ZH : How A Fund Betting On "The End Of The World" Outperformed The S&P500

How A Fund Betting On "The End Of The World" Outperformed The S&P500

Ten years after the financial crisis, with the bull market now the longest on record, "black swan" fund Universa Investments chief investment officer, Mark Spitznagel, spoke on Bloomberg TV and said that "we are going to continue to see deeper and deeper [crashes], simply by virtue of the fact that the degree of interventionism is larger and larger."
In other words, trading for "the end of the world"... but not expecting it to come tomorrow. In fact, his advice to traders is simple: "you mustn’t fight the Fed. What you must try to do is sort of jiu-jitsu the Fed. You need to sort of use the Fed’s force against it."
Easier said than done?
For most, yes: founded in 2007, Universa quickly rose to fame the very next year when it made huge profits in the crash of 2008. On the other hand, as the WSJ wryly notes, "being skeptical and making money on that view are two different things." Fellow financial crisis standout John Hussman, who predicted both the 2000 and 2008 bear markets, is convinced an even worse one is coming, yet his own fund has performed dismally since 2009, eroding its crisis gains and then some.
This is where Universa stood out.

Unlike John Paulson, David Einhorn and Steve Eisman who made stellar returns during the crisis but have failed to repeat their success since, Spitznagel has enjoyed several mini-bonanzas along the way. During the ETFlash Crash of August 2015, his fund reportedly made a gain of about $1 billion, or 20%, in a single, unforgettable day.
But was that performance repeatable, and could it beat the market in the long run... and certainly before the inevitable crash?
To be sure, as the WSJ's Spencer Jakab writes, "talk is cheap in investing punditry and predicting a decline without saying when it will happen is cheapest of all." Yet Universa’s stance warrants attention, and not only because it backs its views with billions of dollars: Spitznagel isn’t betting on some unpredictable event causing a crisis but instead a predictable one—an eventual blowback from unprecedented central-bank stimulus.
And while so far the "final crash" has yet to come, what has made the "fat tail" fund unique - recall that Universa is advised by author Nassim Nicholas Taleb of "Black Swan" fame, and best known for his prediction that six sigma "fat tail", or black swan, events happen much more frequently than they should statistically - is that it has not only not lost money, but has actually outperformed the S&P in the past decade:
According to a letter sent to investors earlier this year and seen by the WSJ, a strategy consisting of just a 3.3% position in Universa with the rest invested passively in the S&P 500, had tripled the money, generating a compound annual return of 12.3% in the 10 years through February, better than investing in just the S&P 500 itself. It also was superior to portfolios three-quarters invested in stocks with a one-quarter weighting in more-traditional hedges such as Treasurys, gold or a basket of hedge funds.

This is how the fund described its performance:
In our ten-year life-to-date, a 3.33% portfolio allocation of capital to Universa’s tail hedge has added 2.6% to the CAGR of an SPX portfolio (the SPX total CAGR over that period was 9.7%). To put this in perspective, this is the mathematical equivalent of that same 3.33% allocated to a ten-year annuity yielding about 76% per year. In contrast, each of the other risk mitigation strategies actually subtracted value over the same period, regardless of their allocation sizes.
The 3.33% portfolio allocation size to Universa was chosen because it is (and has always been) the approximate effective allocation size recommended in practice at Universa (relative to a client’s total equity exposure). The 25% portfolio allocation size to the other risk mitigation strategies was chosen to be meaningful and realistic for an average investor (relative to their total equity exposure). That turned out to be insufficient for any of those strategies to provide a level of downside protection anywhere close to the level Universa provided.
There is no magic to this outperformance: Spitznagel has traditionally buys put options, especially when they are cheap, like now for example, when despite bubbling trade wars, Donald Trump’s legal peril and sputtering emerging markets, have failed to dent the market's ascent to new all time highs.
By pointedly ignoring headlines and embracing long stretches when his fund loses small sums for months on end, he draws on similar patience and conviction.

As shown in the chart above, Spitznagel's small crash bets have paid off repeatedly, offsetting the "theta bleed" associated with a portfolio such as his.
Which may also explain why Spitznagel is so happy: it isn’t because he sees an imminent crash, though he doesn’t rule it out. It is because almost no one else is preparing for one.
“I spend all my time thinking about looming disaster,” says Mark Spitznagel, chief investment officer of hedge fund Universa Investments, who predicts a major decline in asset prices but can’t say when. He admits that the bull market could keep going for years. “Valuations are high and can get higher.”
Another quirk: in 2017, when volatility dropped to all time lows, buying crash insurance was seen by many as throwing away money. But Spitznagel said he was “like a kid in a candy store” because volatility, and hence options prices, were so subdued. At least they were until February of this year, when the VIX underwent a record explosion, soaring from the single digits to an all time high handing Universa's clients another outsized return with a true market hedge.
Just sitting out the market in the long run is costly, which is why optimists triumph. Universa’s typical client suspects that the end may be nigh but wants to stay fully invested anyway. The occasional windfall, such as the one in 2015, is icing on the cake.
Ultimately, the math behind Spitznagel’s investing philosophy is a simple bet on human nature: investors are "more confident after a long stretch of smooth sailing and hefty gains for markets, that is when the odds of something going horribly wrong are highest."
And with the S&P at all time highs, Spitznagel has to be delighted: after all, both investor confidence, and the odds of that "horribly wrong" moment are just as high.
"This is a very good time for us," he said. Now all he needs is a crash.

Barron's : Gold Is Cheap. Inflation Is Coming. You Do the Math

Gold Is Cheap. Inflation Is Coming. You Do the Math

Gold has gotten a bad rap.
Long seen as the investment choice of the cranky and the fearful, the metal yields nothing; as Warren Buffett has said, it just “looks at you.”
This year has been especially lackluster for gold. Its price has slumped 8%, to about $1,200 an ounce, and is off more than 35% from its high of $1,900 in 2011. Adding insult to injury, Vanguard will soon rechristen the largest gold-oriented U.S. mutual fund and shift its focus away from the metal.
But this out-of-favor asset class now deserves a place in investment portfolios.
Compared with stocks and other financial assets, gold looks inexpensive. More important, inflation is starting to pick up in the U.S. and in much of the world as central banks shrink their enormous balance sheets. And gold has represented a good defense against inflation eroding the value of a stock or bond portfolio. Over time, it has held its value against the dollar. Gold was $20.67 an ounce 100 years ago and that bought a good men’s suit. At $1,200 an ounce, the same is true today.
“Gold is rare, and it’s hard to rapidly increase the supply of it,” says Keith Trauner, co-portfolio manager of the GoodHaven (ticker: GOODX) mutual fund, which holds Barrick Gold(ABX), a leading mining company. “People have historically viewed it as a hedge against government depreciation of local currency.”
There are an estimated six billion ounces of gold in the world, worth more than $7 trillion, about 30% of the value of the S&P 500. Annual new mined supply adds less than 2% to the global total.
“Virtually every government in the world is trying to promote inflation partly because there is so much sovereign debt,” Trauner says. When there is so much debt, he contends, governments have three choices: default, restructure, or inflate the currency. “Politicians, when given the chance, will choose the latter.”
Naysayers point to higher interest rates as a negative for gold because it increases the allure of holding cash. But gold had one of its best decades during the inflationary 1970s, when rates soared.
One catalyst that could change investor sentiment on gold is a decline in the U.S. dollar.
“Gold is the anti-dollar,” says Pierre Lassonde, the chairman and a co-founder of Franco-Nevada(FNV), a gold and mining royalty company with an $12 billion stock market value. “When the dollar is strong, there is no need for gold. But when the dollar is weak, people go back to gold.”
Historically, gold and the dollar have a negative correlation of 80% to 85%. The dollar has been supported by expectations that the Federal Reserve will keep tightening and lift its benchmark, the federal-funds rate, to 2.5%-3%, from the current range of 1.75% to 2% by the end of 2019.
Going for Gold
Here are some ways that investors can play a rebound in gold prices.








E=Estimate
Sources: Bloomberg; Morningstar
Trey Reik, a metals strategist at Sprott USA, says the Fed may have to relent, in part because the upward pressure on rates is squeezing developing economies that have dollar-denominated bonds or other obligations. If the markets sense that the Fed is about to hold off, the dollar could drop and gold would probably rally. His view is that “gold offers enormous portfolio utility in today’s complex and treacherous investment environment.”
Currently, many U.S. investors own little or no gold, but there are a few prominent bulls on the metal. One is Jeffrey Gundlach, the outspoken and often prescient CEO of DoubleLine Capital, the big bond-oriented investment firm.
“In my June webcast, I recommended that gold bugs wait until $1,200 to buy because it had just broken below” a chart point at $1,290, Gundlach wrote in an email to Barron’s. He turned positive early this month when gold hit $1,196. Based on the technicals, “I am now bullish,” he concluded.
Gold has been a traditional hedge against financial and economic crises, playing that role during the 2008-09 meltdown. Gold rallied 17% from the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, 2008, until the stock market bottomed on March 9, 2009—a period during which the S&P 500 fell more than 40%.
Cryptocurrencies have lately been touted as taking over gold’s role in a crisis. But a 55% drop in Bitcoin this year to about $6,700, and slumps in other cryptocurrencies, have taken the shine off that market. And there is still no easy way to get exposure to Bitcoin.
In comparison, gold has had allure as a store of value and measure of wealth for thousands of years. And gold remains so in much of the world, including China and India. Before the 1930s, it was used as money in U.S.
How cheap is gold today?
One way to measure it against stocks is a comparison with the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It effectively takes 22 ounces of gold to buy one unit of the Dow, which finished on Friday at a record 26,743. The most recent low in that relationship occurred in 2011, when the Dow/gold ratio dropped to 7.8. Then, gold was near its all-time high of $1,900 an ounce.
The century-old peak of 40 occurred in 1999, when gold traded at about $290 an ounce and the Dow stood around 11,500. The low came at the top of the commodity boom in 1980, when the metal and the Dow were at parity around 800 after a decade-long stretch when the Dow moved little. Commodities overall are historically cheap versus stocks.
In the futures markets, speculators, who are normally long gold, are now in the rare position of being net short. Many analysts view speculative positions as a contrary indicator and the current situation as bullish.
The knocks against gold are many. It’s a static asset that yields nothing, and physical gold costs money to store. Berkshire Hathaway CEO Buffett says he would rather own productive assets like businesses, farms, or stocks. “Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa or someplace,” he noted 20 years ago. “Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again, and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”
The precious metal is considered “the anti-
dollar,” historically having a negative correlation
to the U.S. currency.

Worse still, doubts have arisen over whether gold remains a good hedge against disaster, even if it did shine during the 2008 financial crisis.
The recent troubles in emerging markets, for example, have not given the price a lift. “With the markets and economy doing well, people don’t feel the need to have the defensive protection that they presumably get from gold,” says Byron Wien, a vice chairman in the Private Wealth Solutions Group and an investment strategist at the Blackstone Group.“In a severe bear market, it likely will provide some protection, but in a correction in a bull market, it may or not.”
Last month, Wien held his annual series of lunches with 100 leading investors and others in the Hamptons. There was little interest in gold.
For those who are interested in gold, there are plenty of ways to play it. Commodity exchange-traded funds include the industry-leading SPDR Gold Trust(GLD), trading around $114, and the lower-fee (IAU), now around $11.50. The SPDR ETF has an annual fee of 0.4%, and the iShares, 0.25%. The newer MiniShares Trust (GLDM), at $12, has a fee of just 0.18%.
It’s a measure of gold’s unpopularity that the size of the SPDR ETF is now $29 billion, about a 10th the size of the largest equity exchange-traded fund, the (SPY). When gold peaked at about $1,900 in 2011, the two ETFs were around the same size at $75 billion.
Indeed, open-end precious-metals mutual funds have had a decade to forget. On average, they’ve fallen 5% annually, according to Morningstar. Big funds include Fidelity Select Advisor Gold Portfolio (FSAGX), First Eagle Gold (SGGDX), and VanEck International Investors Gold (INIVX).
Digging In
The amount of gold mined worldwide is expected to peak soon.
PROJECTED
100
million troy ounces
80
60
40
20
0
’85
’80
’10
’15
’25
’90
’20
’95
2000
1975
’05
Source: CPM Group
Logo
In July, Vanguard announced that the $1.8 billion Vanguard Precious Metals & Mining fund (VGPMX), the largest gold-oriented U.S. mutual fund, would be renamed Vanguard Global Capital Cycles later this month and that its precious-metal mining exposure would be reduced in favor of other commodity-related industries and global infrastructure, such as telecommunications. Gold and precious-metals mining stocks will make up at least 25% of the fund.
Gold bulls see the action as a sign of capitulation. Vanguard’s move in 2001 to take the “gold” out of the fund name and broaden its mandate coincided with a bottom at about $255 an ounce.
Some closed-end funds own physical gold. For example, Sprott Gold & Silver Trust(CEF), holds roughly two-thirds of its assets in gold and a third in silver. That longstanding fund, formerly known as theCentral Fund of Canada,trades around $11.75, a 4% discount to its net asset value. Toronto-based Sprott also runs the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS). Both funds, unlike the SPDR ETF, allow holders to take physical delivery of the yellow metal. This appeals to survivalists, who populate the ranks of gold bugs.
Gold-mining stocks, like other natural-resource producers, can offer a leveraged play on the commodity. When gold prices rise, mining earnings typically increase by a greater percentage. Take a mining company with an all-in cost of $1,000 per ounce. If gold rises 25%, to $1,500, profits could more than double, with margins going from $200 to $500 an ounce.
Gold vs. the Dow
A comparison of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and gold over the past 100
years shows when stocks have been popular and when gold has been in favor.
Stocks now are in vogue with the Dow valued at about 22 times the gold price.
40
30
20
10
5
’40
’60
’70
’80
’90
2000
’10
’50
’30
1920
Sources: Bloomberg; Dow Jones Market Data
Logo
Now however, gold-mining shares are even more depressed than the metal itself because financial leverage cuts both ways. The largest gold-mining ETF, the $8 billion VanEck Vectors Gold Miners(GDX), is down 19% this year, to about $19, after hitting a 52-week low recently. Its largest holdings include industry leaders Newmont Mining(NEM), Barrick Gold, Newcrest Mining(NCMGY), Goldcorp(GG), and Franco-Nevada.
Mining companies have many challenges, to be sure. Countries in Africa and elsewhere are trying to gain greater control of their resources, and projects can face environmental opposition. Major finds are rare. But the mining companies are showing greater capital discipline and now trade at historically low levels of cash flow.
Reflecting the frustration with the miners’ performance, a group including billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson announced on Friday the formation of a coalition of 16 investment managers called the Shareholders’ Gold Council to publish research and “promote best practices” in the industry.
Newmont is the industry leader with a $17 billion market value, a strong balance sheet with under $1 billion of net debt, and a dividend yield of almost 2%. The only gold stock in the S&P 500, it trades for $31, or 24 times projected 2018 earnings of $1.30 a share. That’s not a cheap multiple, but Newmont and other big miners rarely trade at low price/earnings ratios and often are evaluated on their “option” value, meaning they offer a long-term play on potentially higher gold prices.
“Newmont has been one of the most successful majors in fixing its balance sheet and rebuilding its production,” says John Bridges, a mining analyst with JPMorgan. He has an Overweight rating on the stock, with a $40 price target. Newmont’s production is seen holding steady at about five million ounces annually over the next five years.
Newmont’s gold output generally comes from relatively safe locations, with North America and Australia accounting for about 70% of it. Bridges says that the U.S. is now viewed as one of the best places to mine gold, thanks to the cut in the corporate tax rate and other tax breaks. So, Newmont and other miners are expanding domestically.
Barrick Gold has been a turnaround story. In recent years, the company has cut debt by nearly $10 billion, to $5 billion, through asset sales and internally generated cash flow. The shares, at about $10.50, trade for 19 times projected 2018 earnings of 55 cents a share and yield just over 1%.
The driving force at Barrick has been its chairman, John Thornton, a former top Goldman Sachsexecutive. Reflecting his Goldman roots, he has sought to bring what he calls a “partnership culture” to Barrick. He wants the company to focus on increasing shareholder returns and not fall into a common industry trap of chasing “ounces,” or production, without regard to costs.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
“Barrick is a relatively low-cost operator, with people at the top who are focused on profitable capital allocation, rather than growth for growth’s sake,” says Trauner, the GoodHaven portfolio manager, which holds Barrick. He argues that at its current share price, Barrick offers a nearly free option on higher gold prices. In a better environment, the stock could be a lot higher. Barrick earned more than $4 a share and traded at $50 in 2011 when gold peaked at $1,900 an ounce.
The knock on Barrick is that Thornton’s focus on returns has gone too far and that the miner’s annual gold production, which is expected to decline to about 4.75 million ounces this year from 5.3 million ounces in 2017, could drop further. The company has run into political problems with mines in Argentina and Tanzania.
“Barrick fixed the balance sheet and stabilized the business. Now, it needs to show that it can grow in a sensible way,” Trauner says. Some think that Barrick could become a takeover target for a Chinese buyer. Thornton has cultivated a strong relationship with the Chinese, with Shandong Gold buying a half-interest in a large South American mine from Barrick.
Franco-Nevada has been the top-performing major gold-mining stock since its inception in late 2007, returning 16% annually, handily topping the metal, the VanEck ETF, and the S&P 500 index.
The company owes its success to an attractive portfolio of assets and a capital-light business model that give investors effective exposure to the equivalent of nearly 500,000 ounces of annual gold production. Franco-Nevada doesn’t own or operate mines. Instead, it makes investments in new and existing gold, precious metals, and energy assets in return for revenue streams from ongoing production. Franco-Nevada’s operating margins of 70% to 80% are double that of the typical miner.
Lassonde, the Franco-Nevada chairman, calls it “the best business model on the planet” because of its exposure to a growing portfolio of what he considers to be appealing mining properties. The company has just 31 employees.
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
Would you consider investing now in gold or in shares of gold mining companies? Write us at mail@barrons.com and we may publish you take. Find out more at barrons.com/mailbag.
Investors have recognized Franco-Nevada’s strengths: The company, whose shares trade around $65, fetches 53 times estimated 2018 earnings. The stock yields 1.5%.
Bridges, the JPMorgan analyst, calls Franco-Nevada the “Mercedes” of the gold-mining industry because the company has been able to protect investors in down gold markets while giving them upside in a rising market. He carries a Neutral rating on the shares with an $85 price target. With the stock down from a peak of $85 in late 2017, investors can get the Mercedes at a discount.
U.S. stocks are at record levels exactly at a time when global stress—trade tensions, populist nationalism, and the like—appears to be growing. This may be an opportune moment for investors to shift at least a portion of their portfolios to gold: both the metal and depressed mining shares.
To flip Buffett’s phrase, gold may do more than just look back at you in the coming years.

Barron's : Stocks in Turkey Might be Ready for a Bounce — if You Hurry

Stocks in Turkey Might be Ready for a Bounce — if You Hurry

There’s potential for some trading profits in Turkey.

This year, Turkey’s stocks and currency have taken a hammering. But the recent stabilization of the Turkish lira may be paving the way for a bounce in the shares. “We think that the lira has fallen so much that it has gone from overvalued to undervalued and now is cheap from a fundamental perspective,” says Sergi Lanau, deputy chief economist at the Washington D.C.-based Institute of International Finance.
Those wishing to profit from a potential upturn should buy the iShares MSCI Turkeyexchange-traded fund (ticker: TUR), which tracks a basket of Turkish stocks.

Since January 26, the Turkey ETF has lost 54% of its value, as spiraling inflation and poor policy moves spooked investors. Likewise, speculators fled the lira, sending it down by more than 40% since late January.

The plunge in the lira and in Turkish stocks stemmed directly from a government fuel-credit boom, which led to skyrocketing inflation. While other central banks might have acted quickly, the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey dithered. The official rate of inflation hit 17.9% in August, up from 10.23% in March, according to data collated by TradingEconomics.com.

Although it acted late, the CBRT did raise its benchmark interest rate twice in the past few months, to 24%, up from less than 10% earlier this year.

So far, the effort has stabilized the currency, which recovered from lows reached in mid-August. Such high rates augur dramatically slower growth. However, a stable currency means that foreign-currency debts will stop growing in terms of lira (a result of plunging currency.) The ETF gained more than 6% over the last month as lira stability eased debt worries.

“If the Turkey ETF is above the 2009 lows of around $19, then there is no reason not to be long if you are looking for value,” says J.C. Parets, founder of AllStarCharts.com and an expert in the art of price-chart analysis. In other words, it’s a buy, for now.

Parets sees a potential price jump back to $30, up from $22 recently, as bargain hunters see value in the region. “I think we will get a rotation into emerging markets and Turkey will be a beneficiary,” he says. Speculators look set to plow money into the beaten-down sector.

Better yet, the ETF now yields a whopping 5.2% in dividends.

However, it is difficult to know how long any rally will last or whether it will reverse in an instant. Turkey is now talking about fiscal belt tightening. But questions remain about CBRT independence.

One major problem is the habit of President Recep Tayipp Erdogan making rash statements and decisions that rattle investors. He has said that higher interest rates cause inflation, which flies in the face of the received wisdom in economics. A similar outburst by Erdogan, or failure to cut government spending, would likely lead to another selloff in both stocks and the currency.

And that leaves investors with an important question. “Is he going to be a serial offender?” asks David Campbell, an investment analyst at financial firm HCWE & Co. If, or when, another issue arises investors may need to bail on their position quickly.

One way to mitigate the risks is to keep an eye on the price of the Turkey ETF for a signal on when to sell. “If the price of the ETF falls through the low of early 2009, [around $19], then bail on the position,” suggests Parets. That point was a record low for the ETF.

FT : Invesco nears $5bn deal to buy OppenheimerFunds

Invesco nears $5bn deal to buy OppenheimerFunds
Acquisition would lift assets under management to more than $1tn

Invesco is nearing a deal to buy OppenheimerFunds for about $5bn, an acquisition that would vault the investment group into the trillion-dollar asset management club and highlights the scramble to bulk up in the face of mounting competitive pressures.

OppenheimerFunds’ owner MassMutual, a US life insurer, put the business with $248bn in funds under management up for sale earlier this year.

The acquisition would lift Invesco’s assets under management to more than $1.2tn — placing it in the upper echelons of the global industry along with Fidelity, BlackRock, Vanguard, Capital Group or Amundi.

People briefed on the matter did not expect a deal to be finalised until October and an agreement could still fall apart. Invesco’s shares had been up as much as 0.7 per cent on Friday, but fell back after the talks were first reported by Ignites, an FT Group publication, to end the day 0.4 per cent lower.

An OppenheimerFunds spokesperson directed questions to MassMutual, where a spokesperson declined to comment on “market rumours”. A spokesperson for Invesco also declined to comment.

Invesco’s chief executive Martin Flanagan was asked about potential acquisitions on a conference call with analysts this summer, and responded that “if there’s something that comes along that we think will materially improve the competitive positioning of the firm, we would clearly pay attention to it”.

The investment industry has enjoyed a bountiful decade thanks to rising markets swelling the levels of assets under management, and the fee revenue on those funds. But the competitive pressure on fees from cheap passive fund managers and rising regulatory and technology costs have prompted a bout of consolidation, with industry analysts predicting that scale and reach will be imperative in the coming years.

Invesco acquired Guggenheim’s exchange traded funds business for $1.2bn last year, as well as European ETF group Source, but a deal to buy OppenheimerFunds would be the biggest in the industry since the mergers of Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management in 2017 and Janus Capital and Henderson Global Investors in 2016 — and one of the biggest acquisitions outright in the industry on record.

OppenheimerFunds was founded in 1959 and acquired by MassMutual in 1990. It employs more than 2,000 people with offices in New York, Dallas, Seattle, Denver and Rochester, New York, and is presently run by Art Steinmetz, a 32-year veteran.

While OppenheimerFunds owns a small ETF business, it is primarily a traditional actively-managed mutual fund group. Such funds have come under growing price pressures over the past decade. The average cost of US bond and equity funds has slipped from 0.76 per cent and 0.99 per cent respectively in 2000 to 0.48 per cent and 0.59 per cent last year, according to the Investment Company Institute.

Industry executives expect the price pressure to intensify further in the coming years. Fidelity made waves recently when it launched a range of the first zero-cost index-tracking funds, a move that sent the shares of many listed asset managers tumbling.

“In the short term the industry can probably just absorb this move down in fees. After all, the asset management industry still enjoys high levels of profitability, but longer term this probably forces a change in the way investors think about fees,” Bernstein analysts said at the time.

FT : Comcast triumphs in auction for Sky with £29.7bn bid

Comcast triumphs in auction for Sky with £29.7bn bid
21st Century Fox and Walt Disney beaten in a deal that will redraw global media landscape

Comcast has triumphed over 21st Century Fox and Walt Disney in the auction for Sky with a successful £29.7bn ($39bn) bid in a deal that will redraw the global media landscape. 

Comcast’s £17.28 a share offer came in higher than a rival £15.67 offer from Fox, which was backed by Disney. The sale will bring an end to Rupert Murdoch’s long association with Sky, which he founded in 1989 — and which ushered in the pay-TV era in the UK. 

With operations in Germany, Italy, Austria and Ireland, as well as the UK, Sky has 23m subscribers and will give Comcast a powerful launchpad for new digital services in an era increasingly shaped by streaming providers such as Netflix and Amazon.

The auction, which was overseen by the UK’s Takeover Panel under rules agreed by the competing companies, also concludes one of the UK’s longest running takeover battles. 

It started in December 2016 when Mr Murdoch’s Fox group made a £10.75 a share offer for Sky that valued it at £18.4bn. 

With the tabloid newspaper phone hacking scandal and the behaviour of some journalists at Murdoch newspapers still fresh in minds, the UK government was under pressure to ensure that a sale of Sky did not hand Mr Murdoch more influence of the UK’s media market. A lengthy regulatory review process then followed. 

Ofcom, the UK’s media watchdog, and then the Competition and Markets authority scrutinised the Fox offer. With the regulatory review process dragging on, Mr Murdoch stunned his rivals last November when he revealed plans to break up his media empire, selling most of the entertainment assets, including the movie studio and portfolio of cable channels, to Walt Disney.

That deal included Fox’s 39 per cent stake in Sky, putting Disney in the driving seat to acquire the rest of the company. But Comcast, the US cable giant and owner of NBC Universal, crashed the party, making a rival bid for the Fox assets, which it later dropped — but not before Disney had to increase its own offer. Comcast then made a separate bid for Sky.

When Saturday’s auction started, the Disney-backed Fox offer was worth £14 a share with Comcast offering £14.75. Earlier rounds failed to yield a winner, with Comcast prevailing in the third round, when the bidders submitted best and final offers. 

Sky’s management team, led by Jeremy Darroch, chief executive, is expected to stay with the company, which will give its new owner significant cash flow and a big European footprint.

The £29.7bn sale makes Sky the most valuable listed UK company ever acquired by an international buyer, beating the previous bar set by Arm Holdings, which was acquired by SoftBank in 2016 for £24bn.

WSJ : Comcast Beats Out Fox to Acquire Sky

Comcast Beats Out Fox to Acquire Sky
Winning $38.8 billion offer in U.K. auction ends takeover battle, offers Comcast broader international footprint

LONDON— Comcast Corp. CMCSA 0.24% topped 21st Century Fox Inc. FOX -0.70% in a weekend auction for Sky SKYAY -1.16% PLC, winning the British broadcaster with a $38.8 billion bid that ends a monthslong takeover battle and promises Comcast a greatly expanded international footprint.
Comcast’s offer of £17.28 a share, or about $22.59 a share, surpassed Fox’s highest bid of £15.67 after three rounds of bidding Saturday, in a rare auction held by British regulators. The £29.7 billion valuation was by far the highest ever for such a process in the U.K., which has conducted a handful of smaller-scale auctions to settle intractable bidding wars.
The winning bid represents a premium of more than double Sky’s value before Rupert Murdoch’s Fox put Sky in play some 21 months ago.
Because of the auction’s setup, a sealed-bid auction in which neither side knew what the other was bidding, Comcast paid £1.61 a share, or about 10%, more than needed to beat Fox.
Comcast won at a steep price. Its winning bid of £17.28 a share was up sharply from its £12.50 bid in February and Fox’s initial £10.75 bid in December 2016.
The bidding on Saturday went down to the last of three rounds in the unusual, government-mandated auction. In the first round, Fox had the opportunity to raise its existing bid. Then, Comcast had the opportunity to top that, triggering a third and final round. That round was a “blind” round, in which neither side would be aware of what the other was bidding.
In the end, Comcast paid 10% more than what Disney and Fox were willing to pay. That translates to about $3.6 billion for all of Sky shares—a large premium that Comcast may not have needed to pay had the end game not been a blind auction. Still, auction veterans say it is unfair to judge a bidder after the fact in a sealed-bid auction.
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said, ‘We think [Sky is] more like Comcast NBCUniversal than any company we’ve seen,’ in February when announcing the deal. PHOTO: DAVID PAUL MORRIS/BLOOMBERG NEWS
Comcast used a consultant on game theory, but Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts tightly oversaw the bidding, alongside a select group of executives and advisers, according to a person familiar with the matter. Comcast felt it needed to win by a substantial margin to avoid difficulty winning over any significant shareholders and ensure it can close the deal smoothly, the person said.
It is extremely rare to have the fate of such a large, publicly traded company be determined in a blind auction. Such processes are more typical in industries such as real estate, professional sports and telecommunications, where carriers often bid for spectrum in such auctions.
The U.K. Takeover Panel had the power to mandate—and run—the auction after both sides appeared ready to continue to outbid each other outside of a formal auction process. The agency polices deals involving U.K. companies.
In blind auctions in other industries, companies often recruit game theorists to predict possible outcomes, and help bidders establish both how to win the asset at auction—and how to minimize the risk of overpaying. Investment bankers, who typically advise companies on deals, also have experience in blind auctions—though such processes aren’t typically run for such large, publicly traded firms.
The jostling over Sky—which sells phone, TV and internet services to 23 million European customers and produces its own news, entertainment and sports programming—was part of a broader scramble by media companies to fortify themselves against a rising threat from Silicon Valley giants such as Netflix Inc.
Comcast executives say a combination with Sky—which like itself is a giant in both content and distribution—will boost its user base to 53 million and add more heft to invest in technology, programming and valuable sports-media rights. The merger will also help Comcast diversify its revenue base beyond the U.S., where cable cord-cutting is taking a toll on the traditional TV business.
“We think [Sky is] more like Comcast NBCUniversal than any company we’ve seen,” Mr. Roberts said in February when announcing the deal.
Still, Sky was something of a consolation prize for the cable giant. This summer, it lost a bidding war to Walt Disney Co. for Fox’s entertainment assets. Disney agreed to pay $71 billion for Fox’s famed Hollywood studio and international assets, including a 39% stake in Sky that Fox had long held. That bigger deal is expected to close in coming months.
If Fox had won this weekend’s auction for Sky, Disney would ultimately have taken 100% control of the pay TV company. Instead, attention will now turn to whether Disney will sell the 39% stake in Sky—its value has increased by the bidding competition—or remain a minority partner for Comcast.
Analysts have raised the idea that Comcast could trade its 30% stake in Hulu to Disney—giving Disney overwhelming control of the streaming-video service—in return for the rest of Sky. Comcast has said it values its position in Hulu and just named some NBCUniversal executives to Hulu’s board.

Mr. Roberts of Comcast has said he would be prepared to jointly own Sky with a rival. Mr. Murdoch and his family are major shareholders in Fox and Wall Street Journal parent News Corp.
Despite Comcast’s win, the takeover isn’t a certainty unless it can win support from more than 50% of Sky’s shareholders to support the offer. That seems likely given the wide gap between the bids. But it could still prove challenging if Fox decides against tendering to the offer and that raises concerns for other investors that Comcast won’t be able to complete the deal.
Fox kicked off the chase for Sky in December 2016, offering £10.75 a share. The deal faced regulatory and political delays, and Comcast this February made a surprise £12.50-a-share offer. Fox raised its bid to £14 a share in July, only for Comcast to counter with £14.75 a share later that day. The U.K. Takeover Panel held the weekend auction after neither side backed down.
Comcast executives have said acquiring Sky will further the company’s ability to counter Netflix, potentially with an international streaming service. Sky already operates a streaming service called NOW TV in several European countries and has been investing in premium original shows in response to Netflix’s spending.
The merger could also yield benefits in news and entertainment programming. Sky News and NBC News could share resources, and larger scale could help the company bargain for the best content deals.
That is especially true in sports, where deep-pocketed tech companies such asAmazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google are throwing their hats in the ring. NBC has rights to the Olympics, NFL games, Nascar and the Premier League, while Sky carries matches from marquee European soccer leagues.
Despite Comcast’s win, the takeover isn’t a certainty unless it can win support from more than 50% of Sky’s shareholders to support the offer. PHOTO: CHRIS RADBURN/ZUMA PRESS
Investors haven’t been as positive about the Sky pursuit. “Investors in both Comcast and Disney are hoping against hope that their company loses,” said veteran cable analyst Craig Moffett, of MoffettNathanson research, before the weekend auction, noting that the valuation for Sky had already gone “above any reasonable estimate of fair value.”
Comcast investors worry that the company is buying a satellite broadcaster at a time when U.S. satellite companies like DirecTV and Dish Network Corp. have hemorrhaged customers under competitive pressure. Investors have also worried that Comcast’s pursuit of Sky and its failed bid for the Fox entertainment assets showed that management wasn’t confident in Comcast’s core business.

Comcast shares slid considerably after it announced its initial Sky bid in February, but rallied more recently and are 4.5% below their February price. The company is using debt to finance its all-cash offer.
Mr. Roberts has sought to allay Wall Street’s concerns, noting that Sky isn’t simply a satellite TV business—it also has a broadband offering, a content studio and has invested significantly in video technology. In June, Sky posted strong results, including customer additions up 39% in the quarter. He has also said that Comcast is confident in the strength of its core U.S. cable business.
“Right now, I feel we’re in a strategically great place and any deals we’re doing we’re trying to play offense in a belief that we over the long term can create exceptional shareholder value,” Mr. Roberts said at a recent Goldman Sachs investor conference.

WSJ : No Sex Please, We’re Apple: iPhone Giant Seeks TV Success on Its Own Terms

No Sex Please, We’re Apple: iPhone Giant Seeks TV Success on Its Own Terms
The tech giant wants to make scripted shows for streaming, only without violence, politics and risqué story lines

Tim Cook sat down more than a year ago to watch Apple Inc.’s AAPL -1.08% first scripted drama, “Vital Signs,” and was troubled by what he saw. The show, a dark, semi-biographical tale of hip hop artist Dr. Dre, featured characters doing lines of cocaine, an extended orgy in a mansion and drawn guns.
It’s too violent, Mr. Cook told Apple Music executive Jimmy Iovine, said people familiar with Apple’s entertainment plans. Apple can’t show this.
Across Hollywood and inside Apple, the show has become emblematic of the challenges faced by the technology giant as it pushes into entertainment. Apple earmarked $1 billion for Hollywood programming last year. But in the tone CEO Mr. Cook has set for it, whatever Apple produces mustn’t taint a pristine brand image that has helped the company collect 80% of the profits in the global smartphone market.

Apple’s entertainment team must walk a line few in Hollywood would consider. Since Mr. Cook spiked “Vital Signs,” Apple has made clear, say producers and agents, that it wants high-quality shows with stars and broad appeal, but it doesn’t want gratuitous sex, profanity or violence.
The result is an approach out of step with the triumphs of the video-streaming era. Other platforms, such as HBO and Amazon.com Inc.,have made their mark in original content with edgier programming that often wins critical acclaim. Netflix Inc., which helped birth the streaming revolution, built its original-content business on “House of Cards,” a drama about an ethically bankrupt politician, and “Orange Is the New Black,” a comedic drama about a women’s prison. Both feature rough language and plenty of sex.

As a consumer-product company, Apple is especially exposed if content strikes a sour note, said Preston Beckman, a former NBC and Fox programming executive. For Netflix, the only risk is that people don’t subscribe, he said. “With Apple, you can say, ‘I’m going to punish them by not buying their phone or computer.’ "
Apple has twice postponed the launch of its first slate of shows, moving it to March from late this year, agents and producers said. One leading producer with projects at Apple expects the date to be pushed back yet further.

Hollywood routinely humbles big companies that try to join its club. In 2014, Microsoft Corp.closed its Hollywood unit, Xbox Entertainment Studios, before it got off the ground. Coca-ColaCo. , which owned Columbia Pictures in the 1980s, found its success with “Ghostbusters” and “Stand by Me” was outweighed by expensive flops such as “Ishtar.”
Entertainment is “irrational and unpredictable,” said Peter Sealey, a consultant who led marketing for Coke’s Hollywood business. Apple excels at devices and Coke at soft drinks, he said, but “movies and TV are none of that. They’re emotional.”
Mr. Cook told analysts in July that Apple wasn’t ready to detail its Hollywood plans, but he felt “really good about what we will eventually offer.” The company didn’t make executives available for interviews for this article.
Hollywood is central to Apple’s strategy. As growth slows in the number of iPhones sold, Apple is trying to accelerate its services business, which includes the App Store, mobile payments and entertainment, including its music-subscription offering. It wants shows to support a video service on its TV app that could be bundled with subscriptions such as iCloud storage, said the people familiar with Apple’s entertainment plans.
Apple’s arrival coincides with upheaval in Hollywood. Declining pay-TV subscriptions and the rise of Netflix have set off an entertainment land grab. Tech giants such as Amazon andFacebook Inc. are offering video services to deepen ties with existing customers. Traditional media and telecom companies are trying to fend them off with mergers, such asWalt Disney Co.’s deal for 21st Century Fox Inc. assets and AT&T Inc.’s acquisition of Time Warner Inc.
The tumult has fueled an explosion in the number of scripted shows, to 487 last year, up more than two-thirds in five years. There is a rush to sign up top show creators, as in Warner Bros.’s $300 million long-term deal to keep prolific producer Greg Berlanti.
Apple has bought more than a dozen shows, favoring broadly appealing, family-friendly fare. They include a series about poet Emily Dickinson and a “Friday Night Lights”-style drama about basketball star Kevin Durant. Apple signed partnerships with Oprah Winfrey, perhaps entertainment’s most wholesome star, and Sesame Workshop, the producers of “Sesame Street.”

Of roughly two-dozen shows Apple has in development or production, only a few could veer into “TV-MA” territory, television’s equivalent of R-rated films.
Apple’s sensitivity affects how its top Hollywood executives, Zack Van Amburg and Jamie Erlicht, approach their jobs. The duo, who previously shepherded “Breaking Bad” at SonyPictures, devote considerable time to winning a nod for shows from Mr. Cook and Eddy Cue,a senior vice president who oversees services, said someone well-versed in company dynamics.

Messrs. Van Amburg and Erlicht have successfully pushed some edgier shows. Apple signed a deal for a series made by M. Night Shyamalan about a couple who lose a young child.
Before saying yes to that psychological thriller, Apple executives had a request: Please eliminate the crucifixes in the couple’s house, said people working on the project. They said executives made clear they didn’t want shows that venture into religious subjects or politics. Mr. Shyamalan wasn’t available for comment.
Not every moviemaker has found Apple imposing boundaries. Early work on a comedy called “Little America” with Kumail Nanjiani “feels like a typical development process,” said co-producer Lee Eisenberg.
And graphic content certainly isn’t the only path to success in TV and streaming. There’s little or none in some of Netflix’s hits, such as “Stranger Things,” and in some popular broadcast-TV shows such as “The Big Bang Theory.”
Still, there’s no shying away from nudity, politics and raw language at cable networks such as FX, TNT, HBO and Showtime or at Netflix and Amazon Prime. Even Disney, which built its business on animated films for children, is bringing R-rated content like the raunchy “Deadpool” superhero films into its fold with its pending 21st Century Fox acquisition.
Where Apple draws the line isn’t clear, say producers, agents and writers.
“I’m not sure myself what they’re after,” said producer Shawn Ryan, whose credits include the FX hit ”The Shield.”
“I do adore Zack and Jamie and trust in their taste. I think we’re all curious to see what it’s going to be."

Apple is making big commitments to win projects. It outbid Netflix and CBS Corp.’sShowtime to land a drama about a morning news show starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, ordering two seasons and skipping the usual requirement of a pilot episode. The show’s price could top $12 million an episode, according to people familiar with it.

Apple’s venture entails behind-the-scenes drama unusual for the tech company’s typically regimented operations. Apple replaced the person in charge of the Aniston-Witherspoon show, known as the showrunner, before filming. The executive producer’s inexperience was an issue, but Apple also wanted a more upbeat show and took exception to some of the humor proposed, according to people working on the project. The show now is delayed and is having scheduling issues with Ms. Witherspoon, who has other commitments, they said.
Apple also replaced showrunners for a reboot of Steven Spielberg’s anthology "Amazing Stories,” finding the original team’s vision a little dark, said people familiar with that project. Apple’s handful of TV-MA projects include “Shantaram,” about a former heroin addict who smuggles guns to Afghanistan, and a potential show about the late pop star George Michael.
Mr. Cook, better known for memorizing spreadsheets and detailing supply costs, makes an unlikely Hollywood kingpin. His favorite TV shows are relatively tame fare such as “Friday Night Lights” and “Madame Secretary,” say people he has spoken with about it.

Mr. Cue acts as Hollywood translator. He made his mark leading Apple’s iTunes business with a tough negotiating style that cemented the 99-cent price for songs. Mr. Cue has said shows he enjoys include HBO’s violent and sex-filled “Game of Thrones” and the sci-fi “Westworld.”
The two men started exploring a video-programming strategy almost three years ago. With investors calling for Apple to buy Netflix, and Apple’s effort to launch a bundle of cable channels foundering, the executives invited in Hollywood executives such as Creative Artists Agency people and award-winning producer Brian Grazer, said people involved in the discussions. Apple wanted to know about how the business works, who was doing well and why.
Apple discussed with CAA afterward a confidential initiative to procure and develop programming for its app store, according to these people. They said the talent agency secured funding for the effort and scooped up several projects, including a Keanu Reeves show about a hit man and a risqué Michael Fassbender show about a rally-car driver.

Apple Music pursued projects of its own. The division, built partly through the $3 billion 2014 acquisition of Beats Electronics LLC, was led by Mr. Iovine, who figured video would differentiate Apple’s streaming-music service. In addition to the ill-fated “Vital Signs” project with Beats co-founder and Apple executive Dr. Dre, Mr. Iovine worked on a show called “Planet of the Apps” and partnered with CBS on “Carpool Karaoke.”
Some content on both shows, which now are available on Apple Music, originally troubled Apple brass. The company edited out “Planet of the Apps” segments with swearing, frustrating stars of the show, said a person familiar with the editing.
In “Carpool Karaoke,” which won an Emmy this week, Apple sanitized comedian James Corden’s faux outrage in the first episode so the audience hears “What the [bleep]?”

As Apple Music’s video efforts struggled, Mr. Cue charted a new course, hiring Messrs. Van Amburg and Erlicht from Sony, where they had built a reputation for creative chops and business savvy. The mandate was to build a slate of original shows.
The duo visited talent agencies last fall encouraging agents to bring them quality ideas. One agent described the message as: “Don’t edit yourselves. We’re Apple, and we’re going to take big swings.” Agents soon began to question that, as Apple started signing up series with the broad appeal of network shows and ended discussions over the grittier projects starring Mr. Fassbender and Mr. Reeves, according to people familiar with those projects.

Messrs. Van Amburg and Erlicht amended their message, saying Apple was open to anything and everything so long as there was no gratuitous violence or nudity, according to talent-agency people. One agent said some members of Apple’s team in Los Angeles began calling themselves “expensive NBC.”
Recently, Apple initially expressed interest when it was pitched a politically charged show about a college ombudsman in the era of #MeToo, featuring comedian Whitney Cummings and the producer behind the Fox hit “Empire,” Lee Daniels. Apple subsequently sent word there was concern about the sensitive topics, and the sides had differing opinions on the show’s direction.
The show is now in talks to end up at Amazon.

>>> Bekaert may sell Italian wire pipe operations to industrial bidders

Bekaert may sell Italian wire pipe operations to industrial bidders

Bekaert [EPA: BEKB], the Belgian producer of wire, pipes and coatings, could sell its Italian factory in Figline Valdarno to industrial buyers, Italian language daily Il Messaggero reported. The report cited a spokesperson for the region of Tuscany who said that competitors of Bekaert are understood to be interested in the facility, which Bekaert is looking to close and transfer production to Romania.
The item cited the spokesperson as noting that the contacts were in their preliminary stages.
The factory employs 318 workers, the report said.