(ZH) Are China & Saudi Arabia Selling Treasuries?

Are China & Saudi Arabia Selling Treasuries?

The Good News Out of the Ukraine
The good news is that Russia is sending all sorts of signals that their intent is now to focus on the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine. They seem to be pulling back from their attack on Kyiv. That is positive and dovetails nicely with peace talks scheduled to take place in Turkey.
The Questions on Ukraine
General (ret.) Walsh raised two questions on peace talks and the purported Russian pullback yesterday:
  • Have the casualties reached a point where Ukraine is willing to sacrifice this region now, when they weren’t willing to before the war? Since the Ukrainians are holding them at bay, that will be a difficult decision for Zelensky. Furthermore, the pretext that the Eastern part of Ukraine would welcome Russia has proven to be false, and one can only believe that many in the East want even less to do with Russia, now than they did before?
  • Is Russia just executing a better battle plan? Virtually every member of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group questioned how Russia carried out the initial assault (too few troops, too many points of attack, multiple extended supply chains, etc.). So is there a risk that Putin is biding his time, to take this region, secure his footing, and then resume pushing West?
The fact that senior Russian officials are commenting and that the Russian media is discussing it, are positive signs.
For now, it seems likely that we see more localized fighting, which is good, but too early to expect any sort of “business as usual” in the region.
Now We Can Focus on the Fed and Rates?
The potential “bad” news for markets is that we may now fully turn our attention to the Fed, rates and Quantitative tightening.
We hit on a lot of those subjects in this weekend’s “Collecting Our Thoughts” report.
The one that has sparked the most conversations since then is the possibility that some countries, like China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are selling treasuries. Given the poor depth of liquidity and how much of the front-end selling seems to occur in the overnight sessions, this concept seems worth exploring. While we won’t get any TIC data that covers the post-invasion post-sanction world until May (there is a 2 month lag in the reporting), it would mean that much of the front end move can be explained by positioning and selling rather than anticipating all the rate hikes. It would explain why the front end hasn’t acted at all like a “risk-off” asset.
Higher treasury yields have been supportive for credit, as they should be, with “yield-bogey” buyers stepping in, but the resilience in stocks might be tested. Stocks are now almost done climbing the Russia wall of worry and might keep climbing the Fed wall of worry, but a lot of resilience has been priced in and the short squeeze has been quite painful, but positioning should be more balanced by now.

WWD : Next-gen Materials Saw $2.3B Investments — With Growth Ongoing, Report Fin

Next-gen Materials Saw $2.3B Investments — With Growth Ongoing, Report Finds
Kombucha, mushrooms and microbes? Move over traditional materials, there's been $2.3B invested in next-gen alternatives.

Nonprofit Material Innovation Initiative released its annual state of the industry report Tuesday — showcasing a steady $2.3 billion invested in next-gen materials since 2015.

The buzzy phrase, next-gen materials, means innovative inputs like non-animal, non-plastic alternatives to leather, fur, silk, viscose, polyester and the like. Despite only a small replacement potential being realized today, a lot of money is pouring into the space.

In 2021, $980 million was raised across 187 investors and 95 companies for next-gen materials, which is double the amount raised in 2020, at $504 million, by MII reports. Giving a “conservative” estimate, MII puts the global wholesale market for next-gen materials at approximately $2.2 billion by 2026.

The report catalogs the state of next-gen materials, outlining the innovators (at this point, familiar faces like now-public Spinnova, Pangaia, Natural Fiber Welding or Bolt Threads), investors and industry brands with a vested interest in the latest cohort of next-gen replacements. A series of case studies and consumer insights from North Mountain Consulting shape the study, alongside MII’s own evolving database.

And even despite the pandemic, financing remained unaffected.

“The fundamental ‘why’ of moving to these replacements is climate change [or that] industrial animal agriculture is not working,” Elaine Siu, chief innovation officer at Mii, said in an interview with WWD. “That is not affected by [COVID-19], because COVID[-19] almost made it even clearer that ‘this is really not working.’ We really need these replacements faster.”

Of the 95 companies analyzed, the majority (or 49 companies) use plant-derived materials as their main inputs. From there, processes rank by microbe-derived materials, blends, mycelium, recycled material and finally, cultivated animal cells.

While ​​mycelium (mimicking a mushroom’s root-like growth) leather alternatives have been all the rage, the report identified another up-and-coming trend: microbe-derived materials. These materials utilize cellular engineering approaches such as cell culture or fermentation.

Siu made a callout to the microbe-derived kombucha cohort, including companies like Bucha Bio, ScobyTec and Kombucha Couture that employ the bacterial nanocellulose in Kombucha — a natural polymer created by bacteria strains like Gluconacetobacter xylinus. The process uses a smaller footprint to make leather and silk replacements with high-performance capabilities.

Huntington Beach-based Newlight Technology — behind “AirCarbon,” a material derived by essentially capturing carbon in the air — was another highlighted mention. The company saw its first commercialized accessories drop with its owned label Covalent, in September 2020.

While the material innovators are hard at work improving qualities like drape, malleability, tensile strength and water resistance, Siu dubbed the brands “gatekeepers,” for the increasingly competitive next-gen material landscape where a brand “spending time and resources is basically placing their bets.”

If that’s the case, then celebs like Natalie Portman and John Legend (both investors to MycoWorks), and luxury houses like Hermès have already placed bets on MycoWorks, as noted in the investor breakout chart in the report. Per MII’s findings, Adidas, Ikea and Bentley are the biggest buyers and users of next-gen materials.

MycoWorks recently held its press and client preview at its “Freedom of Creation” exhibit in New York City last week.

There, amid an exhibit complete with a tower of mycelium trays, a bio-leather craftsman studio and gallery-style swatch displays, Sophia Wang, cofounder of MycoWorks, artist and dancer, described the luxury hook.

“Well, fashion brands really appreciate our story — that we were founded by artists because they recognize we value craft and aesthetics and excellence in the materials we’re working with and bringing a creative eye in bringing out the potential in these natural materials,” MycoWorks’ Wang told WWD. “So in that sense we really share our values with luxury fashion brands.”

The material innovator is expecting to announce more partnerships this year.

As storied craftspeople and tanneries familiarize themselves with their next-gen material counterparts, tanneries also arise as a point of contention as to whether customers may use their own tanneries for finishing or employ the biotech firm’s tannery partners.

In the processes therein, the MII report called out sustainability white spaces regarding innovation needed for finishes, resins and binders which may not be all-natural.

On what identifies a good brand partner, Siu described a certain scenario: “I think it’s very difficult to put a [criteria] like you have to work together for how many years, because sometimes if it’s not a good fit — it’s not a good fit. I also think that’s not just the requirement of the materials — but also the people. You choose to work with people who have the same kind of vision you have.

“I would say it’s brands that are almost ‘dating around’ with many different material innovators that show material commitment because it takes a lot of time and energy and resources to engage with the start-ups, or these material innovators,” Siu said.

With this investment money, scaling up material innovations is the goal as both Siu and Wang noted.

End products offer proof to success if the now-nascent industry is to grow quickly to take up 3 percent of the $70 billion leather materials market by 2026, as MII projects.

FT : Elliott and Brookfield to buy TV ratings group Nielsen for $16bn

Elliott and Brookfield to buy TV ratings group Nielsen for $16bn
Private equity buyers remain confident in company being the ‘gold standard for audience measurement’

A private equity consortium led by Elliott Management and Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to acquire television ratings group Nielsen for $16bn, including debt, the largest buyout since Russia invaded Ukraine.

The US and Canadian investors will pay $28 per share in cash to Nielsen shareholders. The revised offer is 10 per cent higher than its earlier bid and represents a 60 per cent premium to the company’s value before reports of a potential sale first emerged.

Elliott and Brookfield’s take-private of Nielsen highlights how financing markets, particularly in the US, remain active amid rising interest rates and concerns of a prolonged war in Europe. The consortium will inject $5.7bn in equity and the remaining $10.3bn will be provided by large banks and private lenders.

As part of the agreement, Nielsen’s advisers still have the opportunity to seek a higher bid from another buyer under a “go-shop” clause that is valid for 45 days. In past years, several private equity groups, including Blackstone and Carlyle, had expressed interest in buying the TV ratings group but ultimately walked away.

Tuesday’s deal signals that Nielsen’s private equity buyers remain confident in its core business of measuring advertising reach on cable and broadcast, despite being threatened by the rise of streaming platforms such as Netflix. For years, Nielsen has struggled to retain its dominance as an intermediary for buyers of advertising and battled cable and broadcast networks over its measurement data.

However, industry observers have said there was an opportunity in the market for companies that could offer more sophisticated audience data about streaming services.

Elliott highlighted Nielsen’s new measurement product, Nielsen ONE, which cuts across network television and streaming media in unveiling their deal.

“After months of deep market analysis, industry diligence and management reviews, we are firmly convinced that Nielsen will continue to be the gold standard for audience measurement as it executes on the Nielsen ONE road map,” said the firm’s managing partner Jesse Cohn and senior portfolio manager Marc Steinberg in a statement.

For Elliott, the Nielsen takeover represents the second largest buyout this year involving a company it has long held a large public stake in. Best-known for buying minority positions and waging bruising activist campaigns, Elliott is now becoming the architect of some of the private equity industry’s largest buyouts.

In January, Elliott and software buyout firm Vista Equity Partners led the $16.5bn takeover of Citrix, which had been a longtime holding of the firm’s activist hedge fund. In the fall, Elliott sold Athenahealth — a business it had waged war against and then taken private — to a consortium of private equity buyers for $17bn.

NY Post : Does clueless, gaffe-ridden Biden mean a single word he says?

Does clueless, gaffe-ridden Biden mean a single word he says?

In 1942, midway through World War II, Winston Churchill led a private UK ministerial cabinet debate on what they might do if they captured Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

“If Hitler falls into our hands,” the great man declared, “we shall certainly put him to death.”

He meant it.

In fact, according to archived notes of the meeting, he even knew exactly how he wanted to do it — frying Hitler like a common gangster in a US-supplied electric chair.

“This man is the mainspring of evil,” Churchill snarled. “Execute the principal criminals as common outlaws.”

I’m sure most of us feel the same way about Russia’s barbaric dictator Vladimir Putin, the modern-day Hitler, given his despicable, murderous rampage through Ukraine.

The world would certainly be a better, safer place without him.

But the official US position is not that.

Specifically, America is not seeking Putin’s death or a change in regime.

We know this because White House press secretary Jen Psaki said so in response to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s call for him to be assassinated.

“We are not advocating for killing the leader of a foreign country or regime change,” she told reporters on March 4. “That is not the policy of the United States.”

There is a very good reason for this.

Putin would seize on any publicly stated US plan to either kill him or effect the overthrow of his elected government as proof of the West’s supposed real imperialist intent and use it to whip up Russian support for defending themselves against the old Cold War enemy.

It’s not a massive stretch to say that could lead to direct military confrontation between the two countries and the potential World War III that everyone’s been so keen to avoid triggering.

That’s why President Biden’s unscripted nine-word conclusion to his speech in Poland on Saturday was so controversial.

“For God’s sake,” Biden bellowed passionately, “this man cannot remain in power!”

His meaning was crystal clear, there was no ambiguity: America had just officially and dramatically shifted its position and was now demanding regime change to remove Putin from office.

Understandably, this sensational off-the-cuff comment became the sole talking point of an otherwise impressive speech, albeit one that offered more in rhetoric than action.

But as with so many things Biden says these days, it turned out he didn’t mean it.

Or rather, his desperate White House aides raced to insist he didn’t mean it.

“The president’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region,” they clarified. “He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.”

Do they take us for complete and utter morons?

We all know what Biden meant, because he said it very clearly in his own words in front of the world’s media.

He wants Putin out of power.

That’s called regime change.

And with chilling predictability, his clarion call was immediately jumped on by Russian officials and state media as the hard evidence they’ve been waiting for that their suspicions about America’s real motivations have been right all along.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said: “It’s not up to the president of the US and not up to the Americans to decide who will remain in power in Russia.”

Of course, this is breathtakingly hypocritical given that Russia is doing exactly that in Ukraine, where it wants to depose President Volodymyr Zelensky and install a pro-Russian government. But there’s no doubt that most Russian people will find the idea of the US president trying to dictate who runs their country deeply offensive, and it will therefore bolster support for Putin at a time when he most needs it.

If this were the only gaffe Biden’s committed during this war, that would be bad enough.

Sadly, it’s just the latest in a string of dangerously inaccurate comments he’s made.

Before the war even started, Biden suggested NATO wouldn’t act if Putin made a “minor incursion” into Ukraine, a ridiculously weak statement that enraged Zelensky, emboldened Putin and led Biden to explain he really meant that any invasion by Russia would be met by a “severe response” — which, of course, was not what he’d said at all.

Then, on Thursday, he said any chemical weapons attack by Russia in Ukraine would be met by a “response in kind,” which could only mean the US would use chemical weapons too.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan was sent out to walk back that specific threat, saying instead that the US has “no intention of using chemical weapons, period, under any circumstances.”

So, the opposite of what the president said.

And on Friday, Biden appeared to commit US ground forces to Ukraine, telling troops from the 82nd Airborne Division: “You’re going to see when you’re there, and some of you have been there, you’re going to see — you’re going to see women, young people standing — standing … in front of a damn tank, just saying, ‘I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.’ They’re incredible.”

Once again, a White House spokesperson had to hastily clarify that the president didn’t mean what he’d said, insisting: “The president has been clear we are not sending US troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position.”

But he hadn’t been clear, had he?
In fact, he’s never clear about anything.

I hate to say this because I think 79-year-old Joe Biden is a decent man, but he’s showing increasingly worrying signs of age-related cognitive decline. That’s a big problem for America, and the world, at such a critical time.

As is the pathetic way that Democrats and much of the mainstream media keep trying to excuse his dreadful gaffes and talk up his supposedly commanding leadership.

They’re so desperate to portray him as the calm, smart, wise, fact-driven antidote to his predecessor, Donald Trump, that they can’t see the shambolic train wreck right in front of their eyes. Or they see it but choose to ignore it.

However, the stats don’t lie.
Joe Biden’s approval rating just hit a record low of 40%, because Americans don’t trust him on either the war or the US economy as inflation surges.

And the reason they don’t trust him is because he keeps saying things that he then denies saying.

When people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, this is a deadly trait in a US president.

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • AVAH -13.9%, ZEV -13.4%, CONN -12%, PLAY -5.4%, LIDR -4.3%, DTC -1.6%

Other news:

  • NEO -31.5% (CEO steps down, co lowers Q1 revenue and EBITDA guidance)
  • LPCN -17.6% (FDA approves Antares Pharma's (ATRS) TLANDO (testosterone undecanoate) oral treatment for testosterone replacement therapy; commercial launch expected in 2Q 2022)
  • CGEM -5% (provides clinical update for CLN-081)
  • NBIX -3.8% (collaboration partner receives regulatory approval for Dysval in Japan)
  • SWX -3.5% (prices offering of 5.5 mln shares of common stock at $74.00 per share)

Analyst comments:

  • REAL -4.1% (downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Credit Suisse)
  • BHG -4% (downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan)
  • PINS -2.7% (downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley)
  • ETSY -1.9% (downgraded to Hold from Buy at Loop Capital)
  • CVS -1.5% (downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank)

>>> US Gapping up

Gapping up
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:

  • LOVE +17.8%, DNA +7%, JEF +4.5%, TBLA +1.6%

Other news:

  • IGMS +37.5% (IGM Biosciences and Sanofi announce collaboration agreement for oncology immunology and inflammation targets; also reported earnings)
  • NLSN +20.9% (enters into agreement to be acquired by Evergreen and Brookfield (BBU) consortium for $16 bln)
  • EVTL +13.3% (Avolon exceeds pre-order commitments)
  • LHCG +7.3% (LHC Group and Optum have agreed to combine to further strengthen their shared ability to advance value-based care especially in the comfort of a patient's own home)
  • LHDX +5.5% (Lucira Health COVID-19 & flu at-home molecular test shows positive clinical study results)
  • BHLB +4.9% (expands partnership with FinTech firm Narmi to enhance its digital banking experience)
  • TSHA +4.3% (announces the initiation of clinical development of TSHA-102 for the treatment of Rett syndrome under a recently approved Clinical Trial Application by Health Canada)
  • NVO +3.1% (FDA approves 2.0 mg dose of Ozempic)
  • BCS +2.8% (provides impact of over-issuance under BBPLC US shelf; Barclays expects the rescission losses (net of tax) to be GBP 450 mln)
  • STNG +2.5% (enters into MoU with Carbon Ridge to develop onboard carbon capture)
  • FDX +2.3% (Raj Subramaniam to become new CEO)
  • HBM +1.4% (provides annual reserve and resource update)
  • AZN +1.1% (Ondexxya approved in Japan for reversal of acute major bleeds in patients on Factor Xa inhibitors) 

Analyst comments:

  • HMLP +3.5% (upgraded to Buy from Hold at Stifel)
  • FTNT +2.6% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays)
  • CUBI +1.9% (upgraded to Outperform from Mkt Perform at Keefe Bruyette)

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

  • Gapping up:
    • IGMS +37.9%, EVTL +11%, DNA +8%, BHLB +4.9%, HBM +4%, ATER +3.9%, NVO +2.8%, STNG +2.5%, FDX +2.2%, BCS +1.9%, AZN +1.4%, BYD +1.3%, FITB +0.9%, HBP +0.7%, CWK +0.6%
  • Gapping down:
    • NEO -27.2%, AVAH -21.2%, ZEV -9.7%, SKYH -9.5%, PLAY -7.2%, LIDR -7.1%, CGEM -5%, NBIX -3.8%, SWX -2.6%, RJF -1.2%, BLL -1%, AMBA -0.7%

>>> US Research Calls

Research Calls

  • Upgrades:
    • Customers Bancorp (CUBI) upgraded to Outperform from Mkt Perform at Keefe Bruyette; tgt raised to $80
    • Fortinet (FTNT) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Barclays; tgt raised to $395
    • Hoegh LNG Partners (HMLP) upgraded to Buy from Hold at Stifel; tgt raised to $9.50
    • SiteOne Landscape Supply (SITE) upgraded to Neutral from Sell at UBS; tgt lowered to $165
  • Downgrades:
    • Aveanna (AVAH) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA Securities; tgt lowered to $5.50
    • Barclays PLC (BCS) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan
    • Black Diamond Therapeutics (BDTX) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Wedbush
    • Bright Health Group (BHG) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan
    • CVS Health (CVS) downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank; tgt $110
    • Etsy (ETSY) downgraded to Hold from Buy at Loop Capital; tgt lowered to $140
    • NeoGenomics (NEO) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Stephens; tgt lowered to $16
    • NeoGenomics (NEO) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA Securities; tgt lowered to $18
    • NortonLifeLock (NLOK) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley; tgt $28
    • Pinterest (PINS) downgraded to Equal-Weight from Overweight at Morgan Stanley; tgt lowered to $30
    • RBB Bancorp (RBB) downgraded to Underweight from Neutral at Piper Sandler; tgt lowered to $25.50
    • Reynolds Consumer Products (REYN) downgraded to Sell from Buy at Goldman; tgt lowered to $26
    • SentinelOne (S) downgraded to Equal Weight from Overweight at Barclays; tgt $37
    • The RealReal (REAL) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Credit Suisse; tgt lowered to $8
    • Trean Insurance Group (TIG) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan; tgt lowered to $6
    • View (VIEW) downgraded to Mkt Perform from Outperform at Raymond Jame
  • Others:
    • ANSYS (ANSS) initiated with a Neutral at Mizuho; tgt $310
    • Beachbody (BODY) initiated with a Neutral at BofA Securities; tgt $2.40
    • Bright Horizons (BFAM) initiated with a Hold at Deutsche Bank; tgt $114
    • Community Health (CYH) initiated with an Equal Weight at Wells Fargo; tgt $12
    • Customers Bancorp (CUBI) initiated with an Equal-Weight at Stephens; tgt $62.50
    • Enviva (EVA) initiated with a Buy at Truist; tgt $100
    • HCA (HCA) initiated with an Equal Weight at Wells Fargo; tgt $267
    • Lamar Advertising (LAMR) initiated with a Peer Perform at Wolfe Research; tgt $131
    • Luminar Technologies (LAZR) initiated with a Neutral at SMBC Nikko; tgt $16
    • Nemaura Medical (NMRD) initiated with a Buy at H.C. Wainwright; tgt $12
    • Nextdoor (KIND) initiated with a Hold at Truist; tgt $7
    • OUTFRONT Media (OUT) initiated with an Outperform at Wolfe Research; tgt $34
    • Paycor (PYCR) initiated with a Neutral at DA Davidson; tgt $29
    • Peoples Financial Services (PFIS) initiated with an Overweight at Stephens; tgt $57
    • Procore Technologies (PCOR) initiated with a Buy at Mizuho; tgt $75
    • Provident Bancorp (PVBC) initiated with an Overweight at Stephens; tgt $20
    • QuantumScape Corporation (QS) initiated with a Neutral at SMBC Nikko; tgt $20
    • Tenet Healthcare (THC) initiated with an Overweight at Wells Fargo; tgt $100
    • Universal Health (UHS) initiated with an Underweight at Wells Fargo; tgt $139
    • Wolfspeed (WOLF) initiated with an Outperform at SMBC Nikko; tgt $140

La Lettre A : Suez seeks to take over its IWS nugget from Veolia (Google Transla

Suez seeks to take over its IWS nugget from Veolia

After getting its hands on the IWS subsidiary during its takeover bid for Suez, Veolia must put this hazardous waste treatment activity back on sale under pressure from Brussels. The "new Suez" is now seeking to recover this lucrative asset, but will have to fight against four other candidates.

Three months after the finalization of Veolia's takeover bid for Suez, the situation may seem surreal. The new Suez seeks to recover a piece of one of its own subsidiaries, IWS (Industrial Waste Specialties), from the group led by Antoine Frérot. This entity specializing in the treatment of hazardous waste has however become the property of Veolia since January. The group was keen to absorb and keep this subsidiary entirely because of its high intrinsic profitability.

Brussels imposes the sale of IWS France
But the European Commission has put a grain of sand in the plans of the French water and waste management giant. In exchange for the green light granted in mid-December to the takeover bid on Suez, Brussels demanded that Veolia separate from the French part of IWS. Objective: to prevent the group, which already owns five of the thirteen French sites dedicated to this hazardous waste, from occupying a hegemonic position. By retaining IWS, Veolia would have owned twelve of the thirteen treatment sites dedicated to this type of waste in France.
As a result of this stopover in Brussels, IWS France finds itself today in a kind of no man's land. The subsidiary is managed by independent management, distinct from those of Veolia and Suez, and placed under the control of a "monitoring trustee", an agent appointed by the European Commission. This temporary situation will not end until the sale is finalized.
Responsible for the operation, Veolia recently launched the process by giving a mandate to the investment bank Morgan Stanley. The new Suez led by Sabrina Soussan is therefore not certain of being able to get its hands on this former asset, which its predecessor Bertrand Camus had let go without reacting. Because it is not an over-the-counter process, but a call for competition, the interest for Veolia being to raise the stakes. This part of IWS put up for sale would be valued at around 600 million euros.

Four other candidates in the running
But this subsidiary whets the appetites. In addition to the former parent company, four other candidates would be in the running. In the French industrial camp, there are two other groups on the lookout, Paprec and Séché environnement. Among the Europeans, the Spanish Urbaser environnement and the German Remondis are also looking at the file.
If all seem equal on the starting line, the state of forces varies from one candidate to another. Listed on the stock exchange, the Séché group, which already has a site dedicated to hazardous waste, might be forced to abandon certain niches in the treatment of waste. The ambitious Paprec could meanwhile be handicapped by its current debt. For its part, Urbaser environnement, absorbed in 2021 by the American investment fund Platinum Equity, comes with comfortable cash to invest. Its new shareholder wants to make France - where it achieves 250 million euros in turnover - one of its strategic targets to increase its business.
As for Remondis, the IWS opportunity would allow its shareholder, the Rethmann group, to take a little revenge in the Suez case. Also financially sound, the German industrialist had officially applied to take at least 20% of the capital of the new Suez. But the industrial and political players in the file preferred the American investment fund Global Infrastructures Partners (GIP), which owns 40% of the operator.
Finally, Suez keeps all its chances, provided it can further increase its debt. Operationally, the possible return of its former subsidiary under its flag would provide industrial and managerial continuity.