>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to disappointing earnings/guidance: KOOL -13.1%, EXFO -7.3%, WSCI -0.9%, PRXL -0.8%

M&A news: DEG -4.5% (Delhaize Group and Ahold (AHONY) announce intention to combine through a merger of equals), SPLS -3.7% (NYPost discusses that a SPLS and Office Depot (ODP) merger might be less likely following judge's decision to block Sysco (SYY) / US Foods merger)

Other news: LOCM -61.1% (discloses filing of a voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California for reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code), TTHI -50.5% (reports that its Phase 2/3 clinical study of ELND005 did not meet its primary endpoint), ADHD -16.1% (reports results from a Phase 2 clinical trial of MDX for Fragile X syndrome; study did not meet primary endpoint), NBG -7.1% (reports Greece's creditors rejected latest proposal), FEYE -3.2% (still checking; may be in symp with FTNT dg's (see below)), MOFG -2.3% (announced private placement for gross proceeds of ~$8.4 mln; agreed to sell an aggregate of 300,000 newly issued shares of common stock at a purchase price of $28.00 per share to existing shareholders), ARO -2.2% (to be replaced in the S&P SmallCap 600 by TopBuild), PQ -1.9% (to be replaced in the S&P 600 by Unit Corp), NYLD -1.7% (prices offering of 24,520,000 shares of its Class C common stock at a price of $22.00 per share), SYY -1.6% (confirmed that a Federal Court ruled to block co's merger with US Foods), PGN -1.6% (to be replaced in the S&P SmallCap 600 by Semtech), ASTI -1.5% (received non-compliance notice from Nasdaq), SNR -1.5% (prices offering of 17,500,000 shares of its common stock at a public offering price of $13.75 per share), AMBA -1.5% (pulling back following yday's strength), BLUE -1.3% (prices offering of 2,941,176 shares of common stock at $170.00 per share), CNHI -1.2% (prices $600 mln of 3.875% notes due 2018), ATI -1% (to be replaced in the S&P 500 by Columbia Pipeline Group; to replace Unit Corp in the S&P MidCap 400)

Analyst comments: FTNT -3.3% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Citigroup; downgraded to Neutral at Robert W. Baird), IPHI -2.5% (downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform), ESPR -1.8% (assumed/downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Credit Suisse), GM -1.4% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Goldman), C -0.8% (downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank), ALV -0.7% (downgraded to Sell from Neutral at Goldman), GS -0.6% (downgraded to Hold from Buy at Deutsche Bank
)

>>> Germany says still long way to go before Greek deal reached - RTRS

Germany says still long way to go before Greek deal reached - RTRS


24-JUN-2015 14:14:27

BERLIN, June 24 (Reuters) - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble's spokesman said on Wednesday that there was still a long way to go before international lenders and the Greek government could reach an agreement to resolve the debt crisis.

Martin Jaeger told a government news conference that there was evidently no agreement yet. He reiterated a view often expressed by Schaeuble and other top German officials that it is up to Greece to make a move.

"Our impression is that there is a long way to go ahead of us; there's obviously no agreement otherwise the meeting this afternoon would not be necessary," Jaeger said.

(BFW) *EU LEADERS NOT EXPECTING TO NEGOTIATE GREEK DEAL AT EU SUMMIT

BN 06/24 09:01 *EU LEADERS NOT EXPECTING TO NEGOTIATE GREEK DEAL AT EU SUMMIT
BN 06/24 08:53 *SUMMIT MAY SEE INFORMAL DISCUSSION ON EUROGROUP HEAD: OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:53 *EU LEADERS TO CONSIDER TIMING FOR CAMERON'S PROPOSALS: OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:52 *EU GOVTS WON'T SUPPORT MANDATORY QUOTAS AT SUMMIT: EU OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:51 *MANDATORY QUOTAS WON'T BE SUPPORTED BY EU GOVTS: OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:50 *CAMERON TO OUTLINE U.K. REFERENDUM PLAN AT SUMMIT: EU OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:50 *DIJSSELBLOEM TO BRIEF EURO LEADERS ON GREEK TALKS AT EU SUMMIT
BN 06/24 08:49 *EU NATIONS MUST COME UP WITH PLAN ON MIGRANTS: EU OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:48 *EU SUMMIT WON'T SEE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION ON MIGRANTS:OFFICIAL
BN 06/24 08:48 *EU OFFICIAL SPEAKS TO REPORTERS IN BRUSSELS AHEAD OF EU SUMMIT
BN 06/24 08:47 *SUMMIT WON'T REACH COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION ON MIGRANTS: OFFICIAL
*EU LEADERS NOT EXPECTING TO NEGOTIATE GREEK DEAL AT EU SUMMIT
2015-06-24 09:03:55.991 GMT

--BRIAN SWINT

-0- Jun/24/2015 09:03 GMT

(BI) Liberty Global, Altice May Surprise by EU-Consolidation Appetite

Liberty Global, Altice May Surprise by EU-Consolidation Appetite
2015-06-24 08:59:36.102 GMT

BI TELC EU SBKEYS
Liberty Global, Europe's largest cable operator, and Altice, the
cable and telecom group, may have significant roles to play in
the potential pan-European consolidation of the telecom
industry. Both companies are acquisitive, with leveraged equity
models aimed at extracting significant synergies, in part
dependent on achieving scale. The rising role of convergence is
rendering mobile and pan European pay-TV M&A more compelling.
Regulatory support in promoting infrastructure competition adds
to deal rationale.

|0|0|536912|200960877|NOT_APPLICABLE|NOT_APPLICABLE|

This research note has been published by Bloomberg Intelligence.
For more information, see BI <GO>
-0- Jun/24/2015 08:59 GMT

(APW) Iran's Ayatollah Rejects Long-term Nuclear Research Freeze

Iran's Ayatollah Rejects Long-term Nuclear Research Freeze
2015-06-24 08:03:21.235 GMT


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Tehran, Iran (AP) -- Iran's top leader has hardened his
stance in nuclear negotiations with world powers as a deadline
for a final deal rapidly approach, saying he rejects a long-term
freeze on nuclear research and wants to ban international
inspectors from accessing military sites.
The comments by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who repeatedly has
backed the Islamic Republic's negotiators amid criticism from
hard-liners, may give his diplomats little room for concessions
ahead of the June 30 deadline. They also directly challenge the
U.S., especially his demand that Iran only will sign a final
deal if economic sanctions are first lifted.
Iran's parliament already has passed a bill that, if
ratified, will ban access to military sites, documents and its
scientists as part of any future deal. The bill must be ratified
by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a
law.
Speaking Tuesday night in comments broadcast on Iranian
state television, Khamenei called demands Iran halt the research
and development portion of its nuclear program "excessive
coercion."
"We don't accept 10-year restriction. We have told the
negotiating team how many specific years of restrictions are
acceptable," Khamenei said. "Research and development must
continue during the years of restrictions."
Khamenei accused the U.S. of offering a "complicated
formula" for lifting sanctions. He added waiting for the U.N.'s
International Atomic Energy Agency to verify its cooperation
would take too long.
"Lifting sanctions can't depend on implementation of Iran's
obligations," he said.
Khamenei also said he rejects any inspection of military
sites or allowing its scientists to be interviewed. Iran's
nuclear scientists have been the targets of attacks before both
inside the Islamic Republic and elsewhere.
The U.S.' "goal is to uproot and destroy the country's
nuclear industry," he said. "They want to keep up the pressure
and are not after a complete lifting of sanctions."
In a statement Sunday, the U.S. State Department said
inspections remain a key part of any final deal.
Tehran is negotiating with the U.S., Russia, China,
Britain, France and Germany over its contested nuclear program.
The talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs
Iran's nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic
sanctions.
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,
such as power generation and medical research. The West fears
Iran could use it to finally build an atomic bomb.
Negotiations likely will begin in earnest in the coming
days in Europe. On Wednesday, Iran's official IRNA news agency
reported that deputy foreign ministers Abbas Araghchi and Majid
Takht-e-Ravanchi had resumed talks with Helga Schmidt, a deputy
of European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. It
did not elaborate.

-0- Jun/24/2015 08:03 GMT

(The Economist) Just Say no : Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup is bad for

Just say no : Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup is bad for a city’s health

--> have a look to the pic. : {http://econ.st/1Iy5EfL}

Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. By Andrew Zimbalist. Brookings Institution Press; 174 pages; $25 and £18.50.

THERE may be few sweeter siren songs for public officials across the world than the dulcet tones of emissaries from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and FIFA, the global governing body of football. To induce cities to bid to host the Olympics and World Cup, they promise infrastructure investment to modernise blighted areas, a lasting rise in tourism, improved public health, a month at the centre of the world stage and the eternal gratitude of constituents. And as for the costs? Well, the economic ripple effects will surely be so large that the spending will pay for itself, and it can always be financed with debt that comes due long after an officeholder has moved on.

Following the extensive media coverage of the economics of the London and Sochi Olympics and Brazil’s World Cup, it should be no surprise that these lofty assurances rarely come to fruition. But even appropriately jaded readers are likely to be shocked by the evidence in “Circus Maximus”, a brief polemic by Andrew Zimbalist, an American sports economist, which reveals the magnitude of the deception that precedes these events and the disappointment that follows. The book’s misleading subtitle calls hosting the competitions an “economic gamble”, implying it is a risky bet with a potentially high return. In fact, “Circus Maximus” leaves little doubt that under current conditions, prudent city governments should avoid the contests at all costs.

In principle, there is no reason why hosting such events needs to be an economic own-goal. Between television rights, ticket sales, licensing and sponsorships, the most recent summer Olympics, in London, generated $5.2 billion in revenue. In a city with sufficient existing athletic, hotel and transport infrastructure, it would be easy to stage the competition for less than that figure and come away with a healthy profit—as Los Angeles did in the highly successful 1984 summer games. But over the past few decades, the IOC, in particular, has appropriated an ever-greater share of the proceeds for itself: the most recent public data reveal that it now pockets more than 70% of Olympic television revenue, compared with less than 4% between 1960 and 1980 (see chart). And there is little evidence to support the projections that hosting will bring a surge in tourism: Beijing and London both attracted fewer visitors during their summer Olympics in 2008 and 2012 respectively than they had in the same period a year earlier.


The international organisations argue, in return, that they also contribute to the costs of staging the contests: in particular, FIFA funds the entire World Cup operating budget. However, “operating” costs account for only a small portion of the price of hosting tournaments. The lion’s share is spent on construction, both on stadiums and on transport capacity to shuttle people between events. Those expenditures are borne entirely by the host. Although there is no formal requirement that such venues be new, the IOC and FIFA have consistently selected cities with the most ambitious plans for custom-built facilities. It is the need to build so much, so fast that leads to taxpayer-funded cost overruns that would be comic were they not so tragic, running from a low of four times the original estimate up to ten times or more.

To justify this spending, proponents of hosting often argue that these infrastructure projects will provide continuing benefits long after the events end. Such claims are almost offensively misleading. Mr Zimbalist offers a whirlwind tour of the “white elephants” that litter host cities following the Olympics or World Cup: in Athens a volleyball stadium inhabited by squatters and a softball park overgrown with trees; in Beijing a weed-infested cycling racetrack; in Brazil a football pitch with 40,000 seats now used by a second-division team that draws around 1,500 fans a match. All of these structures cost millions of dollars a year to maintain, making the games’ costs their enduring “legacy”.

Perhaps the only encouraging finding in Mr Zimbalist’s work is that potential hosts are getting wise to the bad deal the IOC and FIFA seek to foist on them. Twelve different cities bid for the 2004 Olympics, whereas the 2020 edition drew just five applicants. After Oslo dropped out last October, only two cities—Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan—are now candidates to host the 2022 winter Olympics, providing further support for a prediction in a 2012 report commissioned by the Dutch government that in the future only non-democratic countries will pay up to host the events. If the IOC, which markets the games as a force for peace and harmony, wants to avoid being turned into a propaganda tool for autocratic regimes, it may need to rethink. Thomas Bach, its head, recently established a working group to propose changes to the host-selection process.

Mr Zimbalist offers a number of proposals for reform. The most important would be for the IOC and FIFA to abandon their preference for new construction and give a fair hearing to bids relying on existing facilities. He also suggests limiting the number of cities bidding, adjusting the split of television revenue to favour host cities, making the organisations’ voting systems more transparent and imposing term limits on their members. The IOC has clamped down on corruption. Both bodies need to do far more to curb costs and improve transparency and accountability. Nothing less than an Olympian advocacy campaign will be needed to change a system that has served many bigwigs so well.

>>> Exane Comment on Bouygues - see below and attached

BOUYGUES - Following conversation with Bouygues
What does Bouygues say?
Bouygues's Board has decided to reject Altice's approach on Bouygues Telecom, refusing to enter into negotiations, on the back of three main reasons:
1) Bouygues sees a great stand-alone future for Bouygues Telecom, both in the short term (competitive advantage in 4G) and in the long term (telecoms to return to growth), as detailed in our US roadshow feedback a few days ago. The group has officially said it targets EBITDA margin of at least 25% by 2017 i.e. meaning significantly more than EUR1bn;
2) Altice's offer presents significant execution risk, in particular antitrust, that 'should not be borne by Bouygues' and Altice has not provided a 'fully satisfactory response regarding this important matter'. This is a key point in our view - see below;
3) the merger would inevitably come with impacts on employment.
The key point here in our view is the comparison between:
- On one side, the risk/reward of the stand-alone strategy. With an EBITDA target of significantly more than EUR1bn by 2017 and growth thereafter, Bouygues management probably values Bouygues Telecom at EUR8-9bn on a stand-alone basis. It probably puts a relatively low risk of execution on this strategy because it expects to see the benefits of its leadership in 4G and of its cost cutting plan to show results quite soon: potential for ARPU to rebound from H2 2015 and for EBITDA to grow to EUR800-900bn in 2016;
- On the other side, the risk/reward associated with the Altice offer, with a valuation of EUR10bn+ but a risk that the deal would be blocked after a year of antitrust review. In the meantime, Bouygues Telecom would have lost customers, employees and the trust of its suppliers, as it would have been considered 'gone' by everyone (cf. T-Mobile US / AT&T a few years ago). Such losses would be particularly damageable for Bouygues Telecom, which is still fragile and cannot afford to break its improving momentum.
To summarise, the Board has considered that the gap is not compelling enough between EUR10bn with a high risk of execution (as assessed by Bouygues) and EUR8-9bn with a lower risk of execution (and, in any case, the potential to reopen the M&A option later on).
Could a deal still happen?
Bouygues is not formally closing the door, saying that it would look at any new offer - as it has done in the past a number of times. However, the group's wording implies that the main sticking point is not the price but the antitrust risk that Altice has not proven that it is ready to bear itself.
Could that mean that Bouygues could change its mind if Altice came with a large break-up fee? Possibly, but our impression is that it would have to be very large indeed. Unless Altice is 100% sure that the deal would be approved by antitrust authorities - in which case it could be ready to offer a very high break-up fee - a deal seems difficult in the short term.
Still, longer term (e.g. one year from now), we would certainly not rule out that the M&A option comes back on the table, with either Bouygues or Numericable-SFR in a tougher spot:
- One scenario could be that Bouygues Telecom continues to gain market share and Numericable-SFR continues to lose market share; this could put renewed pressure on the latter to do the deal and Bouygues could get an even better offer at that point.
- Another scenario could be that Bouygues Telecom fails to gain traction. Management has been clear in the past that, in such a case, it would be more open to consider a sale, but that would probably be from a position of weakness compared to today.
Overall, we therefore continue to believe that there is a significant probability of consolidation in France but probably more in 2016+ than in the short term.