TheChek News Flow

Amazon cherche à racheter un distributeur en France

Le géant du commerce en ligne américain souhaiterait ouvrir d’ici deux ans une quinzaine de boutiques s’inspirant de son concept de magasin sans caisse Amazon Go.

Amazon serait en quête d’une quinzaine d’implantations de commerce physiques en France, et notamment à Paris, selon nos informations. Objectif : ouvrir d’ici deux ans des boutiques, s’inspirant du concept de magasin sans caisse que le géant teste à Seattle (Etat de Washington), Amazon Go. Plus globalement, le géant américain a approché des distributeurs français pour nouer des partenariats ou réaliser une acquisition en France. Des contacts ont ainsi été pris avec Casino, concernant notamment son enseigne Monoprix, mais le français n’a pas donné suite. « Casino n’a pas l’intention de vendre Monoprix », indique-t-on au sein du groupe.

Lire aussi : Comment l’empire Amazon pulvérise la concurrence

L’américain a aussi discuté avec Intermarché et Système U, deux groupes indépendants spécialistes de la distribution alimentaire. « Ils ont démarché tout le monde mais n’ont pas reçu de retours positifs, raconte un distributeur. Amazon veut se rapprocher d’une enseigne de distribution pour profiter de sa capacité d’achat qu’ils n’ont pas pour le moment, et pour la connaissance du client que l’on a avec nos magasins. On voit bien l’intérêt pour Amazon, mais le nôtre est moins évident. Amazon n’est pas notre ami : au final leur but est de nous manger et nous n’allons pas leur ouvrir la porte et leur donner le menu. »

En quête de partenariats

Au Royaume-Uni, aussi, Amazon est en quête de partenariats. La chaîne de supermarchés Morrisons, numéro quatre de la grande distribution outre-Manche, aurait été approchée. « Ils ont tenté de discuter, mais ils ont trouvé porte close pour le moment », explique un connaisseur du secteur. Du coup, pour mettre la pression sur les distributeurs, Amazon cherche à ouvrir ses propres magasins. « C’est leur stratégie », poursuit-il.

Lire aussi : Amazon maille la France de ses entrepôts

En février, le journal britannique Sunday Times indiquait qu’Amazon cherchait des implantations dans le centre de Londres, pour y lancer Amazon Go. Ces discussions entre Amazon et la grande distribution expliquent les récentes spéculations qui ont enflé dans les salles de marché sur un rachat de… Carrefour. Une rumeur qui avait débuté cet été après la publication d’une étude de la Société générale donnant Carrefour, Casino et le britannique Morrisons comme cibles potentielles d’Amazon en Europe.

En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/10/03/amazon-cherche-a-racheter-un-distributeur-en-france_5195527_3234.html#mEc4TUPMEfsVC5mU.99

En savoir plus sur http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2017/10/03/amazon-cherche-a-racheter-un-distributeur-en-france_5195527_3234.html#mEc4TUPMEfsVC5mU.99

Fidelity International reshapes cost model as active managers face rising pressure

Fidelity International, the £233.4bn asset manager, has radically overhauled its charging model by cutting ongoing fees and introducing a performance fee model, as active fund managers come under pressure to justify their charges.

The fund house announced today that it was scrapping its flat-fee rate across its active equity funds, as it moved towards a fee model traditionally associated with hedge funds.

This will include both reducing the annual management fee, which investors pay to cover a wide range of costs, and a change to a variable management fee that is symmetrically linked to fund performance.

The Bermuda-based company declined to provide details of how much this variable management fee will be. Hedge funds traditionally earn 20 per cent of performance above a certain hurdle, while also charging a two per cent management fee.

The company also announced it would pass on the cost of research under new European rules known as Mifid II to clients, a move that puts it at odds with the rest of its competitors.

Brian Conroy, president of Fidelity International, said: “We want to demonstrate real commitment to our active management capability. We will move away from a flat fee model and get paid according to how well we do for our clients.”

Defence minister’s comments highlight sensitivities imposed by pacifist constitution

Japan will not seek to shoot down North Korean missile tests unless they threaten its territory, the country’s defence minister has signalled in an interview with the Financial Times.

Some US analysts have suggested intercepting ballistic missile tests as a way of stepping up pressure on Pyongyang, but Itsunori Onodera said Japan had not shot at two recent missiles passing through its airspace because they were projected to land safely in the Pacific.

“Whether it is Japan or any other country, I think that shooting down a ballistic missile could be construed as a military action,” said Mr Onodera. “Unless you judge it is an attack on your own country, I think it is difficult to shoot down such missiles.”

His remarks highlight the sensitivities imposed by Japan’s pacifist constitution as it responds to a series of missile and nuclear tests by North Korea, as well as the paucity of options for putting effective pressure on Kim Jong Un’s regime.

North Korea fired Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missiles over Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido on August 29 and September 15, prompting thousands of residents to evacuate, but Japan did not try to intercept them using the destroyers it keeps constantly at sea.

“The recent missile tests by North Korea passed at high altitude and there was no fear of them falling in our territory or territorial waters so we did not shoot them down,” Mr Onodera said. Were a missile targeted at US territory in Hawaii or Guam, then Japan could intercept them under its new national security legislation, he said.

Intercepting a ballistic missile test would require a destroyer equipped with the Aegis defence system to be in the right place at the right time. Security analysts who oppose shooting down test missiles say a failed interception could embolden Pyongyang.

Having become defence minister for the second time in August — he also held the post from 2012 to 2014 — Mr Onodera’s term has been defined by the North Korean missile threat. Japan is planning to acquire a land-based Aegis missile defence system to supplement its destroyers and its short-range Patriot missiles.

“To be at sea around the clock, 365 days a year, is tough in terms of equipment and personnel. Therefore I think it is important to strengthen our deployment of ground assets, including Aegis Ashore,” he said.

Despite the unpredictability of President Donald Trump, Mr Onodera said he had “no doubts whatsoever” about US commitment to defending Japan. He welcomed Mr Trump’s tough rhetoric, including calling the North Korean leader “Rocket Man” in a recent speech at the UN. “As part of putting pressure on North Korea, we welcome President Trump’s strong language,” Mr Onodera said.

He said America’s security commitment in the region was crucial. “If a conflict breaks out in east Asia, even temporarily, then Asian economic growth will halt. That will have a direct effect on the US economy. I think regional stability is very important not just for the United States and Japan, but for China and South Korea as well.”

Mr Onodera said Japan was strengthening its cyber defences but had not detected a particularly large volume of hacking attacks from North Korea. He said Japan’s current stance on cyber warfare was defensive, indicating Tokyo was not seeking to launch its own hacking attacks against Pyongyang, which was a possible option for the US.

“Whether as a nation Japan is permitted to conduct a cyber offensive attack — I don’t think that discussion is settled,” he said. “It would help if society, especially in the United States, could define what constitutes a cyber attack and what form a counterattack can take.”

We see three scenarios from here:

* The first is that the Catalan government back-tracks on its pledge to proceed towards unilateral

independence, and decides to sit down with the Spanish government to negotiate a new financing

system for the region, and possibly more autonomy on other aspects. Last week Mr Montoro made an

opening bid to the Catalan government, saying the central government was willing to make

concessions if Catalonia back-tracked on independence, even if that might put more pressure on the

central budget and increase the risk of fiscal slippage. Following a Catalan government meeting on 2

October, Mr Puigdemont said that "this moment warrants reflexion" (El País, 2 October). However,

Catalan leaders have already made it clear they are past negotiating, and their stated intention to move

forward with the independence bid suggests such a scenario is unlikely.

* The second scenario is that the government ignores the independence threat, and limits itself to

referring the matter to the Spanish constitutional court. This could lead to legal and financial penalties

against some of the pro-independence Catalan leaders, but no major escalation of tensions between

Barcelona and Madrid. Such a scenario, however, would only be possible in our view if the Catalan

government does not follow up on the independence declaration with more concrete steps towards

independence, such as the ones mentioned above.

* The third scenario is a further escalation of political tensions which eventually leads to triggering

Article 155. Unless the PSOE decides to support this, we doubt that this could happen before the

Catalan government makes a concrete move towards independence, but at some point it might be

inevitable. This would eventually lead to early elections in Catalonia. A recent poll suggested the proindependence

parties might then lose such elections (NC Report, 25 September), although the

situation might be different after the events at the weekend. Furthermore, there is a risk that

opposition parties might use this opportunity to cause a fall of the PP government. Podemos and

PSOE would have the numbers to vote down Mr Rajoy's government, but not to elect another Prime

Minister (unless Ciudadanos were to abstain) which is a requirement in Spain, which means a noconfidence

vote is unlikely to succeed (Chart 2). However, at some point, if he is unable to govern,

Mr Rajoy might have to call a snap election himself.