>>> Watch Gemalto on FT article on eSim...

FT : FApple, Samsung in talks with telecom groups to launch e-Sim card
Apple and Samsung are in advanced talks to join the rest of the telecoms industry to launch electronic Sim cards, in a move could fundamentally change how consumers sign up to mobile operators.
The GSMA, the industry association which represents mobile operators worldwide, is close to announcing an agreement to produce a standardised embedded Sim for consumer devices that would include the smartphone makers.

The traditional Sim card locks in the user to a network but an embedded Sim would enable a smartphone, tablet or wearable user to avoid locking themselves into a plan with a single operator or sign up to switch instantly.
Networks expected to support the plans include AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, Etisalat, Hutchison Whampoa, Orange, Telefónica and Vodafone.
Anne Bouveret, chief executive of the GSMA, said all parties were heading towards an agreement for the “common architecture”.
However, with any deal still contingent on finalising the technical specifications it will be at least a year before any devices supporting the electronic Sim reach the market.
The GSMA said: “With the majority of operators on board, the plan is to finalise the technical architecture that will be used in the development of an end-to-end remote SIM solution for consumer devices, with delivery anticipated by 2016.”
Last year, Apple revealed its own Sim card for its latest iPads. However, it was supported by only a handful of operators such as T-Mobile and AT&T in the US, and just EE in the UK. Those familiar with its UK rollout said that it had not been widely adopted.
The electronic Sim is not expected to replace the Apple Sim, a piece of plastic that fits into a device and could be included in the next generation of iPhones.
The GSMA said it was “continuing to work with Apple to secure their support for the initiative. While we are optimistic, a formal agreement with them is still in progress.”
Apple declined to comment.

The GSMA has already come up with an embedded Sim standard for the management of connections in the machine to machine market, where physical SIMs might not easily be changed in devices such as utility meters, traffic lights or assisted living systems.
“We have got everyone back on one point, with Apple and Samsung agreeing to be part of that specification,” said Ms Bouveret. “We have been working with them and others to create an industry solution for machines and will agree a solution for consumer electronics.”
Ms Bouveret, who will step down as chief executive this year, said an industry-wide electronic Sim was one of several objectives established during her time in office.
She added that about 3.7bn people had a mobile phone — about half the world’s population — but that connecting the remainder would be a huge challenge for the industry.
Ms Bouveret also pointed to the service that allowed the phone to act as a single point of identity for multiple online services, but added that more work was needed on developing next-generation 5G mobile networks.

>>> Citigroup beats by $0.10, beats on revs

C US --> +2.64%


Citigroup beats by $0.10, beats on revs
Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $1.45 per share, excluding CVA/DVA gain of $0.06, $0.10 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $1.35; revenues rose 0.2% year/year to $19.47 bln vs the $19.17 bln consensus.
  • Citigroup revenues were $19.5 billion in Q2, approximately unchanged from the prior year period. Excluding CVA/DVA, revenues of $19.2 billion decreased 2% from the prior year period, as Citicorp revenues were approximately unchanged and Citi Holdings revenues decreased 16%. Excluding CVA/DVA and the impact of foreign exchange translation, Citigroup revenues increased 3% from the prior year period, as 5% growth in Citicorp revenues was partially offset by the decrease in Citi Holdings revenues.
    • Citi Holdings revenues declined due to continued wind-down of the portfolio as well as the impact of classifying OneMain Financial as held-for-sale at the end of the first quarter 2015. As a result of the held-for-sale accounting treatment, approximately $160 million of net credit losses were recorded as a reduction in revenue during the second quarter 2015.
  • Citigroup's operating expenses were $10.9 billion in the second quarter 2015, 30% lower than in the prior year period. Excluding the impact of the mortgage settlement in the prior year period, operating expenses fell 7%. In constant dollars, operating expenses fell 1%, mainly driven by lower legal and related expenses and repositioning costs. Operating expenses in the second quarter 2015 included legal and related expenses of $360 million, compared to $402 million in the prior year period, and $61 million of repositioning charges, compared to $397 million in the prior year period.
Capital
  • Citigroup's book value per share was $68.27 and tangible book value per share was $59.18. Citigroup's Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio was 11.4%; Supplementary Leverage Ratio was 6.7%.
Global Consumer Banking
  • GCB revenues of $8.5 billion decreased 4% from the prior year period, due to a 10% decline in international GCB revenues. On a constant dollar basis, revenues increased 1%, driven by growth in North America and Latin America GCB. GCB net income rose 4% from the prior year period to $1.6 billion, as lower expenses were partially offset by lower revenues and higher credit costs.
Institutional Clients Group
  • Banking revenues of $4.4 billion were largely unchanged from the prior year period (excluding gain / (loss) on loan hedges in each period).
  • Treasury and Trade Solutions (TTS) revenues of $2.0 billion decreased 1% versus the prior year period. On a constant dollar basis, TTS revenues grew 5%, as continued growth in deposit balances and spreads was partially offset by lower trade revenues.
  • Investment Banking revenues of $1.3 billion decreased 4% versus the prior year period, as a 34% increase in advisory revenues to $258 million partially offset a 3% decrease in debt underwriting revenues to $729 million and a 25% decrease in equity underwriting revenues to $296 million.

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers
7/16/2015, 7:27:37 AM ET
Gapping up: STV +16.6%, NFLX +10.6%, ONDK +5.3%, RDUS +4.7%, WB +3.8%, NVGN +3.7%, PVA +3.2%, TM +2.6%, STO +2.6%, PM +2.5%, GLW +2.3%, SDRL +2.3%, KEY +2.3%, BIDU +2.1%, INTC +2.1%, STM +2%, ALV +1.9%, BHP +1.8%, GPRO +1.8%, BLPH +1.7%, SAN +1.7%, ING +1.6%, WBA +1.4%, DB +1.3%, CPSS +1.3%, MU +1.1%, TOT +1.1%,UMPQ +1.1%, KMI +1%, CAT +1%, KMI +1%, MDXG +0.9%, BBT +0.9%, UNH +0.9%, PBIP +0.7%, RIO +0.6%

Gapping down: ANR -37%, ROVI -18.4%, SYN -16.2%, GRMN -11.6%, RLGT -5%, TSM -3.5%, BKMU -3%, RARE -2.7%, FPI -2.1%, NAV -1.9%, WY -1.5%, HCA -1.2%, FBRC -0.6%, BG -0.5%

>>> Goldman Sachs beats by $0.81, beats on revs (212.96)

--> GS -1.04% pre market

Goldman Sachs beats by $0.81, beats on revs

Reports Q2 (Jun) earnings of $4.75 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.81 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $3.94; revenues fell 0.6% year/year to $9.07 bln vs the $8.78 bln consensus.
  • Annualized return on average common shareholders' equity was 4.8% for Q2. During the quarter, the firm recorded $1.45 billion in net provisions for mortgage-related litigation and regulatory matters. These provisions reduced diluted earnings per common share by $2.77, and reduced annualized ROE 6.7.
Investment Banking
  • Q2 Net revenues in Investment Banking were $2.02 billion, 13% higher y/y and 6% higher q/q.
  • Net revenues in Financial Advisory were $821 million, 62% higher y/y, reflecting an increase in industry-wide completed mergers and acquisitions.
  • Net revenues in Underwriting were $1.20 billion, 6% lower y/y due to lower net revenues in debt underwriting, reflecting lower leveraged finance activity.
  • Net revenues in equity underwriting were higher, including an increase in net revenues from secondary offerings.
Institutional Client Services
  • Net revenues in Institutional Client Services were $3.60 billion for Q2, 6% lower y/y and 34% lower q/q.
  • Net revenues in Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution were $1.60 billion for the second quarter of 2015, 28% lower y/y. Although net revenues in interest rate products were significantly higher compared y/y, this increase was more than offset by significantly lower net revenues in credit products and, to a lesser extent, mortgages and currencies. Net revenues in commodities were also lower. During the quarter, Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Client Execution operated in an environment generally characterized by lower levels of client activity and less favorable market-making conditions compared with the first quarter of 2015.
  • Commissions and fees were slightly higher compared with the second quarter of 2014.
Investing & Lending
  • Net revenues in Investing & Lending were $1.80 billion for the second quarter of 2015, 13% lower y/y and 8% higher q/q. The decline in net revenues compared with the second quarter of 2014 was primarily due to lower net revenues from investments in equities, as a decrease in net gains from private equities was partially offset by an increase in net gains from public equities.
Expenses
  • Operating expenses were $7.34 billion for Q2, 16% higher y/y and 10% higher q/q. The accrual for compensation and benefits expenses was $3.81 billion for the second quarter of 2015, 3% lower y/y. The ratio of compensation and benefits to net revenues for the first half of 2015 was 42.0%, compared with 43.0% for the first half of 2014.

(FIG) Le Figaro: OPCVM français : décollecte de 22 milliards d'euros en juin

Le Figaro: OPCVM français : décollecte de 22 milliards d'euros en juin
2015-07-16 09:16:21.194 GMT

http://bourse.lefigaro.fr/fonds-trackers/actu-conseils/opcvm-francais-decollecte-de-22-milliards-d-euros-en-juin-4365510

PageExcerpt:
Les OPCVM français ont enregistré une décollecte de 22 milliards d'euros en juin, selon Europerformance - a SIX company. Leurs encours s'élèvent désormais à 823 milliards d'euros, en repli de 4,4% sur un mois, mais en hausse de 7,16% depuis ...

FT : Legacy behind PotashCorp’s drive for K+S

Legacy behind PotashCorp’s drive for K+S


There is one word on the minds of potash industry executives at the moment — Legacy.

The mine, 1,500 metres below Canada’s prairies, is the reason behind PotashCorp’s €7.8bn offer for its smaller German rival K+S,

Expected to enter production in the summer of 2016, Legacy is the first “greenfield” potash development in Saskatchewan in almost 40 years. The K+S project threatens to bring more of the vital fertiliser ingredient into an already challenged market.

“The main rationale for the acquisition appears to be to prevent K+S’s Legacy from disrupting market prices as it adds capacity to the already over-supplied global and north American markets,” says Jeremy Redenius, analyst at Bernstein Research.

For many years potash enjoyed stable prices due to the power of two production cartels — Belarus Potash Corporation representing Uralkali and Belaruskali and Canpotex, comprised of PotashCorp, Mosaic and Agrium.

However, supplier “discipline” started to break down in 2013 after high prices led to weak demand in China and India, culminating in Uralkali breaking away from BPC. The result has been aggressive marketing from Belaruskali, undercutting its rivals.

Pent up demand returned in 2014, but some of the leading players, who previously prioritised the commodity price ahead of market share and so restrained production when needed, are now fighting for customers.

“The market has fundamentally changed in the last couple of years,” says Lisa Smith at Integer Research.

Last year, Canada’s share of the international potash trade fell to 34 per cent, down from 37 per cent in 2013, while Russia‘s rose to 20 per cent from 16 per cent and Belarus jumped to 19 per cent from 15 per cent, according to data from the International Trade Centre in Switzerland.

PotashCorp clearly feels the need to control future supplies.

In May this year, Jochen Tilk, PotashCorp’s chief executive, told an investor conference in May that he wanted to see Legacy to join Canpotex once the mine started running. “Yes it can [join Canpotex], and I think it will,” he said.


One of the biggest issues Legacy presents is the pressure it will bring to bear on the US market, where prices are currently at a premium to other markets.

The large Canadian players which once dominated the US market, are now seeing increased competition from foreign companies including Belaruskali.

And there is little doubt that it will become the key target market for Legacy. “The US market will come under increasing competitive pressure, and Legacy will be competing in a key market with PotashCorp and others,” says Ms Smith.

The dilema faced by PotashCorp is twofold. In order make the K+S acquisition work in terms of return on capital, the potash price will need to be about $355 a tonne.

But if Legacy falls under the control of PotashCorp and prices stabilise at about $355, this will encourage more capacity, including BHP Billiton’s Jansen mine [see sidebar].

“It’s a Catch-22,” says Mr Redenius.

BHP can economically justify bringing its Jansen mine online at near to $350 a tonne and this in turn would ensure “overcapacity and lower prices in the long run,” Mr Redenius adds.

Over a longer horizon, PotashCorp’s purchase of K+S will not resolve the overcapacity in the potash industry. Even if BHP fails to bring Jansen online, the industry will see more new mines coming online over the next few years.

Russia’s Eurochem will have two mines coming online with total production capacity of 8.3m tonnes, while Mag Industries’ Mengo mine in the Republic of Congo and Turkmenhimiya’s Garlyk mine in Turkmenistan are due to launch over the next two years with capacity of 1.2m and 1.4m tonnes respectively.

Some of these projects, including Legacy, have relatively high costs and do not offer economic returns at current potash price levels. However, many are underway and are highly likely to proceed to completion.

Some institutional investors have expressed their scepticism about the efficacy of PotashCorp’s offer. As one mining executive says: “A company’s ability to control market prices is very limited.”