FT : Water companies leak sewage into waters of England and Wales 370,000 times

Water companies leak sewage into waters of England and Wales 370,000 times in 2021
Latest data shows groups released effluent into rivers and the sea at a rate of 1,000 spills a day last year

Water companies in England face a clampdown on dumping raw sewage into rivers and the sea, as the latest official data showed there were more than 370,000 spillages last year.

But campaigners rejected the UK government’s proposals, which also cover Wales, as inadequate. The measures announced on Thursday include plans to cut discharges into bathing waters during the swimming season by 70 per cent by 2035.

The move came as the latest figures published by the Environment Agency showed that the nine largest water and sewage companies reported 372,533 spillages last year, down just under 8 per cent on 2020.

The worst performer was United Utilities, which released sewage into the environment in Manchester and north-west England 81,588 times last year. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The official data is not a true reflection of the number of spills as the government has since 2009 relied on water companies to monitor their own sewage outflows. Moreover, one reported spill could last several weeks.

Ofwat revealed earlier this month that several water companies had told the industry regulator they “had difficulty in stating whether a wastewater treatment works was operating in line with required standards” as they did not have monitors in place.

Along with a clamp down on spills into bathing waters by 2035, the government said it also proposed eliminating 40 per cent of total discharges — equivalent to 160,000 a year — by 2040 and by 80 per cent by 2050.

“We are the first government to set out our expectation that water companies must take steps to significantly reduce storm overflow. Today, we are setting specific targets to ensure that those storm overflows are used only in exceptional circumstances,” said George Eustice, environment secretary.

The water industry said that if the proposals were implemented it would “represent the single biggest investment in the water environment since the 1990s”, adding: “This level of transformation will require significant new investment over the next decade, building on the £3.1bn of spending between now and 2025.”

But clean-water activists said government was not acting fast enough. Ash Smith, co-founder of the campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed thousands of illegal sewage spills by water companies, said the proposals were “way too little and will take way too long to deal with a serious environmental and public health crisis”.

Hugo Tagholm, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said: “The level of public outrage on the sewage pollution scandal continues to grow by the day, yet we’re seeing a consultation today that provides us with targets and timeframes decades away.”

Although water companies are allowed to release a certain amount of sewage during heavy rains, evidence from citizen scientists such as Wasp has found that releases also occur during dry periods.

The government’s attempts at tightening up on spills comes as pressure is mounting on the industry, which was privatised more than 30 years ago. Just 16 per cent of coastal waters and rivers meet the minimum good ecological status, according to the Environment Agency.

England and Wales are among the only countries in the world to have fully privatised their water and sewage network, with three listed regional water monopolies and the rest owned by a clutch of private equity, sovereign wealth and infrastructure funds.

Although privatisation was intended to bring investment, this has fallen by almost a fifth in the past 30 years, from £2.9bn a year in the 1990s to £2.4bn now, according to research by the Financial Times.

Over the same time the companies, which were privatised with no debt, have borrowed £53bn, the equivalent of about £2,000 per household, much of which has been used to help pay £72bn in dividends.

>>> US Research Calls

Research Calls

  • Upgrades:
    • APA Corp. (APA) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Mizuho; tgt $56
    • Baker Hughes (BKR) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Wells Fargo; tgt raised to $43
    • Cameco (CCJ) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at BMO Capital Markets
    • CDW (CDW) upgraded to Overweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley; tgt raised to $214
    • Core & Main (CNM) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays; tgt raised to $34
    • Five Below (FIVE) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup; tgt raised to $205
    • Millicom International Cellular (TIGO) upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at JP Morgan
    • Vector Grp (VGR) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays; tgt raised to $16
  • Downgrades:
    • Advanced Micro (AMD) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays; tgt lowered to $115
    • Akebia Therapeutics (AKBA) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Mizuho; tgt lowered to $2
    • Akebia Therapeutics (AKBA) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt lowered to $2
    • BNY Mellon (BK) downgraded to Peer Perform from Outperform at Wolfe Research; tgt $55
    • Dell (DELL) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley; tgt lowered to $60
    • HP (HPQ) downgraded to Underweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley; tgt lowered to $31
    • Hub Group (HUBG) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Stephens; tgt lowered to $93
    • Liberty Oilfield Services (LBRT) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Wells Fargo; tgt raised to $15
    • Navient (NAVI) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Compass Point; tgt $18
    • PulteGroup (PHM) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays; tgt lowered to $49
    • PVH (PVH) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley; tgt lowered to $89
    • Sociedad Quimica y Minera (SQM) downgraded to Underweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley; tgt raised to $70
    • State Street (STT) downgraded to Peer Perform from Outperform at Wolfe Research; tgt $101
    • Taylor Morrison Home (TMHC) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays; tgt lowered to $33
    • Trean Insurance Group (TIG) downgraded to In-line from Outperform at Evercore ISI; tgt lowered to $5.50
  • Others:
    • Adicet Bio (ACET) initiated with an Outperform at SMBC Nikko; tgt $28
    • Affimed Therapeutics (AFMD) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt $7
    • BRC Inc. (BRCC) initiated with a Hold at Deutsche Bank; tgt $19
    • Codexis (CDXS) assumed with an Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt $35
    • Coinbase Global (COIN) initiated with a Sell at US Tiger; tgt $135
    • Dassault Systemes (DASTY) initiated with an Underperform at Credit Suisse
    • ESS Inc. (GWH) initiated with a Hold at Deutsche Bank; tgt $7
    • Euronet (EEFT) initiated with a Buy at UBS; tgt $163
    • Huntsman (HUN) resumed with a Buy at BofA Securities; tgt $46
    • Ionis Pharma (IONS) assumed with an Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt $54
    • Morphic (MORF) initiated with a Buy at Canaccord Genuity; tgt $68
    • NeoGames (NGMS) initiated with a Buy at Jefferies; tgt $20
    • Pearson Plc (PSO) resumed with a Neutral at BofA Securities
    • Qualtrics (XM) resumed with a Buy at BofA Securities; tgt $40
    • SAP SE (SAP) initiated with an Outperform at Credit Suisse
    • Snowflake (SNOW) initiated with a Neutral at Atlantic Equities; tgt $240
    • Travere Therapeutics (TVTX) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler; tgt $42
    • Ventyx Biosciences (VTYX) initiated with a Buy at Canaccord Genuity; tgt $30
    • Warby Parker (WRBY) initiated with a Hold at Stifel; tgt $36
    • Western Union (WU) initiated with a Neutral at UBS; tgt $19

>>> US Gapping up


Gapping up
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • FLEX +4.3%

Other news:

  • CLVS +43% (Rubraca significantly improves progression-free survival in first-line maintenance treatment in women with ovarian cancer regardless of their biomarker status in phase 3 athena-mono trial)
  • DARE +22.4% (Organon and Daré Bioscience have entered into an agreement whereby Organon will license global rights to XACIATO)
  • KULR +7.8% (secured a battery safety contract with NASA to test its lithium-ion cells going into future battery packs designed for the Artemis Program)
  • VIPS +7.5% (authorizes $1 bln share repurchase program over the next 24-month period)
  • MYNZ +6.8% (completes successful pre-submission process with the FDA for ColoAlert's Pivotal Clinical Trial)
  • PRG +6% (to move to S&P Small Cap 600 from S&P MidCap 400)
  • OEC +4.9% (to raise rubber carbon black prices in Europe)
  • WB +4% (approves share repurchase of up to $500 mln ADS)
  • CORT +3.4% (presents results from Phase 2 study of relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel)
  • HII +2.7% (REMUS 300 selected as US Navy's next generation small UUV program of record)
  • KC +2.5% (announces $100 million share repurchase program plan)
  • AUTL +1.7% (EMA has granted obe-cel Autolus' leading CAR T clinical candidate Orphan Medical Product Designation for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia)
  • DDOG +1.6% (partners with MSFT for the Azure Cloud Adoption Framework)
  • CYRX +1.4% (announces New Prague facility's return to full production)
  • ONEW +1.2% (approves $50 mln share repurchase program)

Analyst comments:

  • CNM +2.8% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays)
  • FIVE +2.4% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Citigroup)
  • CDW +1.9% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley)
  • CCJ +0.8% (upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at BMO Capital Markets)

>>> US Gapping down


Gapping down
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • PATH -14.6%, EXFY -9.4%, MASI -9.3%, PHR -6.1%, SHCR -5.5%, TPX -4.4%, FTK -3.8%, WBA -1.5%, BRZE -1.4%

Select Chinese ADRs showing early weakness:

  • IQ -10.9% HCM -5% JD -2.6% BIDU -2.2% BABA -1.5% LI -0.7%

Other news:

  • YNDX -21.3% (Yango Deli unit exploring strategic shifts in the UK and France according to Bloomberg)
  • FRGI -7.4% (to be removed from S&P SmallCap 600)
  • AMLX -6.2% (FDA advisory committee votes 6-4 for "no" on effectiveness of AMX0035 for the treatment of ALS)
  • MDV -5.5% (files for $200 mln mixed securities shelf offering)
  • BOLT -2.5% (files for $250 mln mixed securities shelf offering)
  • HESM -2.5% (prices secondary offering of 8.9 mln shares of Class A stock at $29.50 per share)
  • FFIE -1.4% (provides update on status of filings and investigation)

Analyst comments:

  • HPQ -4% (downgraded to Underweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley)
  • DELL -3.3% (downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley)
  • AMD -2.3% (downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays)
  • HUBG -0.9% (downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Stephens)

WSJ : China-Taiwan Tensions: What’s Behind the Divide

China-Taiwan Tensions: What’s Behind the Divide
Beijing is flexing its military power in response to growing U.S. support for the island; here’s a primer on the frictions

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drawn parallels with Taiwan, a global flashpoint far to the east with the potential for an even more destructive conflict.

Taiwan, a self-ruled island of 24 million people roughly 100 miles off China’s southeastern coast, is a vibrant democracy that, like Ukraine, has lived for years under the cloud of conflict with a vastly more powerful authoritarian neighbor. The war in Ukraine has rattled many in Taiwan, renewing interest in preparing to resist an invasion by China, which regards the island as a renegade province and has vowed to take control of it—if necessary, by force. Russia’s offensive likewise is offering lessons that China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, can take on board should it decide to launch an assault across the Taiwan Strait.

For all the similarities between Ukraine and Taiwan, there are important differences. At the top of the list are the parties involved: A conflict over Taiwan is likely to include direct U.S. involvement. There is no indication war over Taiwan is imminent, but if one broke out, it could pit the world’s two largest militaries against each other, with the world’s two largest economies hanging in the balance.

Here’s a look at the past and present of tensions between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, and what it could mean for the future of the balance of power, in Asia and beyond.

What’s the latest on the China-Taiwan tension?
Tensions have been rising since then-President Donald Trump made it U.S. policy to tighten ties with Taiwan. That has continued under President Joe Biden, with the U.S. sending weapons, special military training units and delegations of former officials in a show of support for Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, whom Beijing sees as dangerously pro-independence.

The friction has heated up over the past year, with the People’s Liberation Army sending fighter jets, bombers and spy planes on hundreds of sorties near Taiwan—often in response to the presence nearby of U.S. aircraft-carrier strike groups.

The temperature climbed higher after Russia invaded in Ukraine. Days after Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the “special military operation,” the U.S. sent the Navy destroyer USS Ralph Johnson on a course through the Taiwan Strait. President Biden followed up a few days later by sending a delegation of former military officials, including retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a two-day visit to Taipei.

In response, China’s Foreign Ministry has issued a series of angry responses, denying any similarity between Ukraine and Taiwan and dismissing U.S. displays of support for Taiwan as “futile.”

What is Taiwan’s relationship with mainland China?
Taiwan was controlled by Japan for half a century until the end of World War II, when it became a part of the Republic of China, ruled by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Party, also known as the Kuomintang.

Though the mainland was taken over by Mao Zedong’s Communist forces in China’s civil war, the island remained under Kuomintang control after the war ended in 1949. Tensions often spiked in the following decades. China shelled offshore islands held by Taiwan in the 1950s, and the Kuomintang for many years harbored ambitions of recovering the mainland from the Communists.

Taiwanese increasingly view mainland China as a foreign place. In the early 1990s, fewer than 20% of people on the island identified themselves as exclusively Taiwanese, with most seeing themselves as at least partly Chinese. By 2021, only a third identified themselves as both Chinese and Taiwanese, with most of the rest describing themselves as exclusively Taiwanese.

Although Mandarin is the dominant language in both places, Chinese pressure has helped fuel Taiwanese interest in the island’s local languages.

How has Taiwan responded to the tensions with China?
For years, defense analysts have questioned Taiwan’s dedication and approach in preparing for a potential Chinese invasion. Taiwanese soldiers and reservists have themselves expressed concerns about training and readiness.

In response, Taiwan’s government established an agency to revamp reserve forces. The Taiwanese military has purchased more of the type of mobile weaponry that American analysts say it will need to repel Chinese forces. It has also staged exercises it hopes will deter Beijing from contemplating an invasion.

More recently, Taiwanese military officials have said that the war in Ukraine has spurred them to further improve combat-readiness training, though they declined to provide details.

Can China invade Taiwan?
Defense and political analysts generally agree that China’s military, which dwarfs Taiwan’s, could invade and eventually take control, especially if the U.S. and other powers don’t intervene. Last year, Taiwan’s defense minister warned lawmakers that by 2025 the PLA would be capable of launching a full-scale attack on Taiwan “with minimal losses.”

A successful invasion would be a challenge, however. The PLA would have to cross choppy seas and land significant forces on Taiwan’s heavily fortified western shore. China’s military is well-equipped but untested, having not fought a war since a border skirmish with Vietnam in 1979. And even if the other countries don’t get involved, the war in Ukraine provides a template for advanced democracies to cooperate on crippling sanctions against a major power that launches an unpopular war.

Is there an equivalent of NATO for the Asia-Pacific region?
There is no formal military alliance among Pacific states akin to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Even if there were, Taiwan would likely be shut out, as it has diplomatic recognition from only a small number of small states. The U.S. and most other countries long ago switched recognition to Beijing, which has exerted pressure on international bodies like the World Health Organization and World Trade Organization to deny Taiwan full membership.

Recently, the U.S. has strengthened informal alliances that might come into play were China to invade Taiwan. The Biden administration has revived a grouping that combines the U.S., Japan, Australia and India—known as the Quad—with the aim of countering China’s influence and deterring a potential conflict in the region.

Last year the U.S., Australia and the U.K. launched the Aukus security partnership, which focuses primarily on providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia—a move that military analysts see as an effort to take advantage of China’s relative weakness in undersea combat.

China has blasted both efforts as a U.S.-led attempt to revive a “Cold-War mentality.”

NYT : How War in Ukraine Roiled Facebook and Instagram

How War in Ukraine Roiled Facebook and Instagram
The rules over what war content is permitted on Facebook and Instagram keep changing, causing internal confusion.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, took an unusual step last week: It suspended some of the quality controls that ensure that posts from users in Russia, Ukraine and other Eastern European countries meet its rules.
Under the change, Meta temporarily stopped tracking whether its workers who monitor Facebook and Instagram posts from those areas were accurately enforcing its content guidelines, six people with knowledge of the situation said. That’s because the workers could not keep up with shifting rules about what kinds of posts were allowed about the war in Ukraine, they said.
Meta has made more than half a dozen content policy revisions since Russia invaded Ukraine last month. The company has permitted posts about the conflict that it would normally have taken down — including some calling for the death of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and violence against Russian soldiers — before changing its mind or drawing up new guidelines, the people said.
The result has been internal confusion, especially among the content moderators who patrol Facebook and Instagram for text and images with gore, hate speech and incitements to violence. Meta has sometimes shifted its rules on a daily basis, causing whiplash, said the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The bewilderment over the content guidelines is just one way that Meta has been roiled by the war in Ukraine. The company has also contended with pressure from Russian and Ukrainian authorities over the information battle about the conflict. And internally, it has dealt with discontent about its decisions, including from Russian employees concerned for their safety and Ukrainian workers who want the company to be tougher on Kremlin-affiliated organizations online, three people said.
Meta has weathered international strife before — including the genocide of a Muslim minority in Myanmar last decade and skirmishes between India and Pakistan — with varying degrees of success. Now the largest conflict on the European continent since World War II has become a litmus test of whether the company has learned to police its platforms during major global crises — and so far, it appears to remain a work in progress.

“All the ingredients of the Russia-Ukraine conflict have been around for a long time: the calls for violence, the disinformation, the propaganda from state media,” said David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a former special rapporteur to the United Nations. “What I find mystifying was that they didn’t have a game plan to deal with it.”
Dani Lever, a Meta spokeswoman, declined to directly address how the company was handling content decisions and employee concerns during the war.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Meta said it established a round-the-clock special operations team staffed by employees who are native Russian and Ukrainian speakers. It also updated its products to aid civilians in the war, including features that direct Ukrainians toward reliable, verified information to locate housing and refugee assistance.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, and Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer, have been directly involved in the response to the war, said two people with knowledge of the efforts. But as Mr. Zuckerberg focuses on transforming Meta into a company that will lead the digital worlds of the so-called metaverse, many responsibilities around the conflict have fallen — at least publicly — to Nick Clegg, the president for global affairs.

Last month, Mr. Clegg announced that Meta would restrict access within the European Union to the pages of Russia Today and Sputnik, which are Russian state-controlled media, following requests by Ukraine and other European governments. Russia retaliated by cutting off access to Facebook inside the country, claiming the company discriminated against Russian media, and then blocking Instagram.
This month, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine praised Meta for moving quickly to limit Russian war propaganda on its platforms. Meta also acted rapidly to remove an edited “deepfake” video from its platforms that falsely featured Mr. Zelensky yielding to Russian forces.

The company has made high-profile mistakes as well. It permitted a group called the Ukrainian Legion to run ads on its platforms this month to recruit “foreigners” for the Ukrainian army, a violation of international laws. It later removed the ads — which were shown to people in the United States, Ireland, Germany and elsewhere — because the group may have misrepresented ties to the Ukrainian government, according to Meta.

Internally, Meta had also started changing its content policies to deal with the fast-moving nature of posts about the war. The company has long forbidden posts that might incite violence. But on Feb. 26, two days after Russia invaded Ukraine, Meta informed its content moderators — who are typically contractors — that it would allow calls for the death of Mr. Putin and “calls for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion,” according to the policy changes, which were reviewed by The New York Times.

This month, Reuters reported on Meta’s shifts with a headline that suggested that posts calling for violence against all Russians would be tolerated. In response, Russian authorities labeled Meta’s activities as “extremist.”
Shortly thereafter, Meta reversed course and said it would not let its users call for the deaths of heads of state.
“Circumstances in Ukraine are fast moving,” Mr. Clegg wrote in an internal memo that was reviewed by The Times and first reported by Bloomberg. “We try to think through all the consequences, and we keep our guidance under constant review because the context is always evolving.”
Meta amended other policies. This month, it made a temporary exception to its hate speech guidelines so users could post about the “removal of Russians” and “explicit exclusion against Russians” in 12 Eastern European countries, according to internal documents. But within a week, Meta tweaked the rule to note that it should be applied only to users in Ukraine.
The constant adjustments left moderators who oversee users in Central and Eastern European countries confused, the six people with knowledge of the situation said.
Russia-Ukraine War: Key Developments

Card 1 of 3
The state of peace talks. Pessimism about Russia’s willingness to tame its attacks in Ukraine is growing amid mixed signals from Kremlin officials on peace talks and reports of new strikes near Kyiv and Chernihiv, where Russia had vowed to sharply reduce combat operations.
Putin’s advisers. U.S. intelligence suggests that President Vladimir V. Putin has been misinformed by his advisers about the Russian military’s struggles in Ukraine. The intelligence shows what appears to be growing tension between Mr. Putin and the Ministry of Defense, U.S. officials said.
On the ground. As the Ukrainian military has kept Russian forces from taking over Kyiv and even regained some ground in the northeast, Russia appears to be shifting its focus to eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region, which borders Russia and where residents tend to feel a connection to Russia.

    The policy changes were onerous because moderators were generally given less than 90 seconds to decide on whether images of dead bodies, videos of limbs being blown off, or outright calls to violence violated Meta’s rules, they said. In some instances, they added, moderators were shown posts about the war in Chechen, Kazakh or Kyrgyz, despite not knowing those languages.
    Ms. Lever declined to comment on whether Meta had hired content moderators who specialize in those languages.

    Emerson T. Brooking, a senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, which studies the spread of online disinformation, said Meta faced a quandary with war content.
    “Usually, content moderation policy is intended to limit violent content,” he said. “But war is an exercise in violence. There is no way to sanitize war or to pretend that it is anything different.”
    Meta has also faced employee complaints over its policy shifts. At a meeting this month for workers with ties to Ukraine, employees asked why the company had waited until the war to take action against Russia Today and Sputnik, said two people who attended. Russian state activity was at the center of Facebook’s failure to protect the 2016 U.S. presidential election, they said, and it didn’t make sense that those outlets had continued to operate on Meta’s platforms.

    The Russia Today studios in London. Meta has limited Russia Today’s reach on its platforms.Credit...Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times
    While Meta has no employees in Russia, the company held a separate meeting this month for workers with Russian connections. Those employees said they were concerned that Moscow’s actions against the company would affect them, according to an internal document.
    In discussions on Meta’s internal forums, which were viewed by The Times, some Russian employees said they had erased their place of work from their online profiles. Others wondered what would happen if they worked in the company’s offices in places with extradition treaties to Russia and “what kind of risks will be associated with working at Meta not just for us but our families.”
    Ms. Lever said Meta’s “hearts go out to all of our employees who are affected by the war in Ukraine, and our teams are working to make sure they and their families have the support they need.”

    At a separate company meeting this month, some employees voiced unhappiness with the changes to the speech policies during the war, according to an internal poll. Some asked if the new rules were necessary, calling the changes “a slippery slope” that were “being used as proof that Westerners hate Russians.”
    Others asked about the effect on Meta’s business. “Will Russian ban affect our revenue for the quarter? Future quarters?” read one question. “What’s our recovery strategy?”

    WSJ : Russia Set for Steep Slump and Long Stagnation in Wake of Ukraine War

    Russia Set for Steep Slump and Long Stagnation in Wake of Ukraine War
    An analysis by a top regional development bank sees Ukraine’s economy shrinking more but rebounding sharply next year

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will cause their economies to contract this year by about 10% and 20%, respectively, the region’s leading development bank said Thursday in one of the most in-depth economic assessments to date of the war’s impact on the two countries.

    The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development said the slump in Russia would likely turn into a long period of stagnation while neighboring economies would rebound next year as long as a sustainable cease-fire is secured over the coming months.

    While Ukraine will suffer more in the short term because of the extensive damage to its physical infrastructure, Russia faces more long-term challenges from an exodus of well-educated workers and the loss of access to Western technologies under current sanctions, the bank said.

    The EBRD was set up in 1991 to help countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union make the transition from centrally planned to market economies. It stopped making new investments in Russia after that country’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and said Monday it was closing its Moscow office.

    The bank said it estimates that the territory most directly affected by the fighting accounts for 60% of Ukraine’s annual economic output and that about a third of Ukrainian businesses have had to suspend operations. Electricity consumption is down 60% on normal levels for this time of year, it said.

    Assuming that a cease-fire can be negotiated in the next two months, the EBRD expects Ukraine’s gross domestic product to contract by a fifth this year, compared with its previous estimate of 3.5% growth. The economy should then rebound and grow by 23% in 2023 if it receives reconstruction assistance.

    “Even in the optimistic scenario of reconstruction going into full swing, it is still going to be a much poorer country simply because a lot of stock has been destroyed,” said Beata Javorcik, the EBRD’s chief economist.

    After Moscow’s attack on Ukraine, the U.S. and its allies have adopted some of the most severe economic sanctions ever taken against a country with the explicit aim of damaging Russia’s economy, cutting it off from international finance and barring it from importing key technologies.

    The EBRD expects those sanctions to contribute to a 10% contraction in the Russian economy this year, having previously anticipated growth of 3%. In contrast to its outlook for Ukraine, the bank doesn’t expect a rebound in 2023 and sees prospects beyond then remaining weak.

    “There will be less investment, less international trade, less integration of Russia into global value chains, and this combined with people leaving Russia means lower long-term productivity growth,” said Ms. Javorcik.

    The EBRD economist said that drag on growth would likely persist even if sanctions were lifted as part of a peace agreement.

    “This effect, I would expect it to linger way beyond sanctions, if there’s no regime change,” she said.

    The prospect for Russia of a weakened economy is bad news for Central Asian countries that have maintained close economic ties with the country.

    The EBRD estimates that money sent home by citizens working in Russia accounts for between 5% and 30% of annual economic output in Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Countries in the region rely on Russian banks for their connections to the global financial system, and much of their trade with other countries moves through Russia.

    “They will need to reorient the flow of trade,” said Ms. Javorcik. “Not just because Russia will be poorer and buying less, but also to reach other markets.”

    The EBRD lowered its growth forecasts for all but two of the 33 countries in which it invests beyond Ukraine, stretching across North Africa, Central Asia, the Caucasus and Central and Eastern Europe. The exceptions are Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, both of which are large producers of natural gas.

    FT : Telecom Italia looks to put troubled past behind it with break-up

    Telecom Italia looks to put troubled past behind it with break-up
    One-time monopoly seeks sounder footing after years of upheavals and decline

    As an emblem of Italian business, Telecom Italia has had a long and lamentable record of upheavals, debt-laden struggles and political intrigues.

    Now its future is once again up in the air, with the new management plotting a break-up of the group as international private equity firms circle around its assets.

    The stakes are not small. An offer proposed by US fund KKR last November valued the company at €33bn, including net debt. Still not officially rejected, a takeover at that valuation would be among the biggest private equity buyouts in European history. It is highly unlikely to happen.

    Pietro Labriola, the sixth chief executive at Telecom Italia in under a decade, has drawn up a plan to spin off the group’s Italian fixed network. The existing company would house all the remaining assets including its mobile operations and its Brazilian business. It is not dissimilar to KKR’s plan.

    If either break-up plan goes ahead, it would be a denouement to what has come to feel like an unsustainable situation.

    The company’s stricken share price — down some 60 per cent over the past five years — fell to an all-time low of €0.30 this month. That came after the group reported a record net loss of €8.7bn for 2021, leading to further downgrades of its already beaten-up credit rating. Vivendi, now Telecom Italia’s largest shareholder, wrote down the value of its 24 per cent stake by €728mn this month.

    How it got to this point has been a sorry tale for a country that still sees it as a strategic asset. When Telecom Italia listed in 1997, it was dubbed the “mother of all privatisations” that took place in Italy during the 1990s, when the finance ministry’s top bureaucrat was Mario Draghi, the current prime minister.

    What has dragged down this potentially very profitable business is a streak of strategic errors, partly driven by politics and some greedy shareholders, that have left it with too much debt. In 1999, as a newly privatised company, its net debt was €8.1bn. The figure currently sits at €22bn.

    In 1999, after Rome blocked the company’s merger with Deutsche Telekom, it was acquired for €50bn in a debt-financed hostile takeover by a group of investors, led by the chief of Olivetti, dubbed “courageous captains” by Massimo D’Alema, former prime minister. That takeover was seen at the time as a genuine milestone for Italy and Europe that could redraw the map of cosy Italian capitalism.

    However, after the group sold Telecom Italia two years later at a substantial profit, the company ended up with a debt burden on its balance sheet from which it never really recovered. At the pace of its current deterioration, the group risks needing a capital injection.

    The obvious route now is to reorganise the business through a carve-out of its assets — an approach envisaged by Labriola and KKR — which would allow it to reduce its debt. The Labriola plan would involve a more extensive split-up. The KKR option lacks detail but it is disliked in some quarters of Italian politics where the company continues to be perceived as a national public asset.

    Separating the primary network from the other services would also allow discussions over the single broadband network project to move forward. The project is a priority for Italian politicians.

    The plan would also allow a merger between Telecom’s so-called “last mile” broadband network, FiberCop, of which KKR acquired a 37.5 per cent stake in 2020, with smaller and less profitable rival OpenFiber in which state investor CDP now holds a 60 per cent stake.

    That all leaves KKR ‘s buyout option in doubt. On paper, discussions are ongoing, but insiders say they have come to a halt as the private equity group wants to run due diligence before putting forward a binding offer. They add that Telecom Italia is refusing that because if KKR were to ultimately walk away, or lower its offer, it would have negative repercussions on the share price.

    Telecom Italia is a still prized asset. It is not for nothing that it is drawing interest from funds and private equity firms alike. This week the group also confirmed that it had received an offer from private equity firm CVC for a minority stake in the network services company that would be created following the break-up plan.

    However, the group’s businesses need to be put on a sounder footing, not just for its shareholders but for Italy, which — more than two decades after its first takeover — is still waiting for its capitalism map to be redrawn.

    FT : Breitling chief’s grounded approach speeds watchmaker’s growth

    Breitling chief’s grounded approach speeds watchmaker’s growth
    Georges Kern has broadened the brand’s appeal by steering it away from the masculine aviator image

    It is five years since Georges Kern blindsided the Richemont Group by announcing he was off to head up Breitling, the independent Swiss watch company.

    The former IWC Schaffhausen chief executive was a Richemont veteran of 17 years and, less than a year before his shock departure, had been promoted to the Richemont board and appointed the group’s head of specialist watchmaking.

    The divorce may have been unexpected, but the marriage of Kern and Breitling so far has proved harmonious. According to a report by Morgan Stanley last month, Breitling’s annual revenues surged to an estimated SFr680mn ($730mn) in 2021 — an increase of 55 per cent over the past two years.

    The report’s authors also calculated that Breitling’s volumes had increased from 140,000 watches a year to 190,000 over the same period and that its market share had increased by 0.4 per cent.

    The same report showed that Breitling appears to have outperformed many of its competitors under Kern’s leadership. Morgan Stanley’s data placed Breitling 11th among Swiss watch brands, up two places from 2019 and above rivals such as Tudor, which is owned by Rolex, and LVMH-owned Hublot.

    “Breitling is substantially above the industry’s average sales growth and even more so bottom line,” says Oliver Müller, founder of Swiss watch industry advisers LuxeConsult and one of the authors of the Morgan Stanley report.

    Kern’s appointment at Breitling followed the news in 2017 that London-based private equity group CVC Capital Partners had taken an 80 per cent stake in the company, in a deal worth €840mn. Kern, who has a 5 per cent stake in the business, was seen as having the right combination of Swiss watch industry experience and the sort of maverick tendencies that would shake up a brand in need of fresh thinking.

    As Richemont founder and controlling shareholder Johann Rupert said at the time, Kern had “been offered an interesting opportunity to become an entrepreneur”.

    Sweeping changes followed. Out went the salacious pin-up girls and the high carbon-emitting Breitling Jet Team, and in came a raft of new brand ambassadors, led by Hollywood A-listers Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron, organised in “Breitling squads”; plus an easy-going, loft-style boutique concept; sustainability messaging around recycled straps and packaging; and a range of new watches, many of them aimed at women — a new take for the brand.

    Kern is known for his intensity but, sitting in his office, wearing an open-necked shirt and a sweater, he cuts a relaxed figure. He is still ready to take a thinly veiled swipe at his former employer, though. “I truly believe that we wouldn’t have been as successful in a group,” he says. “We’ve been radical. And we’ve been totally free. They [CVC] let us work — we are the specialists, the professionals.”

    He might have a point. While Breitling accelerates, revenues at Richemont watch brands IWC, Jaeger-LeCoultre and Panerai have yet to return to their pre-pandemic levels, according to the Morgan Stanley report. Kern will not confirm Breitling’s figures but says the Morgan Stanley numbers are “most probably true” — adding that, because it has no group costs, the company is very lean and has been able to be “hugely profitable”.

    He continues: “People said we would crash this company. Watches are very emotional. When you change so much, you have to gain more than you lose. Of course, we lost customers. You need to score more goals than you concede — and we scored many more.

    “We gained huge market share during Covid, which shows our values worked. I’m convinced that, without these changes, the company would be bankrupt today.”

    Seasoned industry observers say Breitling has been the making of Kern. Kristian Haagen, an author and creative director of social media agency DailyWatch, met Kern in the mid-2000s, not long after he became chief executive of IWC. “He appeared to me to be quite arrogant, honestly,” says Haagen of their first encounter.

    “For years, it was almost impossible to get an interview with him. But he did something good by moving out of a group. It released him. He’s very savvy and he’s doing something that no group would.”

    Kern says he wants Breitling to be “the leader of neo-luxury”, a concept based on being “not exclusive, but inclusive; casual; and sustainable”. The company now has 160 boutiques around the world, with plans for 40 more this year. These offer facilities such as pool tables, bars and trendy furnishings, designed to reduce the sense of intimidation some new customers might have at the door of a luxury store.

    Changes to Breitling’s image have been accompanied by a collection overhaul. The company was once famous for its pilot’s watches, but Kern has introduced what he calls an “air, land and sea” approach. He describes most of his lines as being “retro style”. Some are reinventions of mid-century products, such as the Premier and Top Time lines, while he has also reworked the popular Chronomat line, originally from 1984. This year’s big launch, announced in Zurich earlier this week, is a revamp of the Navitimer, a distinctive line of pilot’s watches created in 1952.


    The latest Navitimer B01 Chronograph 46 models
    Kern has also targeted female consumers with smaller, sometimes pastel-shaded designs, and says the company now sells 12 per cent of its watches to women — up from almost zero five years ago. He says he is aiming to grow this to 30 per cent within three years.

    During the pandemic, he proved himself one of the more active watch industry bosses, launching a series of webcasts called Breitling Summits. These had high production values and cast Kern as the star, hosting interviews with Theron and introducing the new recycled packaging concept alongside the Swiss explorer and clean technology pioneer Bertrand Piccard.

    Kern has since claimed these webcasts attracted “millions” of viewers, justifying his decision to take Breitling out of the annual trade show cycle. Unlike Rolex or Tag Heuer, Breitling is not at Watches and Wonders in Geneva this week.

    Breitling’s growth has attracted further investment. In 2018, CVC bought the remaining 20 per cent from former owner Théodore Schneider, and, in October last year, the independent investment firm Partners Group took a 25 per cent stake. No financial details were disclosed at the time, but it was reported that the deal gave Breitling a valuation of $3.3bn.

    “Partners Group are no mugs,” says Jon Cox, an analyst at Kepler Cheuvreux. “Kern gets what younger watch buyers in that price point are interested in — style, style, style. And the nod to environmentalism also goes down well.”

    Kern may have invested heavily in boutiques, but he continues to develop Breitling’s third-party retailer network, as well. Brian Duffy, chief executive of Watches of Switzerland Group, which operates 10 Breitling boutiques in the UK and US, says Kern’s repositioning of the brand has been good for his business. “Group sales of Breitling watches are up 212 per cent over the past five years,” he notes.

    “Georges has great vision and huge energy,” adds Duffy. “And he’s much more comfortable using his skills in a brand situation than he is managing a portfolio — he’s less a corporate guy and more a make-it-happen guy.”

    As if to make the point, Kern posted a video last month on LinkedIn from an antiwar march where he was demonstrating against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Asked about his plans and whether CVC intends to sell the business, Kern is non-committal. “I don’t know whether there will be an IPO,” he says.

    But analysts expect one. “I would not rule out an IPO at some point in the future,” says Cox, “although [for investors] only having one brand may be more of risk than being part of a larger portfolio, in terms of investment profile.”

    Kern expects his business to continue growing. “Luxury will become more and more popular and there will be hundreds of millions of people able to buy luxury,” he says. But not everyone will profit, he adds.

    “Because of globalisation, people are all buying the same things. There will be six or seven [watch] brands making 80 per cent of the turnover.”

    Looking back on his move in 2017, Kern says he has only one regret. “I should have done it earlier,” he says. And his ambitions are undiminished. “When you do stuff, you want to have fun, intellectual satisfaction — and you want to win,” he says.