FT : Drugmakers race to prescribe preventive migraine remedies

Drugmakers race to prescribe preventive migraine remedies

Migraines are one of the most common illnesses worldwide, affecting about 1 in 7 people and more than 30m in the US alone. Many suffer without effective treatment to control their debilitating headaches.
“I can think of only a few examples of holy grails in medicine, which have existed for thousands of years, and this is one of them,” says Sean Harper, the top scientist at Amgen, a large biotech company developing a drug for the condition.

“There’s just no effective preventive therapy for migraine that’s worth taking,” he adds.
Although there are drugs intended for those who suffer migraines occasionally, there are far fewer options for “episodic” or “chronic” sufferers that experience an attack on more than 10 days a month.
Instead, these patients try to cope by avoiding factors that can trigger attacks, such as alcohol and stress, and by taking over-the-counter painkillers such as ibuprofen. Many are forced to take significant amounts of time off work.
However, that could be about to change as four drug companies race to develop a generation of “prophylactic”, or preventive medicines, designed to be taken regularly to reduce the number of attacks.
Last week, Alder BioPharmaceuticals, a tiny biotech group based in Washington state, reported results from a mid-stage study that showed its drug, codenamed ALD403, reduced the average number of migraine days by 75 per cent in a third of patients after three months.
If it can replicate those results in a larger study the drug is likely to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Shares in the company jumped more than 50 per cent after the announcement, giving it a market capitalisation of almost $1bn.
Alder is hoping to grab a large chunk of the market for the new class of migraine drugs, which analysts say could generate as much as $10bn a year in peak global sales.
But the group faces a battle with three goliaths of drugmaking: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Teva, the Israeli drug group.
The companies are in the latter stage of developing medicines similar to Alder’s, which target a chemical known as calcitonin gene-related peptide or CGRP; it helps control the width of blood vessels and plays an important role in managing pain.
Scientists first identified the significance of CGRP in migraines in the 1980s, but earlier drugs developed by US-based Merck and Boehringer Ingelheim were abandoned amid signs that they caused liver damage. This latest crop appears to have few safety issues, according to data from clinical trials.
But some investors and analysts fear that with four companies chasing the same patients, the market for CGRP inhibitors could become crowded.
Randall Schatzman, Alder’s chief executive, disagrees, arguing that up to 13m US patients could benefit from taking one of the new migraine drugs. “It is not as crowded as some people are expecting it to be,” he says. “There’s plenty of room for multiple players.”
As is often the case when multiple drugmakers are running neck and neck, the companies developing CGRP inhibitors are keen to tout the relative benefits of their medicines.

Mr Harper argues that the advantage of Amgen’s drug, codenamed AMG 334, is that it is taken via a once-a-month injection that patients administer themselves. Meanwhile, Alder’s drug is delivered intravenously once a quarter, although it is also working on a quarterly injection.
“What patients really want is to grab an auto-injector out of their fridge once a month, to inject themselves, and to throw the rubbish in the trash,” he says.
Michael Yee, a biotech analyst at RBC Capital Markets, says intravenous delivery, which must be carried out at a doctor’s surgery, means that even if Alder’s drug is the most effective it will only be given to the sickest patients.

Mr Schatzman prefers to see it as a benefit: “All the 800lb gorillas are going down the same highway with a once-a-month injection,” he says, referring to the size of his much larger competitors.
Eli Lilly, meanwhile, is aiming to become the first group to win approval to use its CGRP inhibitor to treat cluster headaches, a rarer condition with about 200,000 sufferers in the US, but one where patients are still underserved by existing medicines.
“The enthusiasm in the field is warranted, and we’re trying to stay ahead of the pack in a very competitive space,” says John Lechleiter, Eli Lilly’s chief executive.
However, recent negotiations between drugmakers, the US government and insurers that pay for medicines show the best medicine may not necessarily win.
Last year, Express Scripts said it would no longer cover an expensive hepatitis C medicine made by Gilead for many of its patients. Instead, it recommended a drug from AbbVie, which is widely seen as inferior, after securing a big rebate from the drugmaker.
Mr Yee says: “Ultimately this will come down to some aggressive marketing and rebating.”

Reuters - Alaska Air nears deal to buy Virgin America for over $2 billion: sourc

Alaska Air nears deal to buy Virgin America for over $2 billion: sources http://reut.rs/222hSrl

Alaska Air Group Inc (ALK.N) is nearing a deal to acquire Virgin America Inc (VA.O), the ninth-largest U.S. airline by passenger traffic, for more than $2 billion, having outbid JetBlue Airways Corp (JBLU.O), people familiar with the matter said on Saturday.

The acquisition would herald the first U.S. commercial airline merger since US Airways and American Airlines combined in 2013 to form the world's largest carrier. It would boost the size of Alaska Air's home market by allowing it to expand into lucrative hubs such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Alaska Air is set to pay between $56 and $58 per share to acquire Virgin America, the people said. A deal could be announced as early as Monday, the people added, asking not to be identified because the agreement had not yet been finalized.

Alaska Air, Virgin America and JetBlue did not respond to requests for comment.

Burlingame, California-based Virgin America went public in the U.S. stock market in 2014 as an offshoot of billionaire Richard Branson's London-based Virgin Group. Launched as a low-cost U.S. airline, it became famous for its mood lighting, comfortable leather seats and media-rich inflight entertainment system.

Based in Seattle, Alaska Air and its partner regional airlines serve more than 100 cities in the United States, Canada, Costa Rica and Mexico. It has a market capitalization of $10.2 billion.

Virgin America accounts for about 1.5 percent of U.S. domestic flight capacity, while Alaska Air and its subsidiary Horizon Air account for 5 percent, Deutsche Bank analyst Michael Linenberg wrote in a recent research note. JetBlue accounts for 6 percent, according to the note.

"It's inevitable that we would see some form of combination (among smaller airlines) as they strive to find a way to compete with the larger carriers," said travel industry analyst Henry Harteveldt.

Government regulators are expected to scrutinize the deal between Alaska Air and Virgin America for potential overlap in routes and airport slots.

Mega-mergers in the past decade have reduced the U.S. industry to four top players that control more than 80 percent of the market.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Saturday that Alaska Air had emerged as the likely winner of an auction for Virgin America.

>>> Centrica hires JPMorgan to advise on potential tie-up with Engie - Sunday Ti

Centrica hires JPMorgan to advise on potential tie-up with Engie - Sunday Times

Centrica is believed to have engaged JPMorgan to advise on options regarding a potential deal with the gas and oil production unit of France-based Engie, The Sunday Times reported. UK-based Centrica, which owns British Gas, and state-backed Engie have entered early-stage negotiations on a tie-up which might take the form of a joint venture, the unsourced report said.

Centrica and Engie jointly own the Cygnus gasfield in the North Sea, the report said, noting that a number of North Sea players are discussing merger deals in an attempt to reduce their costs.

Sunday Times

>>> Servair sale sees Newrest emerge in poll

Servair sale sees Newrest emerge in poll 

French catering group Newrest is the favourite to take over Servair, the onboard catering operation due to be sold by French Dutch carrier Air France KLM, according to a French language weekly. Le Journal du Dimanche reported that Newrest is favoured over competing Austrian Do & Co and Gategroup of Switzerland.

An unidentified Servair union official told the JDD that the two players have much in common but working conditions diverge. Newrest operates both in the inflight meal sector and in airport concessions and the report noted it would promote growth at Servair.

Earlier mooted suitor Gategroup is itself in the throes of a restructuring process and recently acquired Inflight Service for more than EUR 200m. As to Do & Co, the paper dubbed it an outsider.

The report said Newrest had looked at Servair and then opted against a bid. Now, however, it is looking again but will not buy in at a price that is exorbitant. Reports have tagged a EUR 500m price tag on Servair. The name of the party granted exclusivity should be made public soon.

Journal du Dimanche

NY Post : Softbank eyes control of Marissa Mayer’s Yahoo assets

Softbank eyes control of Marissa Mayer’s Yahoo assets

SoftBank President Nikesh Arora is a busy guy these days — the head of Japan’s global telecom giant is in “active” discussions with Yahoo’s board, which includes Chief Executive Marissa Mayer.

“They are figuring out a solution for the whole,” said a source, adding, “Things are quite active.”

On the Money’s tipsters say there are quite a few permutations of a deal between SoftBank and the Yahoo board, but say talks are slow-going.

SoftBank is in the catbird seat if it can make a deal with Yahoo, according to sources.

The telecom company already owns a 36.4 percent stake in Yahoo Japan. Yahoo, meanwhile, owns 35.5 percent.

SoftBank also has a 32 percent stake in Alibaba Group Holdings, while Yahoo has a 15.5 percent slice, with Jack Ma retaining 5 percent.

Should SoftBank acquire Yahoo’s piece, it would own 47.5 percent of the whole.

However, a source says, “Jack Ma does not want SoftBank as a controlling shareholder” in Alibaba.

Meanwhile, SoftBank joined private equity firm Silver Lake as an investor in Hollywood super agency WME/IMG last week.

Would SoftBank, owner of Sprint, want Yahoo sold to Verizon?

Could WME help SoftBank figure out content for Sprint?

Questions, questions…

(BI) STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: 'This is the most unsustainable situation I have eve

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: 'This is the most unsustainable situation I have ever seen in my career'

With so many voices streaming at us through our televisions and computers, a person can’t be blamed for tuning out.

For the most part, tuning out is exactly what we should do. But sometimes it is very important that we pay attention…

By listening to Jeremy Grantham, Jim Grant and a host of other investors, a person could have avoided and profited the crashing of the tech bubble of the late ’90s.

By listening to Kyle Bass, Michael Burry and Prem Watsa, an investor could have avoided and even profited from the crashing of the housing bubble in 2008.

Today is another time when we all need to be paying attention. This time, the man we need to be listening to is Stan Druckenmiller.

For 25 years as a hedge fund manager, Druckenmiller compounded money at an annualized rate of return of 30%. Incredibly, he did it without a single down year.

Druckenmiller has a dire warning for all of us. One that requires action.

There is nothing for Druckenmiller to gain from providing this warning. He isn’t talking his book or trying to gain investor support — he isn’t promoting anything. He doesn’t even have a political agenda.

He is spending his own time and money to try to bring this issue to light because he believes it is crucial for the United States.

Druckenmiller simply believes that America is heading for a disaster, and he is trying to use his high-profile position to get people motivated to stop it.

What you need to know about Stan Druckenmiller is that his incredible investing performance was rooted in his skills in making macroeconomic forecasts.

When describing how he was able to compound money at such a crazy rate and not have a single down year, Druckenmiller said:

How did we do it? Very simple. While others were focusing on the present, we looked and focused on the future in terms of analyzing unsustainable situations.

And when I look at the current picture of expected tax revenues combined with benefits promised to future generations, this is the most unsustainable situation I have seen ever in my career.

The disaster that Druckenmiller sees coming for the United States is all about changing demographics and entitlement spending. They don’t add up to a sustainable situation.

In 1940, entitlement payments, which include everything from disability payments to Social Security to Medicare, amounted to just over 20% of annual government spending in the United States.

Today, entitlement spending has swelled to nearly 70% of the annual federal budget.

Things are about to get a whole lot more complicated. The 20-year baby boom that took place after World War II is now beginning to result in a retiree boom.

For context, Druckenmiller points out that in 2030, the average age of an American citizen will be older than the average age of a resident of Florida today.

This demographic trend is going to create an entitlement spending catastrophe.

The way the system works, the current workforce provides the tax revenue to support the current senior population. A huge rise in the retiree population relative to the number of people working results in a funding dilemma.

Since 1980, the number of working-age people the country has had has outnumbered those age 65 and over by a count of 5-to 1.

The country has had enough workers generating tax revenue to support the number of retirees.

By 2030, that ratio is going to drop to 2.5-to-1.

By 2029, there will be 11,000 new seniors arriving every day and only 2,000 new adults being added to the workforce to pay for them.

There is just no way that the workforce at that time is going to be able to fund the entitlements of these seniors.

This is a problem because those are commitments that have been made and will have to be paid.

Corporations are required to disclose on their balance sheet the future defined pension obligations that their employees have earned.

Those are very real liabilities for companies that are going to have to be paid, so they should be included.

The balance sheet of the United States, meanwhile, doesn’t account for the future payments that it has promised to its senior citizens. Again, like defined benefit pension payments, these are very real obligations.

They should be recorded as liabilities of the United States.

Here is how much the U.S. debt would increase, assuming no change in tax rates, if those obligations were included:

fiscal gapThe Daily Reckoning

That chart makes the size of the problem abundantly clear. There are a lot of people already very concerned with the amount of debt the United States has. Imagine how they would feel if they were aware that with these liabilities conclude the number is 20 times larger.

This is a case of simple math.

Either tax rates increase in a massive way or the payments to seniors have to be cut significantly. The status quo doesn’t work. There just isn’t going to be anywhere close to enough money coming in to fund the payments going out.

The country can’t borrow its way out of a funding issue of this size.

This issue that Druckenmiller is so passionate about is a huge problem. One with no possible solution that will be popular with the American voters.

Either higher taxes or lower benefits. Likely some combination of both. Both very unattractive options for big percentages of the voter base.

You can hear the politicians kicking this can further down the road, can’t you?

Fixing this is going to require some real sacrifice by the American people. That doesn’t sound like a very appealing platform upon which to get re-elected.

The finances of the entire world are run by short-term thinkers. Central bankers have been dead set on trying to inflate economies for a decade now using more and more aggressive easy-money policies.

janet yellenFederal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on the "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress" in Capitol Hill, Washington February 11, 2016
Janet Yellen

To try to make the short term a little better, these central bankers have been perfectly willing to roll the dice on the long term.

The issue that Druckenmiller has raised will have to be dealt with. I’m sure it will be dealt with far later than it should be as politicians do kick that can down the road.

By doing that, they are only going to make the corrective actions that the country has to take more severe.

It is crucial that all of us realize that our long-term financial well-being really needs to be taken care of by one person. That one person is the man or woman you look at in the mirror in the morning when you are brushing your teeth.

We have to make sure we protect our wealth diligently and invest in assets that will retain their value when the consequences of all of this short-term thinking arrive.

Because eventually, they will.

Telegraph : Xavier Rolet: tie-up between LSE and Deutsche Boerse is best deal on

Xavier Rolet: tie-up between LSE and Deutsche Boerse is best deal on the table http://bit.ly/1UB0DOL

Although he may look every part the FTSE 100 chief executive – smart red tie, pocket handkerchief, discreet but expensive grey suit – Xavier Rolet is playing the role of evangelical preacher.

Just two weeks after putting the flesh on the bones of the proposed £21bn tie-up between LSE Group, owner of the London Stock Exchange, and Deutsche Boerse, its German rival, the chief executive of the British bourse is laying out with messianic zeal the merits of the deal.

Partly stung by some of the criticism against the mooted union, and partly because of his deeply held belief that the merger is the best option for the LSE, in his first full interview since the all-share deal was announced the Frenchman passionately defends the tie-up and what it means for the group he has run for the past seven years.

“Our strategy was always to extend from our domestic focus to become one of the small number of players that would be global. I’ve always said that I thought there would be a small number, three, maybe four, and we want to be part of them,” says Rolet, who was awarded an honorary knighthood last year.

After masterminding 16 acquisitions in the seven years he has been at the helm of the group, Rolet has widened the business from one largely focused on the LSE and its Italian sister Borsa Italiana to a fully integrated financial infrastructure business with strengths in intellectual property, capital formation and clearing and settlement.

Rolet argues in some detail that the latest deal, rather than an out-of-the-blue approach driven by his opposite number at the German exchange, as some have badged it, is the crowning moment of what he has been working to achieve since he took over from Clara Furse at Paternoster Square in May 2009.

Furse fended off bids from the Germans and from Euronext, as well as interest from the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, but was widely criticised for keeping the LSE on a largely domestic footing, despite her acquisition in 2007 of Borsa Italiana.

Rolet says: “Before we got to the point where we had achieved competitiveness and relevance on a global scale, to do a deal like this as a merger of equals would have been unthinkable. Seven years ago, these guys were worth five times what we were worth.”

Rolet admits that the fact that LSE Group is now on the brink of a merger with Deutsche Boerse is far from a surprise. “For many years” he thought it would be the Germans who would make the approach, and he confesses that his opposite number in Frankfurt, Carsten Kengeter, who only took the helm of Deutsche Boerse last June, “reached out to me when he took the position… because it was obvious to him this was a winning combination.”

“But don’t think of us as passive,” he says, deflecting criticism that the LSE should have been more pro-active. “We had prepared ourselves for it because ultimately we want to be a global leader.”

Rolet is coy about how the more formal discussions began (although it is understood it was led by the Germans with an approach in late January) and instead terms the talks a “meeting of minds”. Ultimately, he says, “it’s like a marriage. Someone has to get on one knee, and ask the other, but you have to have signals on both sides that it’s going to work.”

The apparently happy union will see him stand down, however. Kengeter, who turned 49 on Thursday , will take the top job, with the LSE Group’s chairman, Donald Brydon, chairing the as yet to be named venture. In return, the enlarged entity will be domiciled, taxed and headquartered in London, something which Rolet fought hard for.

“In exchange for some of these concessions we had to give something. And I offered it. I said, if that helps, I’ll fall on my sword.

“I love this company, and I had no intention or pre-conceived plan to go.”

He is also keen to amplify that his decision to go is not, as has been alleged, linked to any merger-related pay-off.

Some investors have privately questioned the choice of Kengeter to run the combined business, given he has only run the German exchange for nine months. Rolet stresses Kengeter’s pedigree, his knowledge of Mandarin, his intellectual ability.

“What I would and have said to shareholders is, give us, Carsten and I, a little bit of credit, based on track records. “If we suggest to you that there’s a meeting of minds, that the real strategy will be short-term accretion, cost synergies of €450m [£357m)] revenue synergies which we haven’t published yet… give us some credit for seeing that this is the best deal on the table.”

But while Rolet is full of praise for the deal that is on the table, he is full of venom for the one that might be. The prospect of the merger being gatecrashed by Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the Atlanta-based business led by Jeff Sprecher which owns everything from the NYSE to the International Petroleum Exchange in London, does not appeal.

Although the Frenchman says over and over again he cannot comment on ICE because it has yet to table an offer (under Takeover Panel rules it has until early May to do so), time and time again during our hour-long conversation, Rolet makes veiled and at times direct comments about the prospects of what he refers to as the “interloper”.

“I don’t want just anyone, particularly not some 'slash and burn’ type organisation, to come in and kill all of the stuff we’ve done over the last few years,” he says. Using what ICE did to Euronext – spinning it out of the NYSE and relisting it– as an example, Rolet talks critically of Sprecher’s track record when it comes to equity exchanges, labelling its ownership of Euronext as a “disaster” having “eviscerated” the four platforms on which the pan-European exchange was originally found.

“It is not a company based in Atlanta… that is going to worry about the financing of European industry – whether they are S [small], M [medium] or blue-chips. It’s just not going to be part of their strategy. Which is why they chucked out Euronext. They kept the clearing business that they had, and they kept the derivatives engine. And that is not a strategy for British industry.”

He also feels that ICE or any other rival would be less kind to Aim, the LSE’s junior exchange, than Kengeter plans to be. The German has spoken fondly of Aim, and plans to open an equivalent in Germany to foster small company growth.

“I doubt that [Aim] would be part of the strategy of any frankly global exchange for the simple reason it doesn’t make any money. It would be one of the first things to be chucked. Our 1000 Companies programme, that costs money. Our Elite programme, that costs money. All that stuff would be chucked in the bin – but we care greatly about these things.” Rolet continually attacks the “silo” model that ICE and others adopt.

“We partner with our clients, we share the equity,” he says. “We don’t bundle up the capabilities we provide. The rest of the industry, particularly the Americans, say that if you want any of these products, you’ve got to buy the whole lot.”

What I want is a company that’s headquartered, taxed and governed in London. I think London deserves it
Returning to his favoured topic, the Deutsche plan, Rolet gives little away that has not already been announced, ahead of publication of the merger circular expected late next month.

He will not give detail on where job cuts will come to get to the €450m of cost savings, nor will he say what Qatar Holding, the LSE’s biggest investor, with a 10.25pc stake, thinks of the deal other than to confirm that he has spoken to the Qataris.

What he will say is that he thinks the venture, currently worth $30bn on a combined basis, could be worth as much as $50bn within a few years time. “I’m not giving you a timeline,” he says at first, before admitting “sooner than that” when asked if he means within five years.

“Cost synergies have been fully priced in. Revenue synergies have not been announced,” he teases. “We will become, as an industry, an investable asset class. Today, with a handful of exceptions, these are tiny companies which are largely illiquid. When the Shanghai Stock Exchange demutualises and lists, it’s going to be worth $75bn. That’s where the industry is going to play. If you’re $2bn, or $5bn, or $10bn, you’re invisible.

“What I want to leave is a company that’s headquartered, taxed and governed in London. I think London deserves it.”

Whether Rolet gets his way – and gets to deliver his much dreamed-of global exchange business to his adopted home city – is now up to the two exchanges’ shareholders, and an American interloper with deep pockets and a love of acquisitions.

Challenges : Orange – Bouygues Telecom : le deal du siècle planté par Macron

Orange – Bouygues Telecom : le deal du siècle planté par Macron
Par Gilles FontainePublié le 02-04-2016 à 17h05 - Mis à jour à 17h22

Après des semaines d'intenses tractations, la consolidation des télécoms a échoué. Un échec dû aux exigences de l'Etat, actionnaire d'Orange, portées par Emmanuel Macron et Bercy.
Tout ça pour ça... Au moment où tombaient les communiqués d'Orange et de Bouygues annonçant l'échec des négociations en vue d'une fusion, vendredi 1er avril, tous ceux qui avait pu être impliqués dans cet épineux dossier depuis le début janvier se sentait gagnés par une sorte de lassitude. Une immense fatigue. Après trois tentatives avortées en deux ans, la consolidation du secteur des télécoms en France – à chaque fois autour du rachat de Bouygues Telecom – n'avait jamais été aussi proche d'aboutir. Il aura suffi de quelques jours pour anéantir trois mois de travail acharné et de fine diplomatie.

Stéphane Richard, diplomate clé des discussions

Au cœur de ces discussions, Stéphane Richard s'est personnellement impliqué dès le premier jour. « Il a fait un boulot formidable », témoigne l'un de ses homologues résumant ainsi l'avis de ses pairs. Le PDG d'Orange n'a pas hésité à jouer les intermédiaires entre les trois autres patrons français des télécoms Martin Bouygues, Patrick Drahi et Xavier Niel, qui entretiennent tous des relations pour le moins complexes, souvent ombrageuses. Et ne se parlent pas. Du côté de SFR et de Free, obligatoirement impliqué dans l'organisation de cette fusion pour qu'elle ait une chance de passer sous les fourches caudines de l'Autorité de le concurrence, chacun avait fini par y voir son intérêt, supérieur à la somme de tous les sacrifices qu'ils devaient consentir.

Au moment de faire les comptes, les quatre opérateurs, dans un bel ensemble, rejettent la responsabilité sur les locataires de Bercy. Au fil des négociations, Stéphane Richard et ses équipes ont pris soin de tenir informés les représentants de l'Etat qui détient 23% du capital de l'opérateur historique à travers l'Agence des participation de l'Etat (APE) et Bpifrance. L'union avait été adoubée par l'Elysée entérinant ainsi une montée au capital du groupe de BTP. « L'Elysée portait un regard bienveillant sur l'opération qui permettait de renforcer l'investissement dans le secteur tout en préservant l'emploi », explique un proche des négociations. « Valls et Hollande étaient d'accord », ajoute un dirigeant.

Mais le discours était plus hostile à Bercy, où l'on envisageait des conditions drastiques pour maintenir l'Etat au dessus des 20% sur le long terme. Et cantonner Martin Bouygues dans un rôle marginal. Son exigence première, de décrocher 15% d'Orange était inacceptable pour les responsables de l'APE, dirigée par Martin Vial. Les experts du ministère de l'Economie ont de surcroît voulu le priver de droits de vote double durant 10 ans et l'empêcher de monter au capital pendant 7 ans. Une condition inacceptable pour l'homme d'affaires. Il avait clairement repoussé l'idée d'un tel pacte d'actionnaires lors de la présentation des résultats du groupe le 24 février dernier.

Les exigences d'Emmanuel Macron ont tué le deal

« La principale préoccupation de l'APE était de ne pas donner l'impression de brader les joyaux de la couronne », commente un proche des négociations. De son côté, le directeur général de Bpifrance, Nicolas Dufourcq, un ancien dirigeant de France Télécom, a lui-aussi émis de sérieuses réserves sur la pertinence de l'opération. Une rencontre au sommet, au ministère de l'Economie le jeudi 24 mars, en fin de journée, entre Emmanuel Macron et Martin Bouygues devait mettre les choses définitivement au clair. « Le rendez-vous s'est très mal passé », raconte un opérateur. Dès lors, le patron du groupe de BTP semble avoir choisi de refermer le dossier. La dernière semaine de négociations n'aura pas permis de le faire changer d'avis. Le jeudi 31 mars dans la soirée, à quelques heures de la fin de l'échéance que s'était fixé les parties pour conclure un accord, Thomas Reynaud, directeur financier d'Iliad a tenté de sauver le deal en accordant d'ultimes concessions, après avoir adopté une position très dure au cours des semaines précédentes, selon ses concurrents. Dans sa version ultime le grand Yalta des télécoms valorisant Bouygues Telecom à 9 milliards d'euros semblait pouvoir contenter tout le monde. Iliad payait 2,2 milliards d'euros pour récupérer 4000 antennes sur les 13 000 du réseau Bouygues, beaucoup de fréquences, plus d'un million d'abonnés fixes et quelques 300 boutiques sur les quelque 550 que comptait Bouygues Telecom, avec une clause de garantie d'emploi de trois ans. De son côté, SFR déboursait 4,3 milliards pour le reste du réseau mobile, tous les abonnés de l'offre low cost Be&You ainsi que l'ensemble de l'activité professionnelle. Pour 2,5 milliards d'euros, Orange mettait la main sur les meilleurs clients de Bouygues Telecom, les abonnés à un forfait Sensation affichant les revenus par tête les plus élevés et qui représentent aujourd'hui environ 55% du chiffre d'affaires de Bouygues Telecom et l'essentiel de la marge.

La consolidation du secteur des télécoms en France n'aura donc pas lieu. « Les discussions étaient dures et tendues », témoigne un négociateur, mais elles auraient finalement abouti, estime celui-ci, sans l'intervention musclée d'Emmanuel Macron et de son entourage « Ils ont voulu faire leurs banquiers d'affaires, les conditions qu'ils imposaient à Bouygues étaient intenables », s'agace un dirigeant. Les effets de cet échec devraient se faire sentir dans les prochains mois. La paix des braves qui avait succédé après trois ans de guerre des prix pourrait rapidement voler en éclat. Martin Bouygues avait évoqué l'hypothèse d'un nouveau plan social si l'accord ne se faisait pas. L'année 2016 sera celle de tous les dangers pour le secteur des télécoms.

Fortune.com : The $2 Billion Market for Passports


How wealthy people are buying passports from other countries.

As migration and inequality continue to get significant attention from the U.S. presidential candidates, it is worth noting a rising phenomenon at the intersection of these two topics: economic citizenship. A growing number of countries offer individuals passports in return for investment, and the wealthy have been taking advantage in increasing numbers. In 2014, the global rich spent an estimated $2 billion acquiring nationalities.

The Caribbean is the global capital of “citizenship-by-investment” programs. A passport from Dominica can be had in return for a $100,000 investment. A $400,000 real estate investment or a $250,000 donation to a development fund will get you citizenship in St. Kitts and Nevis. Similar sums are required for a passport from Antigua and Barbuda, plus five days of residency over the first five years of citizenship. In 2015, Caribbean nations effectively sold an estimated 2,000 passports through citizenship-by-investment programs, up 100% over the past five years.

But it’s not just Caribbean nations hawking passports. Cyprus, for instance, offers citizenship in return for a minimum €2.5 million real estate investment. Further, not all countries sell citizenship outright. Some, including the United States and the United Kingdom, offer residency—and a path to citizenship—to wealthy investors. In the U.S., for example, aspiring citizens that invest $500,000 and create 10 jobs can apply for an EB-5 visa. The UK requires an investment of at least £2 million. Both countries expect investors to spend roughly half the year in residence for several years before applying for citizenship. And almost all economic citizenship programs have fees that are paid directly to governments in addition to the required investment.

So why is the market for passports booming? Some point to the efforts of a Swiss lawyer named Christian Kalin, a man labeled by Bloomberg as the “passport king.” Kalin’s firm, Henley & Partners, is the world’s leading citizenship planning firm and also advises countries on how to design these programs. The firm was a sleepy immigration consultancy that also helped with wealth management. But then in 2006, Kalin advised St. Kitts on setting up its economic citizenship program, and the results were stunning.

By selling passports, St. Kitts and Nevis slashed its “debt from 164 per cent of GDP in 2010 to 104 per cent of GDP at the end of 2013.” By 2014, passports were the country’s biggest export, money associated with the passport business accounted for at least 25% of GDP, and the development it spurred on the islands led to what some were calling a real estate bubble. Other indebted nations took notice of Kalin’s ability to create a resource for a country that didn’t have any. The supply of passports for sale ballooned.

But demand also boomed as investors sought second passports in record numbers. Many are fleeing domestic instability, whether war or political uncertainty. Middle East unrest has been a driving factor in the popularity of economic citizenship programs: Henley and Partners notes its business has doubled since the start of the Arab Spring. Even more important has been the outflow of wealthy Chinese and Russian citizens, who dominate citizenship-by-investment and related programs, according to the IMF. For example, 80% of American EB-5 visas go to Chinese nationals, while Russian and Chinese “investors” buy roughly 50% of the passports sold by St. Kitts and Nevis.

A second passport is more than a means of escape and a hedge against uncertainty. It can enhance the mobility of nationals from diplomatically-fraught countries—especially in a post-9/11 world. Passports from Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, for example, will get you into fewer than 40 countries visa-free (just behind North Korea), while a passport from St. Kitts and Nevis will get you into 131. The very best passports, including those from the U.S., UK, and Canada, will get you into 170 or more.

Of course, this added mobility might also be used to break the law. In 2014, both Canada and the United States condemned the citizenship-by-investment program run by St. Kitts and Nevis for helping Iranians skirt sanctions. The island nation, seeking to protect its cash cow, recalled thousands of passports and implemented higher standards.

Another reason wealthy investors might want to pursue economic citizenship is for tax purposes. Americans living abroad, for example, are required by law to pay taxes in the United States. Trading in a U.S. passport for one from St. Kitts and Nevis would lower one’s tax rates to 0% on income and capital gains. Of course, to do this requires an American to renounce his or her citizenship.

So what does the future hold for the economic citizenship market? Given unprecedented global economic and political instability, it seems likely demand for passports among the global elite will remain strong for years to come. But at the same time, an increasing number of indebted nations will look to economic citizenship programs as a means to attract capital. One result may be lower costs for a passport; another might be lowered diligence standards that ultimately provide evildoers greater security and enhanced mobility.

Whatever happens, the passport market is, along with art markets, a fascinating indicator of confidence levels among the global elite. One way to interpret alternative citizenship is as an insurance policy. And as any insurance underwriter will note, a sudden surge in coverage is not a good sign. For this reason alone, it’s worth watching the evolution of this market.