive by remuneration tracker Paygap.ie.

US buyout group CD&R recognised his talent, hiring him in July 2025 to advise on industrial transactions and portfolio companies. As of Thursday he was still listed as an adviser on the CD&R website, where he continued to be described as BP’s chair.

Following his ousting and media coverage of his alleged behaviour, Manifold told reporters he had fought to cut “unnecessary and excessive expenditure” at BP.

“I made my own coffee, bought my lunch in the local café,” he said. “I sat in a small office, eschewing the grand corner-office privilege of previous chairmen.”

Accounts by former colleagues at CRH highlight a contrast between the frugal tone struck by Manifold at BP and opulent events for senior staff that took place during his tenure leading the cement company.

At one, about eight years ago, CRH invited hundreds of top performers along with a travelling sommelier to Rome, where they spent several nights at the Waldorf Astoria’s five-star Cavalieri hotel and were offered perks including Ferrari test drives, according to three people familar with the event.

Between networking and presentations, employees took tours of the city and cooking classes.

CRH held similar events in warm-weather destinations including Spain and Florida, according to two people who attended.

One year, about 30 top managers gathered at Singapore’s Fullerton hotel, according to people familiar with the excursion, which included a side-trip by private jet to Manila, from where they flew by helicopter to visit a newly acquired cement plant in the Philippine jungle.

While some relished the experience, others disliked spending long periods away from their families, according to two people who cited an inside joke at the company about the “Lonely Housewives of CRH”.

Another executive said he “chuckled” when he saw Manifold’s comments on cutting costs at BP, given what he described as “gross” expenses for meetings in luxury venues.

After several years of these trips, CRH decided to rein in the spending, according to people familiar with the matter. One former employee said: “For a global company selling rocks and blocks, they thought it was over the top to be doing these extreme, white-glove events.”

Manifold’s lawyers said the gatherings were of the kind that were “entirely standard” in a multinational business.

A spokesperson for the businessman said his mandate at CRH was “to grow shareholder value, build a global business, win market share and cement relationships across multiple continents. His objective as chair of BP was entirely different.”

Manifold was no stranger to Egon Zehnder, the executive search firm that helped BP recruit him.

The Swiss firm in 2024 advised CRH on what the company described as a “rigorous programme” to identify Manifold’s successor, while in 2013 it ran the process that led to his appointment as CEO of the Irish company, according to annual reports.

Egon Zehnder declined to comment on its work with Manifold but said it applied “well-established assessment and referencing standards to all our mandates, including independent third-party due diligence”.

Before Manifold stepped down as chief executive, he briefly considered pursuing the role of chair at CRH, a job switch that had never occurred at the company, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

He ultimately decided against the move, one of the people said, and the board instead appointed him a special adviser and retained Richie Boucher as chair.

Manifold’s abrupt exit from BP also raises questions over whether he was suited to a non-executive position as chair, particularly at a British company where the role is typically more restrained.

One former adviser said Manifold’s strengths as a demanding CEO did not naturally translate to the role of chair, which requires consensus-building skills.

Another former colleague said he was puzzled when BP appointed him to a non-executive role, given his apparent management style.

“It makes no sense that BP hired him.”

FT : Rolls-Royce under fire for outsourcing parts of UK nuclear project to South

Rolls-Royce under fire for outsourcing parts of UK nuclear project to South Korea
Multibillion-pound contract to build three small modular reactors was signed with government body in April

Rolls-Royce is facing mounting criticism from politicians and industry figures for a decision to outsource the core parts of a multibillion-pound UK government plan for three small nuclear reactors to South Korea. 

The announcement by the British engineering giant, the lead investor in a consortium developing the reactors, has raised questions about whether the government’s target of 70 per cent of the project being British-made will be met.

Rolls-Royce SMR’s selection of South Korea’s Doosan Enerbility to finalise designs for key components for the small nuclear reactors has triggered warnings from industry representatives that the UK is squandering a chance to build its own supply chain for the technology.

Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chair of parliament’s business and trade committee, said he would be writing to ministers seeking clarification as to how Rolls-Royce’s announcement is compatible with the 70 per cent target.

“This decision raises serious questions about whether the government has a credible plan to turn its commitment to ‘Buy British’ into reality,” he said. “If taxpayers are helping fund a new strategic industry, we need to understand why key contracts are going overseas and what steps are being taken to build British capability for the future.”

Last week’s announcement by Rolls-Royce SMR came just two days after chancellor Rachel Reeves had written to ministers urging them to “buy British” by awarding more government contracts to domestic companies in sectors including steel and energy infrastructure.

Gareth Stace, director-general of UK Steel, said the decision was “extremely disappointing” and at odds with the government’s own industrial strategy aimed at supporting British industry, energy security and supply chain resilience. 

“The UK’s nuclear renaissance should be an opportunity to create jobs, investment and industrial capability here in Britain. It cannot simply become a vehicle for taking public money and then exporting the economic value overseas,” he added.

The contract for Rolls-Royce SMR to build three small modular reactors (SMRs) at Wylfa in North Wales was signed in April with UK government body Great British Energy as part of a plan to invest £2.6bn in the technology over the course of the parliament. 

The UK’s National Wealth Fund, a government-backed policy bank that promises to “unlock Britain’s future”, is also committing up to £599mn to Rolls-Royce SMR to support the development of its small modular reactors. 

Industry insiders said they had hoped that the group would invest in fabricating the new reactors in the UK, with inputs from British companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters, which was nationalised in 2021 to preserve the UK nuclear-submarine build capability.

Instead, critics said they feared the announcement by Rolls-Royce SMR means that core elements of the “nuclear islands” — described as the equivalent to the engines in a car — are now likely to be built in South Korea, leaving UK suppliers to produce lower-value components.

Under the agreement announced last week, Doosan and Škoda will undertake early production work for key components of the nuclear islands, including for the reactor pressure vessels.

Doosan is a global leader in nuclear power equipment and produces entire reactor vessels. Sheffield Forgemasters produces forgings which are a component in the vessels.

A person close to Forgemasters said it was a “perverse outcome” that the UK government should invest over £500mn in saving the strategically important facility, only to see it being marginalised in the UK’s own SMR supply chain.

Before winning the contract, Rolls-Royce SMR told MPs on parliament’s Energy Security & Net Zero Committee in February last year that it was “unashamedly Team UK” and that “up to 78 per cent” of the reactor could be made in the UK. 

When asked this week, Rolls-Royce SMR declined to comment on what proportion of content would be made in the UK under current plans, saying only that “88 per cent of our spend since the business was established [in 2021] has been with UK-based businesses — hundreds of millions of pounds”.  

Governments are backing SMRs, which are smaller than the conventional gigawatt-scale plants that have been built around the world, to provide a reliable source of electricity to meet rising demand without carbon emissions. 

The International Energy Agency has estimated that over 1,000 SMRs could be built by 2050, with cumulative investment of more than $670bn in the sector. 

The situation has echoes of the UK’s failure to develop a stronger position in wind turbine manufacturing despite having the largest offshore wind market outside China. The UK does not have a national wind turbine maker, relying heavily on imports. 

Professor Keith Ridgway, who founded the UK’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, said the UK, with its existing capabilities in nuclear submarine manufacturing in cities like Sheffield, was “perfectly placed” to be a world leader in SMRs.

South Yorkshire mayor Oliver Coppard said the Sheffield region, including Forgemasters and the University of Sheffield’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, already had the foundations of a globally competitive SMR cluster.

“If key parts of production are moved overseas at this stage, there’s a real risk we miss a once‑in‑a-generation opportunity,” he added.

Rolls-Royce SMR said the company would “procure over 40 million components for each SMR” and it was “committed to maximising UK content for our first project, alongside Great British Energy — Nuclear, where competitive capability exists”. 

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said it was looking to “unlock a golden age” of nuclear power that would create thousands of jobs across the UK.

“Great British Energy — Nuclear’s ambition is that 70 per cent of supply chain products are British-built across the small modular reactor fleet,” a spokesperson added.

The Information : Wall Street Expects SpaceX to Burn $350 Billion of Cash Throug

Wall Street Expects SpaceX to Burn $350 Billion of Cash Through 2030

The Takeaway
  • SpaceX IPO roadshow kicks off on Thursday
  • Goldman Sachs’ forecasts underscore heavy costs of AI buildout
  • SpaceX is expected to list shares publicly next week

SpaceX, planning the largest initial public offering of all time next week, will already need to raise more cash by next year if private forecasts from analysts at Goldman Sachs come to fruition.

SpaceX’s lead bank on the IPO, in aggressive forecasts shared with prospective investors this week, expects the company to burn $120 billion this year and next year combined, and another $230 billion through 2030, as it significantly ramps up on capital expenditures, largely for its nascent artificial intelligence business. The forecasts anticipate SpaceX making about $360 billion of capital expenditures through 2028, with about 80% of that spending for AI

The cash burn would nearly double the $180 billion that OpenAI expects to burn through 2030, according to forecasts the AI company shared with investors earlier this year.

The forecasts underscore that the AI race is expected to require even more buy-in from Wall Street. OpenAI and Anthropic are preparing for IPOs as soon as this year. Alphabet just announced it was raising more than $80 billion in its first equity raise since 2005, in part to fund capital expenditures for AI infrastructure.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has suggested to prospective investors that the company may not need to raise additional equity capital after the IPO. Executives have told those investors it would likely raise debt.

The cash burn would represent a significant expansion of the non-cancelable contracts for AI infrastructure and spectrum that SpaceX outlines in its IPO prospectus. The company said it had about $24 billion in commitments for the next few years, including its deal to buy spectrum for Echostar. SpaceX is paying a large portion of that $19.6 billion deal in stock.

The reward for SpaceX’s cash burn would be incredible revenue growth, according to the forecasts. SpaceX would reach $474 billion in revenue by 2030, with AI revenues making up two-thirds of the sales. That revenue total would be more than sales from each Alphabet and Apple last year. It would also represent a 25-fold increase from its $18.7 billion in revenue last year.

The bank expects SpaceX’s revenue to more than double this year to $38 billion, likely reflecting the deal it struck with Anthropic to rent out its data centers for $1.25 billion per month.

The roadshow for SpaceX’s IPO, in which the company is seeking to raise about $75 billion at a $1.75 trillion valuation, started on Thursday to cement investor interest in the deal. SpaceX is set to list shares publicly on Nasdaq next week. The forecasts, which are a less widely publicized part of the IPO roadshow process, are usually informed heavily by the company listing its shares. The Financial Times earlier reported parts of the forecasts.

Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

SpaceX said in its IPO prospectus that its AI business in particular “will require significant capital expenditures to fund compute, infrastructure and power generation, model training, and product development,” without specifying the amount. It warned prospective investors that they could “suffer significant dilution” of their stakes if the company raises additional equity.

In the first quarter of this year, the company generated $4.7 billion in revenue, largely from its Starlink satellite internet business, and it burned about $9 billion. The company had more than $23 billion in cash and $30 billion in debt and finance leases at the end of March.

The Information : Data Center Developer Switch in Talks to Raise Billions at $50

Data Center Developer Switch in Talks to Raise Billions at $50 Billion-Plus Valuation

The Takeaway
  • Data center developer Switch in talks to raise funding at $50 billion valuation.
  • Fundraising could set up Switch for a possible initial public offering.
  • Brookfield, KKR have discussed investment in company.

Data center developer Switch is in talks to raise billions of dollars at a valuation of at least $50 billion, as it seeks to capitalize on soaring demand for the infrastructure needed to support artificial intelligence, according to people with knowledge of the deal.

Brookfield Asset Management, KKR and other private equity and institutional investors have been in talks to invest in the round, people familiar with the matter said. Their conversations are early and there is no guarantee they will lead to a deal. Terms of the funding round could still change and the discussions could still fall apart.

If Switch notched a more than $50 billion valuation, it would make Switch one of the most valuable privately held data center operators. It would also be roughly five times the company’s $11 billion valuation, including debt, when it was taken private in 2022. Last year, a consortium of investors bought Aligned Data Centers in a transaction that valued the company at roughly $40 billion. It’s not clear if the $50 billion valuation would include Switch’s debt.

The fundraising could set Switch up for a possible initial public offering that could come as early as next year, according to other people with knowledge of that discussion.

Switch is working with bankers at Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to help raise money, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

Industry publication TMT Finance earlier reported that Switch is working with the bankers to explore options.

Switch operates several data centers in the U.S. and was founded by Rob Roy, its current chief executive officer, in 2000. The firm went public in 2017 and was taken private in 2022 by investment firm DigitalBridge and IFM Investors.

The 26-year-old data center developer’s scale and experience in developing multiple data center campuses had attracted Softbank as a suitor. The Japanese conglomerate considered a takeover of around $50 billion in late 2025 but abandoned acquisition talks early this year, according to a person briefed on the discussion.

Bloomberg reported that Softbank grew concerned about the size of the deal and its ability to manage running the data center campuses. It had already struck a deal at the end of December to buy DigitalBridge, which is a major Switch shareholder, for $4 billion.

>>> US After Hours Summary: GWRE -16.2%, LULU -11%, WLTH -9.3%, DOCU -4.2%, IOT

After Hours Summary: GWRE -16.2%, LULU -11%, WLTH -9.3%, DOCU -4.2%, IOT -3.9% lower on earnings; TTAN +14.4%, AGX +13.6%, COO +4.9% higher on earnings

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: BBCP +22.4%, TTAN +14.4%, AGX +13.6%, CURV +7.9%, COO +4.9%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: MRLN +23.1% (completes critical design review for C-130J autonomy program with USSOCOM), ATOM +4.6% (new approach to GaN-on-Silicon), CE +2% (to close facility in South Korea), GSL +1.5% (newbuilding orders ), ROOT +1.3% (new partnership with Hugo), UWMC +1% (UWMC reaffirms commitment to acquire TWO), LYEL +0.4% (to present Phase 1/2 data for Ronde-Cel), ELDN +0.3% (presents data from trial of Tegoprubart), KNX +0.2% (exec chairman to reitre), WMT +0.2% (adding express delivery from in-store restaurants)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: GWRE -16.2%, ZUMZ -13.1%, LULU -11%, WLTH -9.3%, NX -5.1%, DOCU -4.2%, IOT -3.9%, PL -2%, RBRK -1.6%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: NYXH -23.6% (begins search for new CEO, based in US; also commences stock offering), ALM -14.1% ($700 mln convertible notes offering), KEEL -6.6% ($350 mln convertible notes offering), FULC -2.1% (restructuring plan following discontinuation of pociredir; includes 85% workforce reduction), AMT -1.8% (terminates collocation agreement with DISH Wireless; provides update regarding its relationship), VALN -0.5% (files for 31,787,634 ordinary share offering by selling shareholders), CVGI -0.2% (files for $25 mln mixed securities shelf offering), TWO -0.1% (UWMC reaffirms commitment to acquire TWO)

The Information : Billionaire Databricks and Perplexity Co-Founder Pitches AI Re

Billionaire Databricks and Perplexity Co-Founder Pitches AI Researchers to Not Work for Big Tech

The billionaire co-founder of Databricks and Perplexity AI, Andy Konwinski, is singularly focused on plugging the years-long drain of talent from academia to Big Tech.

He wants to encourage academics to focus on publishing more openly available research, a reaction to the move by frontier AI companies to reduce the amount of AI research they publish as they race against one another to develop the best models and AI tools.

While Google, in particular, has long been known for its research publishing, a 2026 Stanford report noted that OpenAI, Anthropic and Google no longer disclose details about the software used to train their AI models, how much computing power they used, and the size of their training datasets — crucial points that could help researchers replicate the companies’ successes.

“There are many reasons—like fundamental, societal-level, defend-democracy reasons—that open research needs to survive,” Konwinski told me at the Association for Computing Machinery’s AI conference in San Jose. He pointed to a well-known Google research paper from 2017 that would later become the basis of today’s most popular AI models and chatbots.

Now, he said, there is an “aging generation of luminaries” that aren’t publishing research externally or sticking around in academia to “train up their replacement,” meaning there could be a future scarcity of AI talent, just as artificial intelligence technologies become more complex and crucial to national security.

Konwinski in June 2025 co-founded Laude Institute, a kind of Y Combinator for academic and research types with big ideas for breakthroughs in AI research. Laude Institute, which Konwinski put $100 million into, currently funds about 70 projects through grants of up to $10 million. One such project was Terminal-Bench, a collection of AI benchmarking tools created by researchers from Stanford and Laude Institute that’s become an industry standard for evaluating AI coding tools.

Another is Stanford’s Marin project, which is focused on coming up with more efficient, predictable ways to pre-train open source models that perform on par with frontier ones at a fraction of the cost by requiring fewer AI chips or fewer “runs” or rounds of training.

Konwinski said he chats with about one dozen PhD students every month from the top 20 universities in North America, with a particular focus on Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and Carnegie Mellon. His pitch to them: Stay in academia as a PhD student, even if that means making less than $100,000 annually for a few years, rather than accepting a $1 million to $3 million compensation package from a tech firm. If they do that, and publish openly, Laude will fund their research so they can share technology breakthroughs with the world. Eventually, you’ll get offers for tens of millions of dollars from the same companies, he tells them.

“I can get you [researchers] to fifty million. I can get you to a hundred million,” he said. “The value you have is in your ability to make the breakthrough.”

Konwinski said he’s fighting an uphill battle as AI talent wars send compensation packages through the roof: “The trade-off‘s just getting so much harder ’cause people are having to say no to salaries that are unprecedented.”

Academia also has problems getting adequate resources to produce AI models. Universities used to need up to a $10 million budget for large AI research projects but the cost has soared to around $100 million in some cases, given the expenses linked to costly AI chips, Konwinski said.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, for instance, thinks universities need $1 billion budgets for AI chips—an issue that Stanford visiting professor Anjney Midha grilled him about during a recorded class lecture last month.

“We are dying out here,” said Midha, referencing the university’s crimped ability to purchase Nvidia’s expensive graphics processing units.

“You don’t have the budget for $1 billion compute,” Huang responded. “You have to find a way to change the way you do budgeting, he said.

Meanwhile, Konwinski is doing what he can to encourage open research despite the challenges. Laude Institute is beginning to accept pledges from other technologists and said it has a commitment from Berkeley professor and Google distinguished engineer Dave Patterson.

He said open research “needs a heavyweight champion in the ring.”

“We're fostering this ecosystem of open research so that I can put forward a heavyweight contender in the arena with the closed labs, the closed models, the closed techniques.”

The Information : Fusion Startup Helion Nearly Triples Valuation to $15.5 Billio

Fusion Startup Helion Nearly Triples Valuation to $15.5 Billion in Thrive-led Round

The Takeaway
  • Fusion startup Helion’s valuation triples to $15.5 billion in Thrive-led round.
  • Helion’s Orion commercial fusion plant targets 2028 electricity production for Microsoft.
  • New capital will advance Omega capacitor facility and Orion commercial fusion plant.

Helion Energy, a nuclear fusion startup backed by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, still has to prove it can produce electricity to serve data centers and other customers. But investors seem confident it can deliver.

The Everett, Wash.–based company said it has raised $465 million in a funding round led by Thrive Capital, the investment firm founded by Josh Kushner, a big backer of OpenAI. Helion’s valuation after the investment was $15.5 billion, nearly triple the company’s $5.43 billion valuation during its prior round, announced in January 2025.

Other investors in the round include Alta Park Capital, Anti Fund, BoxGroup, Lux Capital, Peak XV Partners and Bill Ford, the executive chair of the Ford Motor Co. Many of the company’s existing investors, including Lightspeed Venture Partners, SoftBank Vision Fund 2 and Mithril Capital, also participated.

The steep increase in Helion’s valuation reflects the continued clamor among investors to put money into startups in and adjacent to the AI boom. While Helion has signed deals with customers, it has not yet begun to generate revenue from them. Like other clean energy startups, Helion is capitalizing on the explosion in demand for electricity driven in part by the proliferation of data centers.

In Helion’s case, its potential to provide a novel source of reliable, clean energy to AI companies attracted the early personal backing of Altman, who disclosed last month, during a trial in Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, that he owned a third of Helion. In March, Altman stepped down from Helion’s board of directors, a move aimed at enabling the fusion company and OpenAI to explore future partnerships together, Helion’s CEO and founder David Kirtley said at the time.

Helion is building a generator that relies on nuclear fusion, the same process that powers the sun and other stars. In fusion, atoms combine under extreme heat and pressure, releasing energy in the process. It is the opposite of fission, the process of splitting atoms that is at the heart of traditional nuclear power plants. Both processes create energy without producing greenhouse gases, but fusion promises to do so without the safety risks of fission, such as meltdowns caused by runaway chain reactions and long-lasting radioactive waste.

In an interview, Kirtley said the new round of capital from investors will allow the company to advance two of its most important goals. The first of those is the completion of a manufacturing facility in Everett, dubbed Omega, to build capacitors, a critical component of Helion’s fusion generators, which store electrical energy.

The second goal is to begin operations at Orion, the company’s first commercial fusion power plant, which Helion has begun building in Malaga, Wash. Helion is aiming to begin producing electricity for customers at the plant in 2028 and has an agreement with Microsoft to ultimately deliver 50 megawatts of power for its data centers from the facility.

“What this means is we get to move faster,” Kirtley said of the new funding round. “This is accelerating what we’re building at Helion.”

The evidence of that building effort was on display on a recent tour of its operations in Everett, a city about a 45-minute drive north from Seattle. At the facility, Kirtley showed off a functional prototype of Helion’s fusion generator, Polaris, which is helping to drive the design of its Orion power plant. A multistory concrete box with walls 2 to 5 feet thick surrounds the generator. Inside the box, the hourglass-shaped generator is surrounded by a seemingly endless number of black power cables.

Kirtley was able to provide a tour of the box because it was a weekend, so Polaris was not operating and the machine was silent. The security and safety protocols for a fusion generator are very different from those for a nuclear fission reactor. Fission reactors use highly radioactive materials such as uranium for fuel. Nuclear power plants require large security perimeters in part to account for related safety risks.

In contrast, Polaris is housed in an unassuming industrial office park formerly occupied by a supplier to Boeing, which has a huge airplane factory nearby. The generator relies for fuel on a far less radioactive isotope, tritium, which doesn’t produce the same long-lived radioactive waste as uranium. On the recent tour of Helion’s generator, this reporter wore a dosimeter, a radiation monitoring device, which showed zero radioactivity present.

Because they pose fewer risks, fusion plants are generally more lightly regulated than traditional nuclear power plants, which have to navigate a thicket of federal rules. In Washington, for example, Helion is licensed by the state’s department of health, which also oversees equipment like the particle accelerators hospitals use in cancer treatments.

A big part of Helion’s physical presence in Everett is devoted to manufacturing the electronics that go into its generator, including its capacitors. Helion uses thousands of the devices to power the machines. One of the company’s biggest priorities is building as many of its capacitors as possible in-house to reduce its reliance on Chinese-made versions.

“We joke sometimes that we’re more of a power electronics company than a fusion company,” Kirtley said during the recent tour.

Still, Helion has to hit some significant milestones in the next couple of years to show it can be a viable long-term business. The company has missed key deadlines in the past. And more broadly, the concept of fusion has been talked about for so long as a source of cheap, clean electricity that there’s an old joke about it: The technology is 20 years away and always will be.

This week, Kirtley said the big increase in Helion’s valuation this week shows its investors believe the probability of the company hitting its goals has grown. “Fusion is going to be here a lot faster than a lot of people think,” he said.

Hedge Week : Point72 tops May hedge fund performance as multi-strat rivals post

Point72 tops May hedge fund performance as multi-strat rivals post mixed results

Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management led performance among major hedge funds in May, extending a strong run of gains for the $50.7bn multi-strategy firm as the wider industry delivered a mixed month of returns, according to a report by Business Insider.

The report cites an unnamed person familiar with the matter as revealing that Point72 rose 2% in May, bringing year-to-date gains to approximately 10.5%. The result follows a 17.5% return in 2025, during which the firm outperformed several of its closest peers in the multi-strategy hedge fund space, including Millennium Management and Citadel.

Broader industry performance was also positive but more uneven. Millennium Management posted a 2.4% gain for May, lifting its 2026 returns to 6.1%, while Balyasny Asset Management moved into positive territory for the year after a 1.4% monthly gain.

Despite solid results among hedge funds, returns lagged behind broader equity markets, which rallied strongly on continued investor enthusiasm for technology and artificial intelligence-linked stocks. The S&P 500 rose 11% in May, following a gain of more than 5% in the month alone.

Not all managers posted gains. Walleye Capital and North Rock Partners recorded modest losses of 0.9% and 0.2% respectively over the month.

The performance snapshot highlights ongoing dispersion across the hedge fund industry, with multi-strategy platforms continuing to compete closely while navigating a market environment heavily influenced by equity momentum and sector concentration.