>>> Asian Update

TradeTheNews.com Asian Mid-session Update: China HSBC final PMI falls to 1-yr low after markets resume from holiday


***Economic Data***
*(CN) CHINA APR FINAL HSBC MANUFACTURING PMI: 48.9 V 49.4E (biggest contraction in a year)
*(AU) AUSTRALIA MAR BUILDING APPROVALS M/M: +2.8% V -1.5%E; Y/Y: 23.6% V 16.7%E
*(AU) AUSTRALIA APR ANZ JOB ADS M/M: +2.3% V -1.3% PRIOR
*(NZ) NEW ZEALAND APR ANZ COMMODITY PRICE M/M: -7.4% V +4.6% PRIOR
*(AU) AUSTRALIA APR TD SECURITIES INFLATION M/M: 0.3% V 0.4% PRIOR; Y/Y: 1.4% V 1.5% PRIOR
*(KR) SOUTH KOREA APR HSBC MANUFACTURING PMI: 48.8 V 49.2 PRIOR (2nd consecutive contraction)
*(KR) SOUTH KOREA MAR CURRENT ACCOUNT: $10.4B V $6.4B PRIOR
(ID) Indonesia Apr HSBC Manufacturing PMI: 46.7 V 46.4 prior (7th straight month of contraction)
(TW) Taiwan Apr HSBC Manufacturing PMI: 49.2 v 51.0 prior
(VN) Vietnam Apr HSBC Manufacturing PMI: 53.5 v 50.7 prior
*(ID) INDONESIA APR CPI M/M: 0.4% V 0.4%E; Y/Y: 6.8% V 6.8%E; CPI CORE Y/Y: 5.0% V 5.0%E


***Index Snapshot (as of 02:30 GMT)***
- Nikkei225 closed, S&P/ASX -0.2%, Kospi +0.3%, Shanghai Composite flat, Hang Seng flat, Jun S&P500 -0.1% at 2,099

***Commodities/Fixed Income***
- Jun gold +0.6% at $1,182/oz, Jun crude oil -0.6% at $58.81/brl, May copper -1.0% at $2.90/lb
- (TW) Taiwan sells 12-month Bills; Yield: 0.557% v 0.571% prior, bid-to-cover: 2.55x

***Market Focal Points/FX***
- China April final HSBC manufacturing PMI posted 48.9, missing consensus of 49.4, as largest contraction for one year with total new orders declining at the strongest pace for a year while production levels stagnated. The weak results bolstered chances that PBoC to further ease monetary policy. AUD/USD drops over 30 bps to 0.7800 after the data. Separately, Chinese press printed opinion piece suggesting the window for both interest rates and RRR cuts is approaching but anther QE is unnecessary to deal with downturn pressure now.

- Most Asian markets resume after holidays. Shanghai composite deepened decline by 1.1% after HSBC data but changed into positive territory afterwards. China developers rally with improving results in April. For the first time over a decade, IMF is close to declare Yuan is fairly priced, shifting to counter the Obama administration view that Yuan is "significantly undervalued". South Korea President comments economy shows positive signs of recovery while New Zealand Prime Minister Key sees it will take longer time to return to budget surplus.


***Equities***
US equities / ADRs:
- ALGT: Allegiant Air successfully receives a court order blocking the Teamsters from striking and safeguarding Allegiant's passengers from travel disruptions
- FB: David Goldberg, CEO of SurveyMonkey and husband of Facebook COO Sandberg, died suddenly last night of undetermined causes
- EIX: Teams Up with Tesla for Battery Storage Projects
- TWTR: In talks to acquire mobile news app Circa, unclear at what valuation - press
- CRM: SAP denies press report about talks with CRM; says never considered acquiring Salesforce.com - press
- ON: Reports Q1 $0.20 v $0.18e, R$870.8M v $861Me

Notable movers by sector:
- Consumer discretionary: Stockland SGP.AU +0.8% (Q3 results)
- Financials: Westpac Banking WBC.AU -3.7% (H1 results); Evergrande Real Estate Group 3333.HK +8.0% (China developer in housing market recovery); Fosun International 656.HK +7.0% (Q1 result, to acquire IronShore)
- Industrials: McAleese MCS.AU -45.6% (cuts guidance); Worley Parsons WOR.AU -9.8% (cuts guidance)

(BN) Mylan Disagrees With Itself in Effort to Spurn Teva Takeover



Mylan Disagrees With Itself in Effort to Spurn Teva Takeover
2015-05-01 23:01:00.829 GMT


By Ed Hammond
(Bloomberg) -- Mylan NV, the generic drugmaker, is acting
like two companies: One has big problems with a takeover offer
that’s below $100 a share. The other would be delighted with a
share price of $73.33.
Mylan is on the offensive against Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., the Israeli rival that’s been bidding for it.
In a letter this week, the company said Teva’s opening offer of
$82 a share, “grossly undervalues” it and the buyer shouldn’t
even bother coming back until it’s prepared to pay
“significantly in excess of $100 per share.”
Elsewhere, the company has put a very different price on
itself. Mylan outlined a performance-based incentive plan for
executives, which -- among other things -- includes a $73.33
price target that was reiterated in a 10-K filing this week.
Reaching such a price, as well as an adjusted earnings per
share figure of $6, by the end of 2018 would represent an
“extraordinary achievement by our leadership team in such a
short period of time,” the company said.
The disconnect is explained in part by Mylan’s
determination to rebuff Teva. In its eight-page missive, it
accuses the Israeli company of ineptitude, laziness,
disingenuousness and bumbling racism.

Control Premium

Certainly, any acquirer has to pay what’s known as a
control premium to take over a rival. As recently as April 7,
before Teva’s approach, Mylan was trading at $59.57 -- meaning
Teva’s opening offer was already 38 percent higher.
Mylan’s two valuations come from either side of the
Atlantic. The letter to Teva was sent from the company’s tax
headquarters in the English town of Potters Bar. The 10-K was
filed from Canonsburg, Pennsylvania -- where the company employs
actual workers and produces drugs.
Perhaps that’s another explanation for the split. The
strain of having to manage a long-distance relationship with
itself may have gotten to Mylan, causing a cognitive dissonance
whereby it’s simultaneously entertaining the ideas that, if it
totally crushes it, it should be worth $73.33 a share, and
anyone who thinks it is worth as little as $82 a share is
clinically moronic.
Its a situation that Teva will surely try to exploit.

For Related News and Information:
Mylan Board Unanimously Rejects Teva Takeover Bid as Too Low
Teva Doesn’t See Antitrust or Culture Issues With Mylan Proposal
Top Stories:TOP<GO>

To contact the reporter on this story:
Ed Hammond in New York at +1-212-617-1963 or
ehammond12@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Mohammed Hadi at +1-212-617-2914 or
mhadi1@bloomberg.net
Elizabeth Wollman

>>> What to look at this Week End- 2nd & 3rd of May 2015

Global equities felt the pull of gravity this week as indices in Asia, Europe, and the US came off recent all-time highs. Meanwhile, in a development that caught investors' attention, European and US sovereign bonds sold off hard on a confluence of factors. Talks between Greece and its creditors continued at a frustratingly slow pace. The first reading on US Q1 GDP was quite disappointing. The Fed acknowledged the weak first quarter by downgrading the economic conditions commentary in the FOMC policy statement, but continued to attribute the slow growth to transitory factors. Despite oil prices continuing to rebound, the BOJ reigned in its inflation outlook, pushing back the timing of achieving 2% inflation until early 2016. Speculation about more extraordinary Chinese stimulus that helped fuel recent rallies couldn't stem the selling this week. For the week, the DJIA slipped 0.3%, the S&P500 fell 0.5% and the Nasdaq lost 1.7%.


Macro
- Icahn Says BlackRock’s Fink Makes Fixing Bad Businesses Harder
- Greek Aid Talks Gain Urgency as Breakthrough Remains Elusive
- Greece Willing to Consider Single VAT Rate in Debt Talks: FAS
- Iran Expects First Draft of Nuclear Deal Within Days
- Buffett Says Euro in Its Present Form Won’t Work
- Buffett Says Berkshire Will Buy German Co. in Next Five Years

Keep an eye on :
- ADS GY : Adidas CEO Opposes Selling Off Reebok as Separate Company: FAS
- ALV GY : Allianz to Join Bid for London Sewer Project, Sunday Times Says
- AMS SM : Japan Airlines to Use Amadeus Cloud Computing System: Nikkei
- AREVA FP : Areva Weighs Selling Stake to Chinese Energy Companies, JDD Says
- BRE IM : Brembo May Consider Acquisitions in Automotive, Aerospace: Sole
- DGE LN : Diageo Considering sale of portions of its wine operations - Sky News - Has been approached by potential buyers of its global wine operations, including Blossom Hill and Sterling Vineyards. Wine brands only account for 4% of Diageo's sales.
- F US : Ford Abandons Plans for Car Seats That Detect Heart Attacks: FT
- HSBA LN : HSBC May Set Aside Funds for Additional Fines, Telegraph Says
- IBM US : IBM - Warren Buffett: bought more IBM during Q1 - CNBC Buffett declines to say how much more he bought but said the exact numbers will be in the company's SEC quarterly holdings filing (as of the end of Q1) due around the middle of this month. Berkshire held 7.8% as of Dec 31, making it the top institutional holder.
- KPN AN : KPN Is Logical Takeover Target in the Long Run, CEO Tells FD
- OCR US : Omnicare attracts interest of Walgreens Boots Alliance
- ORA FP : Orange Will Need to Give Up Jazztel ADSL Network, El Pais Says
- RNO FP : Nissan U.K. Plant at Risk if Country Quits EU: Sunday Times
- REP SM : Repsol Announces New Natural Gas Discovery in Bolivia
- SAP GY : SAP denies press report about talks with CRM; says never considered acquiring Salesforce.com
- SIE GY : Siemens Investigated in China for Alleged Bribery: Reuters
- SKG LN : Smurfit Kappa CEO says company open to takeover; International Paper looking at making bid
- STL NO : Statoil interested in acquisitions - Dagens Naeringsliv
- TSCO LN : Tesco turns down GBP 4bn offer for South Korean operations from Carlyle
- TETY SS : Tethys Petroleum hires advisor, expands strategic review
- UBSN VX : UBS to Pay Up to CHF1b in FX Probe This Month: Sonntagszeitung

WSJ : Spotify’s Valuation Assumes Full Stream Ahead

Spotify’s Valuation Assumes Full Stream Ahead
The music-streaming business has seen heavyweight entrants like Jay Z and Apple. But trying to model the future for Spotify shows the risks still inherent in the industry.

Money is pouring into music-streaming services—but very little in the way of profits is streaming out.

Rapper Jay Z, along with other backers, relaunched the streaming service Tidal in March. That followed Apple’s purchase of Beats last August and the launch of Amazon.com’s Prime Music Service last June.

And if you’re looking for big numbers, consider Spotify, the closely held streaming service based in Sweden that raised $400 million last month implying a value of $8.4 billion. Spotify is losing money but that valuation reflects hopes of big profits at some point.

Such hopes may be justified—but the assumptions required to reach that valuation are subject to a lot of noise.

One example of how hard it is to value music streaming—and make a sustainable business from it—concerns Pandora Media. Yet to report an annual profit, its value soared from about $2.6 billion at its initial public offering in 2011 to almost $8 billion in 2014. It is now worth $3.7 billion.

Spotify operates differently from Pandora, focusing on paid subscriptions over advertising and negotiating directly with artists instead of paying a government-mandated rate per play. Spotify said in January it had 15 million subscribers.

But modeling its future, based partly on publicly available data from 2012 and 2013, suggests its valuation is highly subjective. And even if trends move in the right direction, it is a stretch to see Spotify meriting its recent private-market valuation. That points to how frothy the streaming-music business has become overall.

A lot of inputs go into making a Spotify model. Say Spotify finishes 2015 with 25 million subscribers, up 60%. Then assume it grows to about 85 million by the end of 2024, about 15% a year on average but with the pace trailing off over time. Assume also that Spotify can raise its monthly price, now $10, by 3% a year and that ad-sales growth—23% in 2013—stays relatively high but decelerates by two percentage points a year.

On the cost side, royalties ate up 70% of revenue in 2014, but that could fall to a steady state of 65% by 2017. As Spotify grows, it may also squeeze operating expenses down to 25% of revenue by 2020 from about 30% in 2013. Capital expenditure is assumed to be just 2% of revenue, not dissimilar to Pandora.

Very-long-term profits beyond 2024 are valued, after taxes, at 12 times given that growth will likely have slowed by then. The resulting cash flows are discounted at 10%.

On these assumptions, Spotify is worth about $6.2 billion. That is compelling, but obviously a big step down from the latest private-market figure.

It is also very sensitive to all those assumptions. Say the number of subscribers grows at 11%, compounded annually, instead of 15%, to 64 million. The valuation drops to $4.8 billion. Alternatively, what if Spotify achieved higher growth but couldn’t raise prices due to competition from giants such as Apple? Its value falls to $4.9 billion.

In terms of costs, say royalties stay stuck at 70% of revenue: The valuation plummets to $2.5 billion. Or if operating expenses reach a steady state of 26% of revenue—only one percentage point higher than in the base case—the value falls to $5.5 billion. The long time horizon also makes the valuation very sensitive to assumptions around the discount rate—putting it up to 12% shaves off about $1 billion.

Of course, Spotify might yet grow faster than anticipated or cut royalties further with the help of more alliances with artists. These would raise its value, perhaps sharply.

Even so, the bulk of Spotify’s valuation rests on a long-term bet. In the base case, about three quarters of its net present value stems from cash flows projected beyond 2023. That leaves plenty of time for risks around execution, competition or technology to have an impact. Investors shouldn’t get swept away by the music stream.

NY Post : Study reveals valuable purpose of naked short selling

Study reveals valuable purpose of naked short selling

Study reveals valuable purpose of naked short selling

It’s the revenge of naked capitalism on the Street.
A new study that examined NYSE and Nasdaq stock movements over a 42-month period says naked short selling, when not abused, serves a valuable purpose.
The study’s findings fly in the face of claims by Lehman Bros.’ Dick Fuld and Bear Stearns’ Jimmy Cayne that naked short sellers took their companies down, and bring into question the validity of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision at the height of the 2008 crisis to ban most of the practice.
In a naked short, the trade, almost always done by a market maker for itself or for a large client, involves selling stock that it does not own and is not borrowing from someone else. Here it owes the shorted shares to the buyer, but “fails to deliver.”
There’s no evidence these back-office stock delivery “failures” by traders caused the crash of Lehman and the other big names, according to the study, conducted by Vikas Raman of Warwick Business School in the UK, Veljko Fotak of the University of Buffalo and the University of Oklahoma’s Pradeep Yadav and published by the Journal of Financial Economics.
Spikes in the number of fails came after Lehman and other firms announced they had hit an iceberg, the authors noted. These fails were blamed in part for Lehman’s destruction.
“While we do not advocate tolerance for fails to deliver (FTD) tied to manipulative episodes, we find no evidence indicating that FTDs, in aggregate, systematically and manipulatively precipitated price declines, even in the extreme situation of the 2008 financial crisis,” Raman told The Post.
A surge in FTDs actually led to a reduction in pricing errors, intraday volatility, spreads and order imbalances, to the study said.
“The ability to fail arguably reduces stock-borrowing costs at the time when such costs are at the highest,” Dr. Raman added.
Short sellers emerge more as folk heroes than cowboy capitalists in the study, which exhaustively examined 1,492 NYSE and 2,381 Nasdaq stock movements from January 2005 to June 2008. Yet naked short sellers, long regarded as bad boys, have been squeezed.
“By all means, let’s crack down on abuses of naked shorting, but the practice itself is not an abuse,” said Dr. Edward Swanson of Texas A&M University, in the wake of an earlier study on this topic.
The study puts pressure on regulators to loosen their post-crisis grip preventing the practice.
“This is great news. There is nothing better than a free and open market,” one professional trader gushed to The Post. “Limiting people from short selling only creates zombie companies and doesn’t allow for new and nimble companies to enter the market.”

NYT : Hands-Free Cars Take Wheel, and Law Isn’t Stopping Them

A General Motors promotional film envisions the future: Drivers enter the highway, put their cars on “autopilot” and sit back as the vehicle takes over and heads for the horizon. The film’s date? 1956.

Sixty years later, automakers are making that dream a reality.

But the technology has sprinted ahead so fast that lawmakers and regulators are scrambling to catch up with features like hands-free driving that are now months away, rather than years.

This summer, Tesla, the maker of high-end electric cars, is promising to equip its Model S sedan to take over highway driving under certain conditions. In January, Audi will introduce a vehicle that can pilot itself through traffic jams. And next year, Cadillac will offer no-hands highway driving with its “Super Cruise.”

Limited forms of hands-free driving have already arrived. Luxury brands like Mercedes-Benz and Infiniti offer “lane keeping” features that allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel for periods of time on straight stretches of road.

But the innovations have prompted the question: Is it legal?

The vast majority of states do not have any rules at all. The few that do passed the laws primarily to allow research and testing. Only New York specifically requires that drivers keep one hand on the wheel, but that dates to a law from 1967.

As a result, automakers are pushing into a regulatory void.

“Where it’s not expressly prohibited, we would argue it’s allowed,” said Anna Schneider, vice president for governmental relations at Volkswagen, which owns Audi.

“We don’t need any change in legislation to put Super Cruise on the road,” said Dan Flores, a spokesman for General Motors. Tesla declined to comment on the issue.

On a recent afternoon, a Volvo official demonstrated its new XC90 sport utility vehicle along a leafy road in New Jersey. Set for release in June, the XC90 has a semiautonomous feature called “pilot assist” intended for congested traffic.

After a driver pressed a button on the steering wheel, sensors scanned the road and locked on to the vehicle a few car lengths ahead. A white icon lit up on the dashboard, and the wheel began moving on its own.

As the road curved, the Volvo steered itself through it, automatically adjusting the throttle and steering. The vehicle seamlessly kept on going, though after about five seconds, a subtle dashboard light asked the driver to keep a gentle touch on the wheel.

Not that it was needed — the Volvo could keep going hands-free for miles at speeds up to 30 miles per hour on a properly marked road. But for now Volvo has programmed the XC90 to start slowing down if a driver does not heed the warning light, making the vehicle a bridge between “lane keeping” and the truly hands-free technology set to hit the market soon.

“This is about making the tedious parts of people’s drives less stressful,” said Jim Nichols, a spokesman for Volvo. “We’re not talking about a driver simply checking out and not paying attention.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Car manufacturers see hands-free technology as the natural next step in driving — an evolution that has gone from cruise control to anti-lock brakes to electronic stability control. None of those innovations required permission from regulators.

And legal experts say the automakers’ positions are most likely correct — that in the absence of specific laws against it, hands-free driving is legal.

“Most states don’t expressly prohibit automated vehicles,” said Bryant Walker Smith, a professor of law and engineering at the University of South Carolina.

But that does not necessarily mean drivers will not face scrutiny.

“It’s not just what’s on the books; it’s what’s enforced,” Mr. Smith said. “If a police officer sees you driving down the road with no hands, he could determine that’s reckless and still give you a ticket. Individual officers have a tremendous amount of discretion.”

No federal rules explicitly bar the practice, either. Part of why federal and state officials have struggled to define autonomous rules is that the issue cuts across traditional legal turf.

“The federal government largely regulates vehicle design, such as ‘Does it meet crash safety standards,’ ” Mr. Smith said. The states are the ones that have regulated drivers and their behavior, he said. “Now the car is becoming the driver.”

California, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and the District of Columbia legalized autonomous technology in certain circumstances — primarily to encourage testing. Several others are considering rules.

Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

Patricia 15 minutes ago
"We needed more technology, to protect humans from their imperfections."That's what SkyNet will tell its newly-manufactured little bots...
Some Dude Named Steevo 16 minutes ago
It's obvious that most of the commenters here know nothing about autonomous vehicles except for the contents of this sparse and confusing...
DF 22 minutes ago
“We’re not talking about a driver simply checking out and not paying attention.”A partially autonomous driving vehicle is a recipe for...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
But for consumers, and local officials themselves, the fractured nature of what is allowed, and where, may create uncertainty.

“All of the states are concerned, because no one wants to see a patchwork of regulations across the country,” said Bernard Soriano, deputy director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles. “The right way to go would be to have federal standards that the automakers could follow.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it lacks the authority to pre-empt automakers’ new autonomous features until something goes wrong.

“If someone wants to sell a totally automated vehicle today, you could probably get a court to decide there’s nothing N.H.T.S.A. can do about that until it presents an unreasonable risk to safety,” said an agency spokesman, Gordon Trowbridge.

Proving such an unreasonable risk to safety under the agency’s mandate, he said, means citing crashes or malfunctions that have already happened.

For now, that leaves a legal vacuum, which states only now are waking up to.

A group of state transportation officials recently gathered for the first time to begin developing consumer-focused guidelines for states to share. Mr. Soriano leads the group, which has federal regulators’ support and aims to publish its recommendations by the end of 2016.

But with hands-free technology coming to market sooner, California and Nevada are already moving ahead with their own consumer regulations.

Mr. Soriano said California was close to finishing draft rules that would apply to normal drivers — though enactment is at least six months away. Until that happens, automakers may not legally be able to sell cars with certain autonomous features to California customers. Manufacturers are aiming to limit the features that would fall into that category.

And Nevada has begun working on rules for consumers that could be released by the end of the year, said Jude Hurin, a top official with the state’s department of motor vehicles.

In the end, he said, a balance needs to be found.

“We need to figure out how to regulate them in a way that doesn’t stifle innovation with too much red tape but also ensures this technology is safe and is used properly,” Mr. Hurin said.

WSJ : Charter Expresses Interest in Friendly Deal Talks With Time Warner Cable

Charter Expresses Interest in Friendly Deal Talks With Time Warner Cable
Charter Communications-backer John Malone called Time Warner Cable CEO Rob Marcus in recent days

Top executives close to Charter Communications Inc. have begun reaching out to Time Warner Cable Inc.’s management to discuss a possible merger of the cable operators. And they have a clear message: this time, we want to play nice.

Cable pioneer John Malone,—the chairman of Charter’s largest shareholder Liberty Broadband Corp.,—called Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Rob Marcus in recent days to express Charter’s interest in pursuing friendly deal talks, people familiar with the approach said. That is in contrast to the unsuccessful hostile takeover Charter pursued last year.

The call from Mr. Malone came after Comcast Corp. recently walked away from a planned merger with TWC in the face of stiff regulatory resistance. Charter had actually made contact with TWC even earlier. The evening before Comcast officially said it was dropping the deal, Charter Chairman Eric Zinterhofer had dinner with Mr. Marcus, people familiar with the meeting said.

Charter, the fourth-largest U.S. cable operator, has been laying the groundwork for making an offer to No. 2 player Time Warner Cable. The two sides will continue talking this week, when Charter Chief Executive Tom Rutledge and Mr. Marcus are set to meet at the annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association convention in Chicago, the people said.

The NCTA’s show, which kicks off Monday, is normally a venue for companies to show off the latest technology in cable TV or broadband. But this year, the cable consolidation drama is likely to take center stage. News of the forthcoming Rutledge-Marcus meeting was earlier reported by CNBC.

Already, the tone of Charter’s approach is markedly different from its takeover effort in 2013 and early 2014, which culminated in Charter making a hostile bid and nominating a slate of directors to replace the TWC board. That effort failed, as Comcast emerged as a bidder and struck its ill-fated deal with TWC.

People close to Charter have made clear that the company doesn’t want to make the mistake again of lowballing a bid. They also said that Charter is aware that it will have to offer a significant portion of its bid in cash to satisfy Time Warner Cable’s concerns about whether Charter stock is overvalued on deal speculation.

Time Warner Cable’s improving operations could complicate Charter’s bid. Last time TWC was under takeover pressure, it was bleeding subscribers. But this past week, the company reported its first video customer growth in a quarter since 2009, even as Charter reported a surprise video customer loss.

To make matters more complex, the companies are already jockeying for advantage by courting Bright House Networks LLC, a smaller operator serving about 2 million customers. The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Charter and TWC had separately held preliminary talks with Bright House about an acquisition. For each, reaching a deal to acquire Bright House could place it in a better bargaining position with the other company.

Some observers said the situation was more akin to a love triangle than a war between Charter and Time Warner Cable over Bright House. People familiar with Charter’s thinking said the company believes the best option would be for Time Warner Cable, Charter and Bright House to reach a deal together. Time Warner Cable is open to entertaining any deal talks, people familiar with TWC’s thinking said, with the goal being that any deal reached maximizes shareholder value.

But after federal regulators’ resistance to the Comcast-TWC merger, it remains a question how they would view a three-way deal to create another cable giant, some people close to the deal talks noted. A combined Time Warner Cable-Charter-Bright House would serve about 24 million business and residential customers, in striking distance of Comcast’s roughly 27 million.

At least for now, Charter doesn’t appear deterred. On a Friday first-quarter earnings conference call, Charter’s Mr. Rutledge said, “I think every company is different, every transaction is different, and they’re really independent structural questions from a regulatory perspective.”

WSJ : Dollar Excuses Aren’t Worth That Much

Dollar Excuses Aren’t Worth That Much
Dollar’s strength and weak overseas economies hurt companies’ results, and they also may mask deeper problems

It was easy to predict that dollar strength and weak overseas economies were going to lay into many companies’ first-quarter results. So the idea analysts and investors were somehow surprised can be a bit hard to take.

Here is where things stood with the dollar in the first quarter: It was 11% higher, on average, against a broad, trade-weighted basket of currencies tracked by the Federal Reserve. Within that, it was 13% higher versus both the Mexican peso and Canadian dollar, 16% versus the Japanese yen, 21% versus the Brazilian real and 22% against the euro.

That was known at quarter’s end. Analysts and investors should also have had a good sense of companies’ currency exposures because these are detailed in annual filings most companies submitted during the first quarter. On the economic front, it was also obvious Brazil had entered a recession, for example, and that China slowed markedly.

Yet, last week, shares of Praxair fell sharply after the industrial-gas company reported the strong dollar weighed on sales, missing estimates. Likewise, shares of Whirlpool dropped after it said the strong dollar and struggles in Brazil hurt results. Coach’s stock dropped after it reported results outside the U.S. got hit by the dollar. A week earlier, Harley-Davidson,3M and DuPont sold off after reporting currency and overseas woes.

Analysts are far from perfect, and investors often surprise in their ability to avoid discounting things that seem obvious. Still, the broad contours of what has happened with the dollar and overseas economies are clear enough the market shouldn’t have been caught off guard. Indeed, many other companies that reported overseas and currency hits, including Pfizer,United Technologies and McDonald’s, didn’t see their shares tumble.

For those that did, it is worth contemplating whether something else was afoot. Maybe there are problems in overseas operations that go beyond economic weakness and are running deeper than analysts knew. Maybe they are facing a tougher environment than investors suppose.

The dollar has weakened over the past month, and some global weak spots are improving. As welcome as those things may be, they can’t fix everything.

>>> Omnicare attracts interest of Walgreens Boots Alliance

Omnicare attracts interest of Walgreens Boots Alliance

Omnicare, the Ohio-based, US-listed drugs supplier, has attracted the interest of listed UK pharmacy chain Walgreens Boots Alliance, the Sunday Times reported.

The report cited financial sources who said that Walgreens Boots was in the early stages of considering a bid. The item added that while Walgreens Boots CEO Stefano Pessina usually steers clears of auctions, he is considering getting involved in the bidding for Omnicare.

The report valued Omnicare at USD 8.5bn.


Sourced from business section of print copy: Page 3


Sunday Times

>>> Statoil interested in acquisitions - Dagens Naeringsliv

Statoil interested in acquisitions 

Statoil, the Norwegian oil company, is interested in acquisitions, according to Dagens Naeringsliv.

The Norwegian business reported that the oil price is almost down to half of what it was last summer and that Statoil has just written off values of NOK 46bn (EUR 5.4bn), mainly due to North American assets.

The paper cited CEO, Eldar Saetre, who said that opportunities arise when the market is down and Statoil is always interested in ways to develop the company. He said that if the current situation continues, some competitors will suffer financial strain from it. He added however that takeover targets are not cheap anymore.

When asked if the company may wish to buy in North America, he responded that it is possible but that Statoil will mainly continue to evaluate opportunities as they come along.

The original article appeared in print; Page 10


Dagens Naeringsliv