|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's Range||15.67 - 15.89|
|52 Week Range||15.50 - 20.98|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.26|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||8.43|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.90 (5.72%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||May 05, 2019|
|1y Target Est||15.00|
Nearly $24 billion worth of shares traded on OTC Markets last month, down about 2% from December. There were a number of significant volume increases in individual securities throughout the month, with ...
European stocks advanced on Monday, edging higher as China took further steps to limit the fallout from the coronavirus halting activity in the world’s second-biggest economy.
(Bloomberg) -- Bayer AG’s loss in the first U.S. trial over the herbicide dicamba is set to test the patience of investors who’ve stuck with the company through the dark days of its Roundup crisis.Most will probably hang on for now, since their investment is based on the assumption that Bayer is undervalued in the face of a hurricane of lawsuits claiming that best-selling weed killer Roundup causes cancer. Adding dicamba to the legal storm -- a chemical accused of killing plants, not people -- probably won’t change that calculus, according to Alistair Campbell, an analyst at Liberum Capital. And Bayer is sharing the potentially multibillion-dollar headache in this case with BASF SE.Even so, the loss in the first U.S. dicamba trial -- with a $265 million jury award -- raises fresh questions about the wisdom of Bayer’s $63 billion Monsanto takeover. That’s happening at a time when the company still needs to prove it can effectively operate the crop science behemoth it built up through its megadeal.“There is still a huge question mark over the Monsanto transaction and what it’s done to Bayer,” Campbell said. “There remains a lot to be proven.”Bayer shares were down 1.9% and BASF’s down 1.1% at 3:10 p.m. in Frankfurt. Bayer has dropped 23% since it closed the Monsanto acquisition and subsequently lost three U.S. trials over Roundup.Bayer’s latest headache emerged Saturday when jurors in a federal court ruled in favor of a farmer who blamed the chemical dicamba for destroying his peach orchards. Bayer and BASF face more than 140 lawsuits over allegations that dicamba wreaked havoc across the Midwestern U.S. when it drifted onto crops that weren’t engineered to resist it.Bayer is already trying to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup causes cancer. Both dicamba and Roundup are produced by Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018.The loss heaps more pressure on Bayer Chief Executive Officer Werner Baumann, who staked his career on Monsanto. Last April, after a couple of Roundup trial losses, Baumann became the first CEO of a major German company in decades to lose a shareholder confidence vote.Activist investor Elliott Management later disclosed a stake in the company, raising the prospect of holders pushing to split up the pharma and agro-chemicals conglomerate. Baumann, a defender of that setup, faces another shareholder vote in April.Act FastSince dicamba is another legacy Monsanto product, the latest verdict threatens to undo Bayer’s recent momentum. Since June, the stock has recouped about half of the value it lost following the Roundup trial losses.The ruling is “a negative for sure,” though dicamba will probably not grow into a headache as big as Roundup, said Dennis Berzhanin, an analyst at Pareto Securities in Frankfurt.Here is what analysts say about the Dicamba rulingThe company vowed to appeal, saying there’s no evidence Monsanto’s products were present on the Missouri farm and were responsible for the farmer’s losses.BASF said it was surprised by the U.S. jury’s decision and would use all legal remedies available.Bayer has thus far managed to avoid going back to trial over Roundup and talks have heated up with plaintiff attorneys toward a possible resolution of that litigation. Its shares would probably surge if Bayer can close the Roundup headache for as little as $10 billion, analysts have said.The Roundup and dicamba litigation aren’t Bayer’s only legal woes. It’s set to go to trial in March in the first of thousands of lawsuits claiming it hid safety risks of its Essure birth-control device.Other CasesThe company is also battling lawsuits by numerous cities alleging that Monsanto contaminated waterways with toxic PCBs. Bayer has denied wrongdoing over both weedkillers as well as Essure and PCBs. It also has appealed the Roundup verdicts.It’s unclear how the award will be split between Bayer and BASF. The latter may shoulder two-thirds of the damages, wrote Daniel Wendorff, an analyst at Commerzbank AG.Read More: Bayer’s Roundup Challenge: Avoid More ‘Nuclear’ Jury AwardsMonsanto has been fighting lawsuits since 2015 over its version of dicamba. BASF makes its own dicamba-based herbicide for use on its genetically modified seeds.The companies say the crop damages stem from farmers applying the chemical incorrectly, and that current formulations won’t drift if proper procedures are followed.Peach YieldsIn the Missouri trial, Bader said neighbors planted dicamba-resistant cotton engineered by Monsanto and sprayed it with the older, easy-drift version of the weedkiller made by BASF. The herbicide enveloped his orchards, curling leaves and killing trees.The companies’ lawyers presented statistical evidence showing that Bader’s peach yields had begun to fall prior to 2015. They cited weather events, such as hail storms and late freezes, as the cause for declining production.Bev Randles, a lawyer for Bader, said the verdict sends a message to all U.S. corporations.“There is no giant too big,” she said. “Everyone has to follow the law.”The case is Bader Farms v. Monsanto Co., 16-cv-00299, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau).\--With assistance from Richard Weiss and Andrew Noël.To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware at firstname.lastname@example.org;Tim Bross in St. Louis at email@example.com;Tim Loh in Munich at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at email@example.com, Thomas MulierFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
German industrial giants Bayer and BASF moved lower on Monday after a jury ordered them to pay $265 million to a Missouri peach farmer following a lawsuit over the weedkiller Dicamba
European shares inched higher on Monday as fresh attempts by China to limit the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak helped calm investor nerves. The pan-European STOXX 600 index rose 0.3% in early trade, staying slightly below a record high of 432.26 touched last week. Market activity is expected to be light through the rest of the day on account of a U.S. holiday.
German agrochemicals group Bayer said on Sunday it would appeal a U.S. jury's $265 million damages award against it and BASF in favour of a Missouri farmer who said the company's dicamba herbicide had destroyed his peach orchards. The jury award, the first of more than 140 dicamba cases to come to trial, is separate to multi-billion-dollar litigation Bayer is trying to settle over the Roundup weedkiller made by Monsanto, the U.S. firm it took over for $63 billion in 2018. Monsanto made both Roundup and dicamba, and Bayer is being sued over both products.
German chemical giant BASF diverted some products to Europe from its Chinese clients following a coronavirus outbreak that has disrupted logistics and delayed factories from resuming operations. Shanghai BASF Polyurethane Co, a joint venture of BASF and China's Sinopec Assets Management Corp and Shanghai Huayi Group Co, provisionally exported 3,150 tonnes of toluene diisocyanate (TDI), a raw material widely used in automobile and construction, to Europe, said China's customs on Friday.
A Canadian federal court has ordered a group of major agriculture companies to hand over records and communications as part of an antitrust probe sparked by allegations certain businesses tried to block online farm-supply startup Farmers Business Network Inc (FBN). In a series of court orders dispatched on Tuesday, Canadian Federal Court Justice Denis Gascon said he was satisfied Canada's Competition Bureau was conducting an antitrust probe and that the named companies - which include Bayer AG , Corteva Inc, and BASF - would have or were likely to have information relevant to the inquiry.
Chemicals giant BASF on Wednesday picked a site in the eastern German state of Brandenburg for its second European battery materials factory, part of a 400 million euro investment plan to tap into the growing electric vehicle market. The choice of location gives another boost to the economically weaker former communist east of the country after electric vehicle pioneer Tesla in November laid out plans for its first European factory and design center near Berlin. The site, in the town of Schwarzheide, some 120 km (75 miles) south of Berlin, will draw on feedstock from another BASF factory in Harjavalta, Finland, close to a nickel and cobalt refinery of raw materials partner Norilsk Nickel.
The Surface Treatment global business unit of BASF's Coatings division, operating under the Chemetall brand, has received the highest supplier award in the Airbus Supply Chain & Quality Improvement Program, known as SQIP. Chemetall once again achieved the "Accredited Supplier" status in the category of Material & Parts.
U.S. seeds and agricultural chemicals maker Corteva Inc said Thursday that it will accelerate production of its next-generation biotech soybean seeds and complementary herbicides in the United States and Canada over the next five years. The move heightens the competition for sales to farmers with rivals Bayer AG and BASF SE. Up to 20% of U.S. soybean acres this year could be planted with Corteva's Enlist E3 soybeans, which are genetically modified to withstand applications of three different weed killers, the company said.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The European Union is getting close to unveiling a ballyhooed “industrial strategy,” the better to give the continent’s companies a leg up in competing against American and Chinese rivals. Not so fast. Based on what’s leaked so far, half of the proposals sound reasonable, but the other half could prove disastrous. It’s not too late to rethink.This latest push for an industrial strategy started last year, after the EU’s antitrust czar, Margrethe Vestager, wisely blocked a rail merger between two manufacturing giants, Alstom SA of France and Siemens AG of Germany, because their combined market power would’ve been bad for customers. Predictably, France, with its long history of coddling “national champions,” complained.More surprisingly, so did Germany, which has a tradition that favors tough competition law and otherwise eschews state intervention. What changed minds in Berlin was the perceived competitive threat from China. It would be naive for Europe not to nurse its own continental champions, Chancellor Angela Merkel said.This vogue for European champions is the product of flawed logic. It’s Eurocrat code for letting government officials, in Brussels or national capitals, designate specific companies or technologies as “strategic.” As the bureaucrats then mete out their largess, they fall into predictable mental traps.First, they tend to confuse size with strength, when it’s often small and obscure niche firms, such as the appropriately named “hidden champions” in Germany’s Mittelstand, that have the best shot at becoming globally competitive. Second, they assume that they’re better than private investors at knowing which firms and technologies will prevail. They’re wrong. The market is usually better at picking winners, and it’s always better at spotting losers and pulling money out of failing ventures that politicians want to keep on life support.What happens in practice is that the alleged champions become lobbying machines that seek privileges at the expense of taxpayers, smaller rivals and consumers. This is one of China’s big problems, and one reason why its state-owned enterprises haven’t blossomed even more. Ironically, Europe should panic only if China ever drops its industrial policy.What’s true for companies also applies to technologies. Brussels has set itself a laudable goal of becoming carbon neutral, but keeps misdefining its role as allocator of capital, rather than mere regulator. For example, the EU has just decided to put billions of taxpayer euros into a pot that also includes money from BMW AG, BASF SE, Fortum Oyj and others, to pay for those companies to build lithium-ion batteries for cars. If it’s a good investment, why can’t they do it with private capital alone? If it’s bad, why do it at all? And how did Brussels even decide that batteries are more “strategic” than, say, fuel cells or something else?The EU would be on firmer ground if it just stuck to supporting basic research. That’s where market failures are common, because boffins often have trouble raising funds for breakthroughs that could benefit entire industries rather than individual firms. As the internet once sprang out of a project by the U.S. Department of Defense, tomorrow’s green tech or artificial intelligence could come out of labs funded partially by the EU. But it’s the scientists who should choose what to research.By far the best industrial policy, however, is simply to focus all of the EU’s energy on completing two existing but unfinished projects. One is the so-called single market, the other the stalled integration of the EU’s disparate capital markets. The U.S. and China offer home-grown firms huge domestic markets to expand into, and the U.S. also provides deep and liquid troves of capital for that purpose. The EU doesn’t.The EU may be one market for goods, from toothpaste to MRI machines. But in services it just isn’t. Just ask a Belgian pharmacist hoping to move to Germany, or a Danish lawyer wanting to practice in Italy. Or imagine how much better cellphones would work if operators competed across the whole EU. A single market in services, moreover, is crucial for the development of fintechs and 5G, and in turn essential to progress in the “internet of things” and AI.A capital markets union worthy of the name is just as important. Thanks to America’s sophisticated finance markets, U.S. companies, from startups to behemoths, have easy access to cheap capital. By contrast, firms in the EU (excluding the U.K.) tend to get money from banks instead of venture capital, bond or equity markets. The money is there, but it’s divided into many national pots, so the cost of capital and hassle of raising it is unnecessarily high. Cross-border capital flows in the EU have been pretty flat since the 2008 financial crisis.So Brussels should get busy working down a long and unsexy list, from harmonizing 27 different insolvency and bankruptcy codes (a prerequisite for a common bond market) to re-regulating life insurers so they can invest across the whole EU. That way, Europe’s firms can tap into affordable funding to invent and build the things that will make them global champions.Brexit should be a wake-up call. The U.K. was usually able to deflect the worst ideas (often from France) about European industrial policy. And it was the only EU member with a top-notch capital market. Now the 27 other members must figure out alone how to stay competitive. In doing so, the EU should resist jettisoning its proven liberal principles for a crude economic nationalism. Europe won’t beat China by becoming Chinese.To contact the author of this story: Andreas Kluth at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andreas Kluth is a member of Bloomberg's editorial board. He was previously editor in chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for the Economist. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has downgraded Solenis Holdings LLC's ("Solenis") first lien revolving credit facility and term loan ratings to B3 from B2. At the same time, Moody's has affirmed Solenis' B3 Corporate Family Rating ("CFR") and B3-PD probability of default rating, as well as the Caa1 rating on its second lien term loan.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of DIC Corporation and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. This publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future.
The deal, which has immediate effect upon BASF's reporting, is expected to close in the third quarter of 2020, according to the statement. Reuters reported last month that Lone Star was in negotiations to buy the BASF unit.
The CRAs are backed by trade receivables originated by BASF S.A. (BASF Brazil, not rated), subsidiary of BASF (SE) (BASF, long term rating A2, global scale, outlook stable), related to the sale of defensives for crop protection to agricultural producers, distributors and cooperatives.
(Bloomberg) -- Agribusiness is increasingly turning to natural and sustainable alternatives to chemicals as consumers rebuff genetically modified foods and concerns grow over Big Ag’s role in climate change.At the heart of the trend are innovations that harness beneficial microorganisms in the soil, including seed-coatings of naturally occurring bacteria and fungi that can do the same work as traditional chemicals, from warding off pests to helping plants flourish, according to a global patent study by research firm GreyB Services.“Both entrepreneurs and investors are saying, ‘Hey, the writing is on the wall, we’re entering a post-chemical world,’” said Rob LeClerc, chief executive officer of AgFunder, an online venture-capital platform. “The seed companies who have billions in market cap are like ‘We need to do something,’ and everyone recognizes the opportunity.”Much of the handwringing over farm chemicals stems from the recent fate of glyphosate, the most ubiquitous weedkiller ever. Regulators around the world are tightening up rules around using the chemical, including Europe and Mexico. Meanwhile, thousands of lawsuits that could result in billions of dollars in penalties are pending against Bayer AG over whether its glyphosate-containing product, Roundup, caused cancer. Bayer insists it’s safe, and some government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency say it isn’t likely to cause cancer in humans.The global fertilizer and pesticide market is around $240 billion, and grows 2% to 3% a year, according to Ben Belldegrun, a managing partner at Pontifax AgTech, a company that invests in food and agriculture technology. While so-called biologicals including biofertilizers, biopesticides and biostimulants are just 2% of that market, those have been growing closer to 15% a year for the past five years, Belldegrun said.Pressure for less chemical-intensive farming methods is coming from retailers like Walmart Inc., non-governmental organizations and consumers, who are throwing more dollars toward organic and other niche foods with environmental or animal welfare claims.As population increases worldwide, the demand for agricultural products is projected to grow 15% over the next decade with no change in the amount of land available for farming, according to a joint report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.“There’s a growing world population and how are we going to feed all of these people?” asked Craig Forney, assistant director for licensing and business development at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. “At the same time, we want to protect the environment. We need to use land better and use the resources better.”The answer, Forney said, is “intensified agricultural production to increase productivity of land and do it with minimal chemical support.”Patents give owners the exclusive right to an invention, and can indicate both where research funding is being spent and where companies or universities expect to generate revenue in the future.Companies like BASF SE, Bayer and Syngenta AG have patents on products using naturally-occurring microbes to help crops flourish even when there is low water availability, according to GreyB’s analysis. The microbes can act as catalysts to encourage growth. Biological-based fungicides and insecticides can also help reduce crop damage from insects, slugs and fungi.“Seed-applied biological products can extend the window of disease and pest protection, while some also provide alternate modes of action that can reduce the build-up of resistance, aid with nutrient management and reduce plant stress,” said Chris Judd, BASF’s global strategic marketing manager for Seed Treatment, Inoculants and Biologicals.Evonik Industries AG, Altair Nanotechnologies Inc., Covestro AG and startup Indigo AG have been active in obtaining patents and publishing research in the area of using microbes, as have universities like China’s Zhejiang University and Nanjing Agricultural University, according to GreyB.Likewise, thousands of patents are being issued to companies like BASF, Bayer and Dow Inc. for more natural ways of managing pests including pheromones that deter breeding and reflective mulches, instead of chemical-based insecticides.Germany’s Bayer, which bought agriculture chemical giant Monsanto Co. in 2018, sees “high growth potential” for biologicals, citing a challenging regulatory environment for chemicals and a growing emphasis on sustainability in agriculture. Bayer has a research and development team solely focused on them. The company also is hunting for partnerships to boost its portfolio. Benoit Hartmann, head of biologics at Bayer, said the increased investments show how the science around microbes has matured in recent years.In 2013, BASF acquired seed-treatment supplier Becker Underwood, which helped the company become a leader in biological agents to fight bacteria and fungi. Judd said the company sees demand for biologicals increasing but maintains that they need “to be compatible with an increasing array of chemistries and to have the ability to survive on the seed for adequate periods.”The increased patenting reflects a trend of researchers looking for ways to help promote organic and non-GMO farming, said Nicole Kling, a patent agent with Nixon Peabody who specializes in the biotechnology field.With biologicals, “You’re not introducing chemicals with the scare quotes around it,” Kling said. “You’re not doing anything that would harm the agricultural workers.”Researchers and companies are looking for new solutions for farming with less chemicals because organic farming, the most popular alternative to modern conventional farming, often results in lower yields. Still, demand for food continues increasing. Iowa State and other universities around the world, using government funding or in partnership with companies, are rushing to deal with those competing demands.“The hope is someday in the future they will merge and you will have organic and non-GMO products that are just as productive as Big Ag,” Forney said.That’s where things like precision agriculture to tailor the application of nutrients, artificial intelligence to monitor soil conditions and the development of new plant hybrids come in.Other emerging techniques that could boost yields while helping farmers use less chemicals is artificial intelligence, which is being used to analyze which seeds and crops can yield the most based on changing soil conditions and weather patterns on a farm. The promise of quantum computers would let companies use massive computing power to develop and analyze new seeds and fertilizers.Scientists also are developing new plant varieties, with applications for new varieties up 9% in 2018, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. China led the growth, with more than a quarter of the applications for new varieties.Much of the research in crop biotech is centered in the U.S., China, Germany, Japan and South Korea, though it’s being adapted to meet local conditions in Africa, Latin America and Asia, according to WIPO, an agency of the U.N.Demand for more food will be greatest in Africa, India and the Middle East. In the developing world, there is little food scarcity because “we did good things with all that ‘better living through chemistry,’” Kling said, referring to a play on an old DuPont motto. It has come at a cost, though.“We’re starting to see some of the effects of that -- all of this wonderful industrialization has contributed to climate change,” Kling said. “We’re starting to see people swing back in the other direction.”(Adds executive comment in fifteenth paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Lydia Mulvany in Chicago at firstname.lastname@example.org;Susan Decker in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;James Attwood at email@example.com, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
WASHINGTON/VIENNA, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Underscoring U.S. lawmakers' continuing unhappiness with Russia, a Senate committee on Wednesday advanced legislation seeking to hamper Russian energy pipelines and boosting NATO but delayed voting on a measure nicknamed the "sanctions bill from hell" that would punish Moscow for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved four energy bills, including the "Energy Security Cooperation with Allied Partners in Europe Act of 2019," which opposes Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, encourages NATO countries not to buy Russian gas and expedites U.S. natural gas exports.