FT : Hedge funds return to Hong Kong listings

Hedge funds return to Hong Kong listings
Investors are coming back to the Chinese market after extended slowdown

Global hedge funds are participating in Hong Kong listings at the highest rate since 2021 as the so-called “smart money” returns to the Chinese market after an extended slowdown.

Millennium, Qube Research & Technologies and Oaktree are among the asset managers that have participated as early investors in Hong Kong initial public offerings this year.

They have helped drive the proportion of listings with a hedge fund as a cornerstone investor to 14 per cent, just below 2021 levels, according to data from Dealogic. The data included alternative asset managers that run hedge fund strategies, including Boyu Capital.

The Hang Seng is one of the world’s hottest markets this year, with a strong run of listings by companies from mainland China, including the world’s largest EV battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology and miner Zijin Gold. The AI boom has also reignited investors’ interest in Chinese technology.

“There are two things that global investment managers have been underweight: commodities and China,” said Frank Carroll, managing director and portfolio manager of Oaktree’s emerging markets equity strategy.

He noted that hedge funds are also being joined by more traditional asset managers in coming back to Hong Kong. “[Zijin Gold] was the first deal where we said ‘wow OK, it’s not just the alternative managers, also the long only [funds] are coming in.’”

Carroll added: “The recent trend of asset allocation has been reducing the very large overweight to US markets and trying to balance it to rest of world.”


Hong Kong is poised to claim the top spot for global listings in 2025, according to KPMG, with about 300 IPO applications in the pipeline. 

“A lot of the hedge funds in Hong Kong pulled back in 2022, but now they’re back,” said Craig Coben, former global head of equity capital markets at Bank of America.

“It looks a lot like the 2020-2021 boom, just with a different thematic, and they will ride the momentum for as long as they think it will last.”

Recent IPOs in Hong Kong have sharply increased in price on the first day of trading, meaning cornerstone investors can pocket sizeable profits after just one day.


Millennium most recently took part in the IPO of Zijin Gold, a spin-off of Chinese company Zijin Mining’s overseas gold assets, which closed 68.5 per cent higher on its first day as the price of the precious metal traded at record highs.

Oaktree participated in CATL’s secondary listing in Hong Kong — the largest of the year — which raised more than $5bn and closed 16 per cent higher on the day. Quant fund Qube participated in Apple supplier Lens Technology’s listing.

“Hedge fund portfolio managers are telling me the trade is China equities,” said one prime broker based in Europe, adding that many investors were bullish on stocks of Chinese tech companies in the belief they would “catch up” with US rivals this year, barring further geopolitical shocks.

Recent Goldman Sachs prime brokerage data suggested that broader hedge fund allocations to China, including Hong Kong, increased to 6.5 per cent of the average fund’s total exposure in the start of October.

FT : Thyssenkrupp floats submarine business as defence stocks surge

Thyssenkrupp floats submarine business as defence stocks surge
German conglomerate spins off minority stake in marine division as it pushes ahead with restructuring

Thyssenkrupp will list its submarine manufacturing business in Frankfurt on Monday as it pushes ahead with a restructuring process and seizes upon the surge in defence stocks.

The German company will spin off a minority stake in Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), distributing shares to its shareholders in a ratio of 20 to one.

Thyssenkrupp will retain a 51 per cent stake in the business considered one of the crown jewels of a conglomerate whose activities span auto parts, electrolysers and steel.

The industrial giant is in the middle of a difficult restructuring process that involves selling non-core assets and separating or spinning-off its five core divisions, including its struggling steel business.

Sash Tusa, an analyst for research group Agency Partners, said it was a good time to float a maritime business, with spending on defence soaring since Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine.

TKMS, which analysts value at about €3bn, makes warships and naval electronics systems as well as submarines, and owns Germany’s largest shipyard in the port of Kiel.

“Share prices in European defence are up six times since February 2022,” Tusa said, referring to the date of Russia’s invasion. 

The decision to float TKMS comes a year after US investment group Carlyle pulled out of talks to acquire a majority interest in the company. Berlin was uneasy about an American private equity group taking a leading stake in a company viewed as critical for Germany’s national security. 

In the wake of that decision, Thyssenkrupp saw a spin-off as “the best solution for all stakeholders on the way to independence,” said Deutsche Bank managing director Christof Mürb, who worked on the process.

The German government has expressed interest in taking a stake in Thyssenkrupp’s submarine arm. Defence minister Boris Pistorius said this month that he was exploring deals involving both TKMS and the Franco-German tank maker KNDS, which is considering its own share offering.

“I am firmly convinced that we need state participation — also to ensure that expertise and jobs are retained in Germany,” he told business daily Handelsblatt. “The questions are how large a state stake could be and how quickly an investment could be made.”

TKMS’s order book has surged, spurred the Ukraine crisis and efforts by US President Donald Trump to make Europe shoulder more of the burden within Nato. Its €18.6bn backlog includes an order for four submarines from the German navy.

It is also competing for two critical contracts, one to build submarines for Canada, where it is competing against South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean, and one in Poland, where it is among six contenders vying for the tender. 

Benjamin Heelan, analyst at Bank of America, said there was “significant momentum building” in the marine defence sector. 

“While defence expenditure over the past 2-3 years has largely focused on land-based capabilities, Europe is now undergoing a strategic shift — recognising the need for hard power at sea. Many of Europe’s surface ships are ageing, prompting a wave of new orders.”

But analysts cautioned that the naval business was notoriously complex and risk-prone, often plagued by delays and cost increases. 

The TKMS spin-off comes after tank and artillery giant Rheinmetall last month announced that it would buy the Bremen-based Naval Vessels Lürssen in a bid to create a “naval powerhouse” — a move that could shake up the German maritime sector. 

“I’m not sure I want to be very overweight in TKMS if Rheinmetall is entering the market,” said Tusa, the Agency Partners analyst. “Rheinmetall buying NVL is essentially a market share grab in Germany: that means they’re out to eat TKMS’s lunch.”

FT : Early peanut exposure found to cut food allergy risks

Early peanut exposure found to cut food allergy risks
Results in US study offer striking evidence of life-saving effects of medical guidelines introduced in past decade

Leading food allergies have dropped sharply in American children since parents have been urged to give them peanuts early in life, according to new research on a quiet revolution in combating potentially deadly dietary sensitivities.

The prevalence of common allergies fell 43 per cent for peanuts and more than one-third for all foods after US medical advice was updated a decade ago to recommend early exposure, a team from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia found.

The allergies studied are caused by foodstuffs binding to the antibody immunoglobulin E (IgE), triggering the release of chemicals that can cause symptoms of varying severity, including the potentially fatal anaphylaxis.

The results offer striking evidence of the life-saving impact of milestone 2015 research that showed early introduction to peanuts could help rather than harm by preventing the development of an adverse reaction to them.

“Everyone has been wondering whether these landmark public health interventions have had an impact on reducing rates of IgE-mediated food allergies in the United States,” said Stanislaw Gabryszewski, first author of the paper published in the journal Pediatrics on Monday. “We now have data that suggest that the effect . . . is occurring.”

The latest research explores the impact of changes to dietary advice introduced after the transformative 2015 study, known as Leap, on infants with severe eczema or egg allergies. It found children who ate peanuts were at a much lower risk for developing an allergy to the legumes than their peers who did not. Further research suggested the protective effect lasted beyond childhood.

US guidelines launched by leading medical organisations in 2015 and expanded in 2017 recommended early peanut exposure for infants deemed at moderate or high risk of developing an allergy. The advice was expanded in 2021 to recommend peanut, egg and other leading food allergens be introduced to all children of between four and six months who had no history of prior adverse reaction.

The Philadelphia researchers used electronic health paediatric data to compare rates of food allergy diagnosis from before the 2015 guidelines’ publication with those after the 2017 advice was issued. They found that rates of IgE-mediated peanut allergy fell from 0.79 per cent to 0.45 per cent, while those for any IgE-mediated food allergy dropped from 1.46 per cent to 0.93 per cent.

This means that for every 200 children exposed to the food allergens early in life, one would have been prevented from developing allergies, the authors estimated. The results raised the possibility the rates could be cut further, they added.

“Future studies could potentially explore specific feeding practices that help us better understand the timing, frequency and dose of foods that optimise protection against food allergies,” said David Hill, senior study author and an attending physician at the Pennsylvania hospital.

Global food allergy rates are not precisely known, although some estimates run into hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Scientists now think early exposure to food allergens such as milk, fish and gluten-containing cereals can help by training the immune system to tolerate them.

While the Philadelphia paper is a so-called observational study on pre-existing data rather than a randomised controlled trial run by the researchers, scientists not involved in the work hailed the results as significant.

“This is the first evidence of a behavioural change in infant feeding practices resulting in reduction in peanut allergy at a population level,” said Hasan Arshad, professor in allergy and clinical immunology at the UK’s Southampton university.

Gideon Lack, who led the crucial 2015 Leap study, said the Philadelphia results showed the impact of the “complete reversal” in allergenic food consumption guidance over the past decade.

“The findings demonstrate how a simple change in health policy can have a profound effect in preventing allergic diseases,” said Lack, professor of paediatric allergy at King’s College London. “It shows we have the potential to further reduce — and perhaps even eventually eradicate — the burden of peanut and other food allergies in children.”

Le Figaro : Cavallo, l’île des milliardaires devenue zone de non-droit en Corse

Cavallo, l’île des milliardaires devenue zone de non-droit en Corse

RÉCIT - Cet îlot de 120 hectares à la réputation sulfureuse, situé entre Bonifacio et la Sardaigne, est quasiment interdit d’accès aux visiteurs par les propriétaires des lieux. Alors que la puissance publique tente de reprendre la main, la justice veut en finir avec cette situation.

Cavallo ou Cavaddu en langue corse. Un îlot de 120 hectares composés de villas luxueuses nichées derrière les roches granitiques, où les eaux turquoise côtoient une nature exceptionnelle entre la Corse et la Sardaigne. Dans ce paradis, situé dans la commune de Bonifacio, à moins d’être de riches touristes, les non-résidents ne sont pas les bienvenus. Alors que les plages font partie du domaine public maritime, de nombreux témoignages évoquent la présence « dissuasive » d’agents de sécurité employés par les propriétaires de villas, lesquels refoulent les visiteurs - de manière illégale - en invoquant le caractère privé des lieux.

Face à cette étonnante situation, figée depuis des décennies, la collectivité de Corse, dirigée par les autonomistes, a récemment décidé de reprendre la main. Cavallo fait partie des six sites prioritaires qui font l’objet d’un plan d’aménagement voté à l’Assemblée de Corse au début de l’année. Le programme prévoit quelque 430.000 euros de travaux échelonnés entre 2025 et 2032 qui comprennent notamment la création d’un sentier littoral et l’aménagement de deux pontons d’accès situés au nord de l’île. La commune de Bonifacio a, elle, voté la reprise en régie du port de l’île, à partir de juin 2026. La situation, urgente, semble en effet mériter les grands moyens.

« Alors que chacun semble s’accorder sur la nécessité de préserver son environnement exceptionnel, il faut regretter une forme de privatisation de cette île et le mépris presque habituel du droit des sociétés, du travail, de la fiscalité, de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement », confie Jean-Philippe Navarre, le procureur de la République de Bastia. Volontiers décrite comme l’un des joyaux de la Corse, l’île de Cavallo apparaît à bien des égards être avant tout « l’île des non-droits : non-droit économique ou fiscal, non-droit urbanistique et non-droit de l’environnement. »

Bill Gates et Zidane

À Cavallo, les maisons s’arrachent à plusieurs millions d’euros et sont surtout occupées par des ressortissants italiens fortunés. Les stars fréquentent aussi ce bout de terre isolé en Méditerranée où la discrétion et l’entre-soi sont un art de vivre. Silvio Berlusconi y faisait parfois escale, Bill Gates y a séjourné, tout comme Zinédine Zidane. Le luxueux Hôtel des Pêcheurs, ouvert aux touristes, est l’unique établissement des lieux et accueille régulièrement des célébrités, banquiers et capitaines d’industrie.

Il y a quelques années, le caillou attirait aussi les mafieux et voyous en tout genre, désireux de blanchir leur argent à l’abri des regards indiscrets. Un cocktail détonant rendu possible par un processus de privatisation lancé en 1968, sous l’impulsion de Jean Castel. Cette année-là, l’ancien « prince des nuits parisiennes » décédé en 1999, achète l’archipel des Lavezzi, un ensemble de 23 îles, îlots et récifs qui comprend Cavallo pour trois millions de francs, plages comprises. Après la rétrocession à la commune de Bonifacio au début des années 1990, le reste de l’archipel devient un site classé en réserve naturelle. Seule Cavallo échappe à cette réglementation et Jean Castel obtient de la transformer en site de tourisme d’ultraluxe.

En 1993, un mafieux italien, Lillo Lauricella, fait main basse sur l’île. Ce Palermitain occupe depuis quelques années le poste de président-directeur général de la Compagnie des îles Lavezzi, chargée notamment de l’aménagement de Cavallo. Durant son « mandat », l’île passe à l’ère du béton, sur fond de rackets, blanchiments d’argent et d’attentats. L’homme est soupçonné de blanchir à Cavallo, l’argent de la drogue issu du trafic opéré par la Cosa Nostra. Lillo Lauricella noue aussi des relations empreintes d’ambiguïtés avec les clandestins nationalistes corses du FLNC (Front de libération nationale de la Corse). Plusieurs organisations nationalistes se mettent à racketter le mafieux italien et augmentent leur influence sur l’île. En quelques années, ont lieu plusieurs dizaines d’attentats. En 2002, Lillo Lauricella est abattu au Venezuela, du côté de Caracas.

Tentative autonomiste

Une fois arrivés au pouvoir à la tête de la région en 2015, les autonomistes s’attaquent au développement urbanistique de l’île, symbole, selon eux, de la spéculation immobilière. En 2018, Gilles Simeoni, président nationaliste de la collectivité de Corse annonce la préemption d’une parcelle de Cavallo, pour un montant de 2 millions d’euros : « Cette préemption, avançait-il alors, c’est une façon pour la puissance publique de prendre pied à Cavallo et de dire que le cirque de ces dernières décennies est terminé. Les sociétés écrans en Suisse, aux Îles Caïman, la mafia, les gérants PDG assassinés au Venezuela, tout ce que vous avez connu. »

Sauf que les choses ne se déroulent pas comme prévu. En septembre 2023, sur la base d’un signalement de la Chambre régionale des comptes, le parquet de Bastia ouvre une enquête pour « concussion » (le fait, pour une personne dépositaire de l’autorité publique en charge d’une mission de service public, de percevoir une somme indue ou d’accorder à un tiers une exonération d’une somme due à l’autorité). Gilles Simeoni était poursuivi pour ne pas avoir perçu les loyers d’un restaurant, géré par un entrepreneur proche d’une bande criminelle. Le dossier a finalement été classé sans suite. Mais il illustre toutes les difficultés rencontrées par la puissance publique pour récupérer Cavallo.

Siffler la fin de la récré

En mai 2025, le conseil municipal vote la reprise en régie communale, de l’enceinte portuaire, à compter de juin 2026. L’infrastructure est gérée depuis plus de 30 ans par une société privée. Dans le même temps, le nouveau plan local d’urbanisme (PLU) de la cité des Falaises, qui doit être validé avant la fin de l’année, veut acter le principe de zéro construction nouvelle à Cavallo. : « Cavallo est située sur la commune de Bonifacio, dans la République française, affirme Jean-Charles Orsucci, maire de Bonifacio. Il ne s’agit pas de remettre en cause l’existence d’un quartier résidentiel. Mais de tourner une page d’un lieu où il y a eu des dérives mafieuses et nationalistes. »

Si l’élu veut éviter « la surfréquentation » pour préserver la quiétude des habitants, il veut avant tout « siffler la fin de la récré face à cet état de non-droit. » « Je m’intéresse à cette île depuis 2008 et mon arrivée aux responsabilités », assure-t-il en vantant un premier bilan : « J’ai réussi à imposer le financement de la construction d’une usine de traitement des eaux usées, à charge des propriétaires privés. À présent, nous allons nous réapproprier le port de plaisance. » Les choses semblent toutefois loin d’être gagnées aux yeux des associations environnementales qui se battent depuis des décennies pour préserver ce territoire.

Dans leur ligne de mire, des constructions en zones Natura 2000 ou protégées : « Cavallo peut préfigurer ce qui risque d’arriver sur les côtes de la Corse et ailleurs », prévient Vincente Cucchi, membre d’ABCDE, association de défense de l’environnement qui œuvre dans l’extrême sud de la Corse. « Cette île, considère Cucchi, est perdue, par la faute d’une urbanisation très dense, qui continue malgré les années et notre dénonciation des permis ou baux suspects. Plusieurs permis illégaux ont d’ailleurs été annulés par la justice administrative. C’est une île de non-droit et tous les abus n’ont pas cessé. Il y a des prises de paroles publiques qui sont en contradiction avec la réalité du terrain. »

Pour Vincente Cucchi, l’île est aussi soumise à une pression immobilière importante : « Aucune mesure de protection environnementale fixée par la loi n’est respectée. La collectivité de Corse a voulu préempter une parcelle, mais l’intérêt de cette opération nous a échappé. »

L’île de Cavallo fait figure d’anomalie

Au milieu de l’archipel des Lavezzi qui compte 23 îlots, en majorité à l’état sauvage, l’île de Cavallo fait figure d’anomalie : « les différentes enquêtes désormais conduites par le pôle économique et financier de Bastia attestent de cette réalité avec l’engagement de premières poursuites en matière d’environnement ou de non-respect des règles applicables en matière de construction », analyse Jean-Philippe Navarre.

Un triste constat que les différents observateurs du dossier déplorent et subissent depuis plusieurs dizaines d’années : « On est au cœur de la réserve naturelle, avec un port qui n’a pas lieu d’être, dans une île hyperartificialisée avec des villas à des prix astronomiques achetées par des sociétés basées dans des paradis fiscaux, regrette Vincente Cucchi. Les Corses n’ont plus la main. C’est terminé. »

Reste l’action de la justice, en première ligne pour faire cesser ces dérives, comme le souligne Jean-Philippe Navarre, qui dresse un premier retour des investigations : « Les enquêtes en cours reflètent l’agglomération d’intérêts divers, privés évidemment, souvent étrangers mais aussi, pour certains, susceptibles d’être directement liés au milieu de la criminalité insulaire. » Symbole d’un territoire jugé paradisiaque par une minorité mais vu comme un enfer par les autres…

>>> Saturday & Sunday Press Digest - 18/10/2025

Saturday

- Barron's : Constellation Energy Has the Power That AI Needs. The CEO Is Making the Most of It.
The company is about to become the world’s largest producer of electricity. Joe Dominguez tells us what to expect.

- Barron's : This Company Powers AI Infrastructure. Buy the Stock.
Quanta Services is poised to benefit from increased electricity demand.

- Barron's : French Stocks Ignore the Political Debacle. How 9% Returns Are Possible.

- Barron's : Colgate Stock Is an Antidote to AI-Dominated Markets. Why It’s Worth Buying Now.
The household-goods sector giant has fallen over the past year, but its moment could be coming.

- Barron's : Brokerages Battle to Win Over Active Investors. Trading Platforms Are the New Arms Race.
They’re launching more-powerful trading tools and surprising new features in hopes of attracting more of these highly profitable

- FT : Why luxury EV sales are still in first gear
High prices that are hard to justify and a Chinese preference for cheaper runarounds account for the sluggish demand

- FT : Trump had to choose between Israel and Qatar. He chose Qatar
Gaza’s future hangs in the balance. But while a fragile ceasefire holds, it looks like Israel has lost influence over the peace process, writes Lawrence Freedman

- FT : Vestas shelves Polish turbine plant amid weak European demand
Danish group’s move to suspend investment in Szczecin facility underlines challenge for continent’s offshore wind sector

- FT : TPG and Blackstone near deal for medical technology company Hologic
Acquisition by private equity groups would be one of the biggest take-private deals of the year

- FT : Deloitte to pay $34mn over audit work on US nuclear fiasco
Former shareholders in utility said Big Four firm failed to spot red flags and allowed management to hide mounting issues

- FT : Kering closes in on €4bn deal to offload beauty division to L’Oréal
Sale represents first big restructuring move by chief executive Luca de Meo

- WSJ : How a Handyman’s Wife Helped an Hermès Heir Discover He’d Lost $15 Billion
Nicolas Puech says his wealth manager isolated him from friends and family and siphoned away a massive fortune. Then came the clue that began to reveal the deception.

- WSJ : The Fight Over Whose AI Monster Is Scariest
Why Anthropic’s Jack Clark is drawing White House ire

- WSJ : Can Gold Keep Rising? Depends if You Think This Time Is Different
The danger is that gold is in the grip of exactly the sort of speculative excess that creates bubbles in other parts of the financial system

- WSJ : Gucci Owner Kering Nears $4 Billion Sale of Beauty Unit to L’Oréal
Deal would be an early move by new Kering CEO Luca de Meo to revive luxury giant’s fortunes


Sunday

- FT : France’s wealthy shift funds to Luxembourg and Switzerland
Political turmoil and tax threats have accelerated investment flows to safe havens, asset managers say

- FT : Food industry at ‘tipping point’ amid demographic shifts, says Danone boss
Antoine de Saint-Affrique says US push to counter obesity and additives align with French group’s own initiatives

- FT : Offshore wind buffeted by economic and political storms
Higher interest rates, supply chain strains and Trump opposition stifle industry’s boom

- FT : Apollo Global chief says Europe ‘at war with itself’ over finance regulation
Marc Rowan tells FT that regulators have yet to catch up with political drive to boost competitiveness

- SCMP : Meet AMIES, China’s new hope in breaking reliance on ASML’s chipmaking machines
Advanced lithography remains a significant bottleneck for China, but a new company founded in February offers new optimism

- SCMP : Nexperia China tells employees to ignore orders from Dutch head office
Letter to employees of company owned by China’s Wingtech asserts that ‘independent’ mainland entity is the one that pays workers’ salaries

- WSJ : Luxury Brands’ Stiffest Competition Is the Stuff They Have Already Sold
Sales of secondhand luxury goods are growing faster than in brands’ own stores

- WSJ : The Auto Industry’s Bruising Year of Back-to-Back Supply-Chain Snafus
Rare-earth minerals, aluminum fire, semiconductor stoppage have hit carmakers simultaneously

FT : CKI calls for Thames Water renationalisation after ‘high-risk’ creditor pla

CKI calls for Thames Water renationalisation after ‘high-risk’ creditor plan
Hong Kong firm alleges bid process for troubled utility was not ‘market-led’

Hong Kong investor CK Infrastructure, whose overture for Thames Water was spurned earlier this year, has called on the UK to renationalise the troubled utility, warning that an unsatisfactory bidding process has led to a plan that imperils the company.

Potential bidders for Thames Water, which is struggling under nearly £20bn of debt, were “excluded” from making an offer, according to a complaint by CKI to the sector regulator, Ofwat, earlier this month and seen by the Financial Times.

KKR, the private equity firm that Thames Water selected as its preferred bidder to take it over, walked away in June. That has left Britain’s largest water company in the hands of its creditors, which include the hedge fund Elliott Management and the US private capital firm Apollo Global Management.

CKI accused the creditors — who have said they would publicly list Thames Water and write down its debt by 25 per cent in exchange for leniency on fines and targets — of short-termism, in an explosive intervention to Ofwat.

The Hong Kong-based firm slams the creditors’ plan as a “high-risk proposition that gives rise to unnecessary risk of further failures”.

“Only a single consortium is allowed to take part [in the rescue process], including distressed debt hedge funds who lack tangible operating experience in the water sector and who so far appear to be aiming for an early exit and payout in March 2030, with Thames Water’s future then passed to someone else,” CKI said in the Ofwat letter, signed by Andrew Hunter, deputy managing director of CK Infrastructure’s UK business.

CKI, which owns Northumbrian Water, added that it “would willingly put our plan to the test against that of others”, if the government temporarily renationalises Thames Water.

The Sunday Times reported that CKI had written to Ofwat.

The regulator is currently mulling the creditors’ proposal, which would see them take over the business formally in exchange for £3.15bn equity, a writedown of the debt and a stock market listing as soon as 2030.

Hunter warned that the creditors are not injecting sufficient cash and that the additional debt is being loaned at “high” interest rates, suggesting that an even larger proportion of customers’ cash will go towards servicing the borrowings.

If the creditor plan does not go ahead, Thames Water — which provides water and sewerage services to 16mn households in London and the south east — could become the first water company in England to be temporarily renationalised under the government’s special administration regime.

The intervention by CKI throws down the gauntlet to the government, which has insisted that it favours a “market-led” solution while refusing to comment on the creditors’ proposals.

The special administration regime, or SAR, is designed to ensure that essential utilities keep running if a company fails. A special administrator — a private company — would be brought into stabilise and restructure the business ahead of a sale to new owners or renationalisation.

CKI alleged in the letter that bidding was far from market-led, given that KKR was given exclusivity and that the process has not reopened since the private equity firm walked away.

CKI’s letter goes on to claim that the creditors’ request for leniency on fines and pollution targets creates a “moral hazard” and that CKI would seek no such special treatment.

CKI and Ofwat declined to comment.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The company remains financially stable, but we have stepped up our preparations and stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for a Special Administration Regime if that were to become necessary.”

The creditors’ consortium said on Sunday that it had “put forward a comprehensive plan which restores the company’s financial resilience and delivers a stretching operational turnaround led by an experienced world-class board.”

It countered that CKI had not put in a “viable” proposal for Thames Water, and that its plan to invest in infrastructure would have “slowed the turnaround and significantly delayed a return to compliance” and “alienated the UK’s debt markets for water companies”.

Thames Water said: “It’s important to recognise that any agreement and plan will be scrutinised by the High Court.”

Electrek : Elon Musk’s $1 trillion stock award gets more ridiculous the more you

Elon Musk’s $1 trillion stock award gets more ridiculous the more you look into it

Tesla, a company that prides itself on not advertising, is in the midst of a serious marketing effort. In doing so it’s exploiting employees, attacking shareholders, and retaining outside strategy firms to help it advertise.

It’s running these ads not to boost its falling sales, but rather to advocate for another unprecedented award for its CEO, which would keep the company stuck with him for years even as earnings drop precipitously under his direction.

In September, Tesla’s board proposed a stock award worth up to $1 trillion for CEO Elon Musk. It includes several milestones regarding Tesla stock and product performance, each of which unlocks tens of billions of dollars for Musk.

It’s the largest award proposed for any CEO of any company by multiple orders of magnitude – with previous proposed Musk awards holding the second and third place positions as well. The proposal will be voted on by TSLA shareholders at Tesla’s shareholder meeting on November 6.

Previously, Tesla’s board has attempted to propose smaller, but still absurd, stock awards. A previous proposal to give Musk a ~$55 billion pay package was ruled illegal after the board misled shareholders and was found to be too closely tied to Musk. Tesla then put that same pay package up to another vote, using the same dishonest tactics, where it passed again.

Unsurprisingly, given that the same Elon-tied board engaged in the same misleading behavior as it had before, the pay package was again voided, saving Tesla shareholders $55 billion. That award is now in court again, with another decision soon to come.

The decisions were made by Delaware’s Court of Chancery, a famously pro-corporate court, and this resulted in Musk recommending a knee-jerk move of Tesla’s incorporation to Texas, a state with little established corporate law but where Musk thought he could exercise greater control over shareholders.

But the story has continued. Tesla’s board moved in August to give Musk an “Interim Award” worth ~$26 billion, which would still be the largest pay package for any CEO in history. It’s also more than the total profit Tesla has made over its lifetime (Tesla’s quarterly profits have been dropping for the last couple years, under Musk’s direction).

Despite all of this, and Musk currently holding position as the richest man in the world, the company he runs has been engaging in underhanded marketing efforts to push its new proposed trillion-dollar reward, which would have tangible harms for shareholders and for the company they’re invested in.

Tesla ‘doesn’t do ads,’ but that’s changing for Musk’s $1T
Tesla has long prided itself on not relying on traditional paid advertisements. Instead, it has relied on word of mouth marketing, social media posts, and press coverage of the company’s ambitious promises in order to stay forefront in the public eye. Musk has stated that he “hates advertising” and that running ads is the equivalent of lying (even as he runs ads with lies in them).

But that’s changing. Tesla hired then quickly fired an ad team, but continues to do social media marketing largely on Twitter, the platform that Musk overpaid billions of dollars for and then turned into a white supremacist haven, causing advertisers to flee (who Musk told to leave and then sued to try to force them back).

Of course, given that this is the internet, some of that social media marketing seems to be in the form of bots, so even the word of mouth surrounding Tesla is no longer real.

After chasing away advertisers, Musk resorted to a common tactic of his – channeling money from one of his public companies into one of his private companies, in the form of paid Tesla advertisements.

Most recently, those advertisements have been focused not on marketing Tesla’s products to twitter users, but rather on marketing Musk’s stock award.

In fact, Tesla even recently broke the last bastion of its reluctance towards certain marketing efforts, and started running paid TV ads, but it wasn’t to market the company’s products, rather just to market Musk’s $1 trillion pay package.

Running any ads in the first place for a shareholder vote seems odd – shareholder proposals usually do come alongside a board recommendation, and that’s usually enough to convince shareholders to vote alongside the board (at least, if the board has proven itself to be working in the best interests of the company, which may not apply here).

But it’s exceptionally rare to see a company undertake a whole advertising campaign, with produced videos, paid ads, and an outside strategy firm to help, especially when those ads don’t just target shareholders, but are on platforms for the general public (though this is perhaps a recognition that a huge percentage of Americans own TSLA stock via their retirement plans, whether they purchased the stock themselves or not).

And the ads are… questionable.

Tesla’s marketing effort has been exploitive to say the least
Just about every day, Tesla has filed a new document with the Securities and Exchange Commission detailing another solicitation it has made regarding the upcoming shareholder vote.

Often these are just tweets by the company or by Musk related to the shareholder vote. Musk has made several statements supporting the vote to his millions of followers on the social media app that he purchased so that he could control narratives and quash free speech on it.


Tesla has also purchased several ads on Google, moving beyond just Musk-owned properties.

But these solicitations also include produced videos by the company telling shareholders to vote on it. Two of these ads include testimonials by Tesla employees, stating how Tesla stock improved their lives.

In the videos, the two Tesla employees state that they wouldn’t have been able to own a home if it weren’t for Tesla stock.

One, Kiyoko, invokes her dead father, who would have been proud to see her owning a home.

Another employee, Sarah, invokes her daughter, who couldn’t have had a quinceañera if not for Tesla stock (notably, Musk is also the largest individual funder of a group that is racially profiling Mexican-Americans, staking out high school graduations to break up families and putting pressure on local businesses, including quinceañera dress-sellers).

Put aside for a moment the nightmare scenario where housing is so unaffordable that workers need to feel lucky to be able to afford a place to live after having held a job for 12 years (and apparently are unable afford that house through salary alone, instead needing to rely on a highly overvalued stock to get them there), these emotional statements seem designed to distract from the rational case against this stock award, and to pull on heart strings instead.

They also conflate stock options for the employees that keep Tesla running, and who are counting on those options to help pay for their housing, with an unprecedented stock award for its part-time CEO so he can, uh… bribe more political candidates?

And if you’re wondering how giving the world’s richest man a trillion dollars will help Kiyoko afford a home or Sarah afford a quinceañera, you’re not wrong to wonder. These ought to be two different concepts, but because of the nefarious structure of the shareholder vote, they’re not.

Tesla stock helped employees. Now it can’t, since Elon took it all
One of the questions being asked is whether or not to refill Tesla’s “general share reserve” of shares set aside to be granted to employees as compensation.

Proposal 3 not only fills the general share reserve with 60 million shares as compensation for Tesla’s current and future employees (of which the company currently numbers ~120,000 strong), but also fills a “special share reserve” with nearly 208 million shares for one single part-time employee, Elon Musk, who spends most of his time working for companies other than Tesla (and whose interests can be directly opposed to Tesla’s). The board would be able to give these shares, currently worth around $91 billion, to Musk at their discretion without further shareholder approval and is not attached to any milestones, unlike the $1 trillion.


This is one of many issues brought up by several pension funds who named their concerns with the shareholder proposals. Normally, it would seem reasonable to split up the “general” and “special” share reserve votes, but Tesla has seen it fit to combine the two – such that if you want Tesla to be able to compensate employees with shares, you must also accept that Musk will have 3.5x as many shares set aside for him personally as will be set aside for every other employee at the company combined.

It must feel incredibly insulting for the engineers who actually design the cars, the manufacturing associates who build them, the software team that continues to improve the best software out there, the best-in-the-biz charging team, et cetera, to see a guy who spends most of his time working for other companies (or pretending to be good at video games on his private jet) and be told that he’s worth hundreds of thousands of times more than you are.

Even worse, the reason this vote is necessary is because the share reserve was recently drained… to pay Elon Musk.

When Musk’s friends on the Tesla board decided to hand him an “Interim Award” of $26 billion without a shareholder vote, the process through which they did this was to simply award shares to Musk that had previously been set aside in Tesla’s share reserve.

Those shares had been intended to be available for years to come, as compensation for employees, to help Tesla attract and compensate talent (as the heartstring-tugging videos above suggest). But instead, almost the entire reserve was drained to give to Musk, with only one stipulation: that he continue working at Tesla for two years.

But that’s only part of the shares that Musk would get if these shareholder votes pass, because those 208 million shares aren’t even associated with the separate $1 trillion award in Proposal 4, which would include over 423 million shares. So now we’re up to 630+ million shares for Musk (~276B at current TSLA valuation), and only 60 million for every other employee at Tesla combined, being voted on at this shareholder meeting.

And even if proposal 4 is voted down, the board could still give Musk $91 billion worth of stock, and it’s holding employees’ compensation hostage to ensure that it be able to do so.

Musk gets largest payday ever for being a bad employee
The Interim Award was given with the rationale that it might “focus and energize” the CEO, who has been distracted with his running of several other companies and his world famous social media addiction as Tesla earnings and sales have been dropping in an otherwise rising market.

Tesla’s sales drops are largely due to the brand damage Musk himself is doing, and also its lack of innovation under his direction – but at least he can sell some cars to himself to try to hide this failure.

Tesla got saved in Q3 by a pull-forward in demand due to the end of US tax credits (which Musk himself backed, despite that his actions have hurt Tesla in more ways than one), but otherwise its earnings have been trending dangerously close to unprofitability.

Thus, this marks not only the largest payday in the history of the world, but the largest payday given with explicit acknowledgement that the payee is an underperforming and distracted employee, leading the company in a worse direction.

And yet, the board wants shareholders to approve even more pay for that bad employee, and has attached no strings to require he stop distracting himself with other companies, merely hoping that the promise of a large payday will coax Musk into being less terrible at his job than he has recently.

But it has to be an exceptionally large payday if Musk is to complete his goals (and to be clear, they are Musk’s goal, not the company’s), given the inflated nature of TSLA stock.

This is about power… and money
Musk wants this award because he wants more control over Tesla. He has stated clearly many times that he “doesn’t feel comfortable” with his current ownership percentage, even though it’s the result of him continually selling Tesla stock to fund his white supremacist, anti-free-speech project on twitter.

After his many stock sales, his ownership percentage has diluted from around a quarter of the company in 2021 to around 13% today. Musk has threatened Tesla shareholders, saying that that “the future of the world” relies on him getting $1 trillion and that if he doesn’t get 25% of the company he will take AI and robots elsewhere (nevermind that he already has sent Tesla resources to his private company in multiple ways, and wants Tesla shareholders to bail twitter/xAI out, another proposal on the current slate of votes).

Musk having more voting power would protect him from shareholder proposals that seek to improve Tesla’s corporate governance, as several proposals in front of shareholders right now would do. These include modifications to Tesla’s bylaws enabling changes through majority vote rather than supermajority vote, and repealing the threshold requirement to bring derivative actions against the company.

If Musk had 25% of the company, that makes it a lot easier for him to vote a chunk of his shares towards consolidating his power, and makes him less accountable to shareholders who are rightly concerned about Tesla’s current dropping sales and earnings under his direction.

And given that the vote on the current pay package somehow allows Musk to vote his own shares in support of it (unlike the last one, where he was recused), there’s no reason he couldn’t continue to do the same in the future, and have even more opportunity to enrich himself and consolidate power at the cost of all other Tesla shareholders.

But beyond the power, it’s also about money (as Fred here at Electrek pointed out). If Musk wanted to increase his ownership percentage, he could have Tesla engage in stock buybacks, which would not only decrease dilution for him but also for other shareholders who hold long term. This would also increase share prices, something shareholders might like to see (but then again, it would also require profits, which have tanked recently under Musk’s direction).

Instead, the plan increases dilution for everyone by printing hundreds of millions of shares – dilution for everyone except Musk, who gets far more shares than everyone else combined.

But you better not bring that up, because if so, Tesla might put out a mean tweet about you.

Tesla pays for PR to attack its own shareholders
We covered a group of pension funds who brought up many of these legitimate concerns in a dispassionate letter sent to Tesla investors, including the draining of the share reserve to pay Musk, the negative effect of dilution on current shareholders, and others. The concerns are well-argued and the letter is signed by several public pension funds, whose interest is generally in stable long-term returns, rather than volatility or speculation.

Many public funds are required to invest significantly in funds like the S&P 500, of which TSLA is an outsized member. They are also interested in a generally less volatile economy overall, and thus, it makes sense that they would argue in favor of stability.


The funds also stated that the requirements for various tranches of Musk’s share reward are somewhat arbitrary, and that many could be met easily with creative interpretations. Others have pointed out the same, recognizing even meeting the easiest targets would pay Musk more than the lifetime pay of the next 8 highest-paid CEOs combined.

But after these valid criticisms were lodged, Tesla responded in a way that should not be a surprise for longtime watchers of the company – by doubling down and firing back.

Tesla put out a tweet titled “setting the record straight,” essentially just making the same argument it has already made. It claims that there is no way to creatively interpret product goals, that the board is “disinterested” (that is, they do not hold a personal financial interest in the outcome, which is an odd thing to say about the personal friends and family of Musk on Tesla’s board), and that this plan, which will dilute current shareholders’ holdings in order to retain a bad CEO for the next decade, is “in the interest of shareholders.”

It also claims that none of the operational milestones are “easy” and that previously-cited creative interpretations would not be possible. However, even with only below-average share growth and flat vehicle delivery growth, Tesla is on course to easily reach some of the simpler milestones (well, perhaps this is hard with a CEO who is seemingly doing his best to ruin company performance…), which would still result in a record payday many times over.

And it ends the tweet with a slight against the performance of the various public funds who signed on to the letter. Tesla claims that it has provided much better returns than each of the funds, which have had 6.51%-13.3% annualized returns since 2018. Notably, these are in line with the expected returns that a public fund counts on (with S&P averaging ~8%), who typically invest in stable companies rather than speculating on high-risk investments or tech companies with unheard-of 250:1 P/E ratios (which only gets higher as price goes up and earnings go down).

Sending this tweet about an active shareholder vote is already a rare move as far as public companies go, but Tesla, who does not advertise, also seems to have retained an outside firm to further publicize its rebuttal. Due to our previous article on this matter, we got an email from FGS Global, which bills itself as “the world’s leading stakeholder strategy firm,” directing our attention to the tweet. We asked FGS why it thought diluting shareholders by $1 trillion was truly the optimal strategy for stakeholders, and did not receive an answer.

Since then, proxy advisory group ISS, the largest independent advisor for institutional investors which offers disinterested insight into shareholder proposals, has also recommended against voting for the proposals. Tesla responded by attacking ISS in a tweet.

Even if you think Musk is necessary, this isn’t Tesla’s best option
Defenders of the plan will argue that shareholders will benefit if share targets are met. But that’s a big “if,” and even if they are met, how much of that can we attribute to the direction of a distracted CEO (with no requirement to not be distracted), and is it really necessary to give that CEO a full trillion dollars worth of dilution in order to get the performance requested?

Again, Musk has already been given the largest payday in history out of shares that were earmarked for employees, and now a payday that’s over thirty times larger than that has been proposed. Even at the inflated share prices that would be necessary to meet milestone targets for the award, shareholders would still have their voting rights and share appreciation diluted by about 12%.

Could a similar goal not be achieved with much smaller dilution, say around 1%, which would still be the largest payday ever proposed for a CEO? And is Musk even worth that much to begin with, given his poor recent performance and his behavior that has proven to be hostile to his own company’s interests? (via lobbying for anti-EV policy, doing Tesla brand damage, self-dealing to benefit his own private companies with Tesla’s public assets, firing Tesla’s best teams on an ego trip, and so on)


Heck, even the option of buying xAI in an all-stock deal, at its absurd $200B valuation, would cost Tesla less than these two proposals would (~$276B, at current TSLA valuation). This idea would also do more to ensure Musk’s focus as then he would no longer split his time between his private companies which have his current interest and his public one, since all would be under the same umbrella.

To be clear, that would also be a terrible idea, due to ethical concerns that are currently subject to a lawsuit over Musk conflicts of interest (and surprise surprise, that terrible idea is also up for a shareholder vote). But the fact that there are potential legal problems with each of the options the board did consider is perhaps an indication that another individual, one without such a history of working in his own interests rather than the company’s, would be a better fit for Tesla.

Bad for employees, shareholders, and Tesla’s mission/ethics… so why is Tesla pushing it?
It seems quite clear that the option given to shareholders is not the optimal solution, but due to Tesla’s captured board, it’s the option that’s been put on the table. And since it benefits them (in fact, so much that the board had to return nearly $1 billion in excessive compensation) and their personal friend Elon Musk, it’s the only option shareholders get to vote on.

Were the board interested in Tesla’s best interests, some other options might be on the table. But they aren’t; they’re interested in their friend Elon’s best interests. The driving factor isn’t the goals of Tesla or its shareholders, but the goals of Elon.

If the board were independent and truly interested in Tesla’s best performance, it wouldn’t saddle the company with a hostile CEO for a decade, it wouldn’t overpay that CEO, it would be more sensitive to dilution, it would engage in options that are less likely to result in legal challenges, it would at least ensure that CEO work in the company’s interests, and it would use a more deliberative process than having a few of that CEO’s friends propose a comically large payday just so he can get himself out of the hole he dug for himself with a social media addiction so bad that he overpaid for his favorite app (twice).

The only concessions the board has made to any idea of reasonable governance is that it made the adoption of a succession plan a prerequisite for the last 2 (out of 12) tranches of stock. So Musk can still get ~558 million shares of stock without even giving a thought to what future the company might have with competent corporate governance.

Will shareholders finally reject this ridiculousness?
And yet, shareholders may vote for it, just like last time. That last vote had about the same downsides as this one, but TSLA shareholders voted for it anyway (twice, even after it was revealed they were lied to on the first vote).

But shareholders must currently feel trapped by Musk’s rhetoric. Even though he’s a bad CEO in terms of company performance, his constant overpromising has led to high appreciation of Tesla stock, with the market seeming much more interested in Musk’s constantly-delayed fantasies than in Tesla’s current performance. Essentially, Musk is saying “give me $1 trillion or I won’t lie for you anymore.”

Shareholders are worried that if Musk is gone, the market will no longer overvalue its future performance, and there might be a correction towards more realistic share price levels. Even though a competent CEO might benefit Tesla’s financial performance as a company, it may harm TSLA’s status as a meme stock.

And that’s what this particularly frothy market has become. Rather than investing in a company to focus on its products or even its future, “investors” have become consumers of the stock first, and focused on maintaining whatever illusions have resulted in these absurd price levels. TSLA shareholders have made the wrong decision before on an intrinsically similar issue, so it wouldn’t be a big surprise if they do the same here, only even dumber and ~20x bigger.

It is perhaps heartening that Tesla has seen it necessary to market the award so heavily, as Tesla can see results as they come in.

The more Tesla markets, the more it may suggest that the company may not like the numbers its seeing, and is desperate to swing the vote in its favor. (Either that, or the whole thing is engineered to give Musk something to act victimized about after the fact, when inevitably the award sees legal challenges again.)

For Tesla’s sake, for the EV transition as a whole, and perhaps for the future of the world, let’s hope it’s the former.

TechCrunch : OpenAI’s ‘embarrassing’ math

OpenAI’s ‘embarrassing’ math

“Hoisted by their own GPTards.”

That’s how Meta’s Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun described the blowback after OpenAI researchers did a victory lap over GPT-5’s supposed math breakthroughs.

Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis added, “this is embarrassing.”

The Decoder reports that in a since-deleted tweet, OpenAI VP Kevin Weil declared that “GPT-5 found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdős problems and made progress on 11 others.” (“Erdős problems” are famous conjectures posed by mathematician Paul Erdős.)

However, mathematician Thomas Bloom, who maintains the Erdos Problems website, said Weil’s post was “a dramatic misrepresentation” — while these problems were indeed listed as “open” on Bloom’s website, he said that only means, “I personally am unaware of a paper which solves it.”

In other words, it’s not accurate to claim GPT-5 was able to solve previously unsolved problems. Instead, Bloom wrote, “GPT-5 found references, which solved these problems, that I personally was unaware of.”

Sebastien Bubeck, an OpenAI researcher who’d also been touting GPT-5’s accomplishments, then acknowledged that “only solutions in the literature were found,” but he suggested this remains a real accomplishment: “I know how hard it is to search the literature.

WWD : Sunspel Goes for Global Growth With Paris, Tokyo Openings and U.S. Bespoke

Sunspel Goes for Global Growth With Paris, Tokyo Openings and U.S. Bespoke Rollout
The British heritage brand is hitting its retail stride with new expansion.

Inside Sunspel's new Paris boutique.

British heritage label Sunspel is accelerating its international retail footprint with a slate of strategic openings in Paris, which opened Thursday, and an upcoming flagship in Tokyo, which is slated for February.

France has a pivotal role in Sunspel’s retail history, Sunspel owner and executive chair Nicholas Brooke said. His first foray into retail for the brand was a pop-up in London in 2008, and many British customers were reticent about the price point, even though the product was wholly made in England. However, French customers were impressed with the quality and went back to the Continent with several items.

“That was one of the first times that I thought this will work in places like Paris,” said Brooke. “It definitely will work internationally for people that are seeking out the quality and know what they’re looking for.”

The brand will also soon double down on its Paris footprint with a dedicated corner in the landmark Samaritaine Paris department store, as well as expand bespoke services to the U.S. market through Nordstrom.
The moves come amid explosive global growth, with the brand on track to post a 20 percent revenue increase this year, building on a comparable gain in 2024, said chief executive officer Raul Verdicchi in an interview.
Sunspel’s boutique in Paris.
Courtesy Sunspel

Founded in 1860 and known for pioneering some of the earliest luxury cotton underwear and T-shirts, Sunspel has quietly evolved into a premium, omnichannel menswear brand with a loyal customer base spanning Europe, North America and Asia. Core categories such as the classic Supima cotton T-shirt, the Riviera polo shirt made famous by Daniel Craig’s James Bond, and the boxer short — famously worn in a 1985 Levi’s ad — now anchor a broader offering that includes shirting, outerwear and knitwear.

Verdicchi, who joined the company in early 2023, said that Sunspel’s focus on international growth.
“For us, it’s always very important to understand what are the priorities for the brand, because the growth opportunities that we see are really spread across different parts of the globe,” he said.

The Paris flagship, anchored in the main shopping streets of the Marais at 38 Rue Sainte-Croix de la Bretonnerie, is a major milestone for the brand, Verdicchi said, underscoring the city’s positioning as a fashion and luxury capital and luxury fashion hub. Visibility in Paris will raise the brand’s profile and appeal to tourists, he believes.

Following on its heels, Tokyo will see the debut of Sunspel’s first directly operated store in Japan in February. Until now, the brand had operated in the country through a distributor, with limited presence in key department stores such as Isetan Shinjuku and Hanshin Osaka.
The stand-alone boutique, located in Omotesando, will give Japanese consumers access to the full collection for the first time — a move the company expects to significantly boost both retail and online sales in the region.

In the U.S., Sunspel is rolling out its bespoke T-shirt service — previously exclusive to its London Jermyn Street store — at select Nordstrom locations. An upcoming activation in partnership with the department store chain will test appetite for the premium personalization offering, with the brand currently present in 13 of Nordstrom’s top-tier doors through a wholesale model.


The U.S. remains Sunspel’s second-largest market after the U.K., where it has 10 stand-alone stores, and is experiencing its fastest growth on track to be roughly 30 percent this year alone, said Verdicchi.

“The U.S. is extremely relevant in terms of scale and potential,” he said. “But we’re also seeing strong double-digit growth in France, Germany and Japan. Each region plays a different strategic role in our mix.”

Global revenues are up 20 percent year-on-year, he said, marking the brand’s second consecutive year of double-digit growth. Germany and France are currently outpacing Japan in speed of growth, but the opening of the Tokyo store is expected to boost that balance.
Inside Sunspel’s Paris boutique.
Simon Kennedy / Courtesy Sunspel

The omnichannel model remains central to Sunspel’s strategy. Online and retail together account for 80 percent of revenue, with e-commerce alone comprising around half of total sales. Retail is growing at a slightly faster rate this year due to new store openings, though Verdicchi emphasized a “positive correlation” between online and physical presence.

“When we open a store in a city where customers have only known us online, they often start exploring a wider range of categories,” he said. Online sales have been growing at roughly 27 percent in 2025. “But like-for-like retail sales are very closely aligned. We really believe in a full omnichannel experience.”

Wholesale, while smaller in total contribution, remains an important channel, particularly for brand discovery and international reach. In key locations such as Tokyo and Paris, Sunspel is working with partners to build more branded shops-in-shop that allow for better expression of the brand.

While Sunspel’s styling is deliberately quiet and its pricing premium, its customer base spans age groups and geographies, Verdicchi said. The average customer age is around 40, but ranges from twentysomething creative professionals to older, design-conscious shoppers that return to the brand year after year for timeless staples.

“What unites our customers is a sense of discernment,” said Verdicchi. “They’re not chasing logos. They’re looking for quality, craftsmanship, and understated British style.”

Menswear currently makes up 90 percent of the business, with womenswear still in its early stages. However, the company is committed to growing both sides of the portfolio.

“We’re not looking to massively expand the size of the collection,” Verdicchi said. “Rather, we’re focused on constant refinement — making sure the quality is impeccable, the fabrics innovative, and the design language consistent.”

In response to new tariffs affecting EU and U.K. exports to the U.S., Sunspel sped up plans to open a dedicated logistics center in Ohio. Originally slated for September, the facility opened in July, allowing the company to improve fulfilment speed and have better leverage against tariff volatility. However, the company is not considering opening a factory in the U.S. anytime soon.

With origins tracing back over a century, Sunspel’s identity remains firmly tied to its small-scale, family-connected factory in Oxfordshire, employing 25 skilled artisans who handcraft each T-shirt.

“We will always have a factory,” said Brooke. By focusing on one product there — the T-shirt — Sunspel has maintained the factory’s viability. It’s one of the few left in the U.K. and helped anchor its heritage and brand reputation for quality.

“If you ask the buyer at Isetan, they’d probably say Sunspel makes the best T-shirt in the world,” said Brooke.

The factory works with a complex double-twisted, gassed cotton fabric that large manufacturers refuse to handle due to its difficulty. This exclusivity protects the brand’s quality and underpins its global exclusivity.
Accessories at the Sunspel boutique in Paris.
Simon Kennedy / Courtesy of Sunspel

With global growth on the horizon, Brooke added that the current location has an additional building next door which could accommodate expansion. It also works exclusively with trusted family-run factories in Portugal.

Verdicchi noted that the cotton supply continues to face pressure. California-grown Supima cotton makes up 80 percent of Sunspel’s cotton usage, and is susceptible to water shortages. So far, the company has managed to maintain stable pricing, in part thanks to long-standing relationships with suppliers and a tightly managed product mix, he said.

Despite a slowdown in the luxury sector, Verdicchi remains positive about Sunspel’s prospects for growth, based upon its heritage.

“We are in a lucky position, and we are extremely confident for future,” added Verdicchi. “We always want to be relevant, even if we’ve been around since 1860. The most important things for us is to keep developing a brand awareness, carefully thought out international expansion and marketing investment to tell our brand story.”

FT : Trump urged Zelenskyy to accept Putin’s terms or be ‘destroyed’ by Russia

Trump urged Zelenskyy to accept Putin’s terms or be ‘destroyed’ by Russia
US president tossed aside maps of Ukraine frontline in volatile White House meeting

Donald Trump urged Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept Russia’s terms for ending its war in a volatile White House meeting on Friday, warning that Vladimir Putin had said he would “destroy” Ukraine if it did not agree.

The meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents descended many times into a “shouting match”, with Trump “cursing all the time”, people familiar with the matter said.

They added that the US president tossed aside maps of the frontline in Ukraine, insisted Zelenskyy surrender the entire Donbas region to Putin, and repeatedly echoed talking points the Russian leader had made in their call a day earlier.

Though Ukraine ultimately managed to swing Trump back to endorsing a freeze of the current front lines, the acrimonious meeting appeared to reflect the capricious nature of Trump’s position on the war and his willingness to endorse Putin’s maximalist demands.

The meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy came amid a fresh push by the US president to end Russia’s war following the ceasefire secured between Israel and Hamas.

Zelenskyy and his team went to the White House hoping to persuade Trump to supply them with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, but the US president ultimately declined to do so.

The tense meeting echoed a similarly fractious encounter at the White House in February, in which Trump and Vice-President JD Vance lambasted Zelenskyy for what they characterised as a lack of gratitude towards the US.

During Friday’s meeting, Trump appeared to have adopted many of Putin’s talking points verbatim, even when they contradicted his own recent statements about Russia’s weaknesses, said European officials briefed on the meeting.

According to a European official with knowledge of the meeting, Trump told Zelenskyy that the Ukrainian leader needed to cut a deal or face destruction.

The official said that Trump told Zelenskyy he was losing the war, warning: “If [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you.”

At one point in the meeting, the US president threw Ukraine’s maps of the battlefield to one side, the official familiar with the encounter said.

The White House and the Ukrainian president’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was confident about securing an end to the conflict, and added that Putin is “going to take something, he’s won certain property”.

Putin made a new offer to Trump on Thursday under which Ukraine would surrender the parts of the eastern Donbas region under its control in exchange for some small areas of the two southern frontline regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

The Russian proposal marks a small concession from that made during Putin’s last meeting with Trump in Alaska in August, where he said he would agree to freeze the line of contact elsewhere on the frontline if Ukraine surrendered the Donbas.

That meeting also ended acrimoniously after Putin rejected Trump’s push for an immediate ceasefire and digressed at length about medieval Ukrainian history, prompting the US to explore ramped-up support for Kyiv, including by supplying Tomahawk missiles.

But ceding the remainder of the Donbas still under Ukrainian control would be a non-starter for Ukraine, as it would hand Moscow territory it has only partially occupied for more than a decade and failed to seize despite its efforts since Putin ordered the invasion in 2022.

Russian forces have struggled to retain the territory in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia that Putin offered in exchange, and have made virtually no progress on the battlefield there since 2022, the year the war began.

“To give [the Donbas] to Russia without a fight is unacceptable for Ukrainian society, and Putin knows that,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee. 

He said that Putin might be pushing the contentious idea “with a purpose to cause division within Ukraine and undermine our unity”.

Merezhko added: “It’s not about getting more territory for Russia, it’s about how to destroy us from within.”

Trump’s belligerent repetition of Putin’s rhetoric on Friday dashed hopes among many of Ukraine’s European allies that he could be convinced to increase support to Kyiv.

That hope had risen after Trump in recent weeks expressed frustration and impatience with the Russian president’s refusal to actively engage in bilateral peace negotiations with Zelenskyy.

Three other European officials briefed on the White House discussions confirmed that Trump had spent much of the meeting lecturing Zelenskyy, repeating Putin’s arguments about the conflict and urging him to accept the Russian proposal.

“Zelenskyy was very negative” following the meeting, according to one of the officials, adding that European leaders were “not optimistic but pragmatic with planning next steps”.

In a statement on Sunday, Zelenskyy said “decisive steps are needed from the United States, Europe, the G20 and G7 countries” to end the war.