|Bid||219.66 x 1000|
|Ask||219.99 x 800|
|Day's Range||219.20 - 221.50|
|52 Week Range||151.70 - 238.52|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.35|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||9.22|
|Earnings Date||Oct 15, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||5.00 (2.29%)|
|1y Target Est||235.81|
(Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at boosting its share of the $4 trillion U.S. market for exchange-traded funds -- even mimicking one of its Wall Street foes.The bank is adopting an approach pioneered by JPMorgan Chase & Co., filing for a line of broad-based index products that could start trading at rock-bottom prices as early as next week, regulatory records show.After getting off to a blistering start four years ago on the back of a dirt-cheap factor ETF, Goldman dropped behind its Wall Street competitor, which has ridden a strategy dubbed “bring your own assets” to a $29 billion business.Essentially cloning popular ETFs and moving client cash from those products into its own, the controversial approach may be Wall Street’s best hope for challenging the dominance of State Street Corp., BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group.“As we continue to grow and build out our ETF business, along with our recent acquisitions, it just makes sense in some areas for us to have the building blocks that fuel those portfolios,” said Steve Sachs, head of capital markets for ETFs at Goldman.Even before this latest chapter, the race between the Wall Street giants had enough twists and turns to power a thriller.Goldman emerged in 2015, establishing itself as a leader in factor investing with its ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity fund, ticker GSLC. The product wowed the ETF industry with a fee of just 9 basis points, unheard-of for smart beta strategies -- but newer ventures have stumbled. This year, it introduced a handful of thematic strategies, but they’ve collected less than $50 million.JPMorgan was relatively quiet until June 2018, when it kickstarted its business with a suite of vanilla ETFs called BetaBuilders. Unlike the more specialized products the bank was hawking up until then, the funds tracked broad developed-market benchmarks -- at thrift-store prices.It was an inspired play, tripling JPMorgan’s ETF assets to near $30 billion within a 14-month span and powering it ahead of Goldman.“JPMorgan saw this as a smart move ahead of anyone,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Eric Balchunas. “We’ve seen how hard it is to get any assets. But bringing your own assets gets you mojo, and mojo gets people in the door and investors on the phone.”The bank made smart moves elsewhere, winning a foothold in the nascent but growing fixed-income ETF market, and planting a flag early in Europe, whose industry is around half the size of the U.S. but growing rapidly.Goldman has yet to list an ETF in the region despite some high-profile hires, though it plans to commence the business before year-end, a spokesman in London said. That puts it several years behind JPMorgan, which has $2.8 billion in assets there.Now Goldman hopes to turn the tables on its investment-banking rival by embracing the bring-your-own-assets strategy. The firm already has some experience in the area as the largest owner of GSLC, and its latest foray is fueled by a recent acquisition spree. The bank scooped up S&P’s model portfolio business and United Capital this year, giving it fresh pipelines for flows into its own funds.However, the approach isn’t without its critics, who argue there are conflicts in directing wealthy clients to a bank’s own ETFs.“We have internal affiliates in our products, but they are institutional clients and we treat them as such with their own due diligence,” said Jillian DelSignore, head of ETF distribution for JPMorgan’s asset management arm.The bank’s transfers into BetaBuilders have saved clients about $42 million a year thanks to their low price tag, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence.Ironically, if Goldman succeeds in moving wealthy clients to its in-house products, BlackRock may turn out to be the biggest loser, according to an analysis of regulatory filings.United Capital’s clients hold some $4 billion in the firm’s iShares line, which could be redeployed into Goldman’s new products. That’s especially true if the funds are cheap.“The advisers -- by being so brutal with cost obsession -- have created this monster of cost migration,” said Balchunas. “By making moves like this, the banks are able to own the end client and the flows. It’s brutal out there.”\--With assistance from Morgan Tarrant.To contact the reporters on this story: Carolina Wilson in New York City at firstname.lastname@example.org;Ksenia Galouchko in London at email@example.com;Elizabeth Rembert in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Brad Olesen at email@example.com, Yakob Peterseil, Rachel EvansFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- WeWork is pressing ahead with plans for a public listing, announcing a series of governance changes aimed at shoring up a sagging valuation and assuaging critics who say it gave too much power to a polarizing co-founder.The company will trim the voting advantage that gives chief executive officer Adam Neumann sway over the board, and no member of his family will be allowed to sit on the board, it said in a regulatory filing Friday. WeWork will also announce a lead independent director by year’s end.The moves aim to give potential investors a check on Neumann’s control of the company and address some of the most unusual dealings between founder and firm. But it left in place a rare three-class stock structure and Neumann still maintains a voting majority, so it’s unclear how much the changes will appease both investors and the banks in charge of managing WeWork’s IPO.Questions remain about how investors will value the fast-growing, money-losing office leasing business that’s backed by SoftBank. Both of the company’s lead financial advisers -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -- have previously voiced concerns about proceeding with an IPO at a valuation around $15 billion, people briefed on the discussions have said.The company and its advisers were discussing a valuation range of $15 billion to $20 billion Friday, people with knowledge of the talks said. SoftBank Group Corp., which with its affiliates is WeWork’s biggest backer with a 29% collective stake and invested in January at a valuation of $47 billion, is in discussions to buy about $750 million worth of additional stock in the offering, the people said. The company has been looking to raise at least $3 billion in the IPO, and SoftBank’s purchase would limit its dilution.Spokespeople for SoftBank and WeWork declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal reported SoftBank’s plans earlier Friday.The company plans to start its IPO roadshow as soon as Monday, though that timeline could be delayed depending on investor demand, said a person with knowledge of the matter. WeWork said Friday it picked Nasdaq as its listing venue.The new filing revealed that Neumann will return any profits he receives from the real estate transactions he has entered into with the company, and that any CEO who succeeds Neumann will be selected by board of directors.The board will have the ability to remove the CEO, and the updated prospectus has taken out a clause that previously said Neumann’s wife Rebekah -- who’s listed as a founder and chief brand and impact officer of WeWork -- will have a role choosing any new chief. Some criticized the changes as not going far enough.“This is an example of posturing,” Jeffrey Cunningham, who teaches management at Arizona State University and has served on several corporate boards, said of WeWork’s changes. The company appears to be facing pressure “to go public at a time that is inappropriate and with a governance record that is questionable.”Still, the moves drove WeWork bonds to be the biggest price gainers in high-yield bond trading for part of Friday. A Fitch Ratings analyst said the changes addressed many of the issues that the ratings company raised in downgrading WeWork’s credit grade last month.“A key component of WeWork’s model is the ability to restrain growth in the event of a downturn and these governance changes increase the likelihood that an independent board will have the power to enforce such a decision," Kevin McNeil, a director at Fitch, said in an emailed statement.WeWork, which leases and owns spaces in office buildings and then rents desks to businesses ranging from startups to large corporations, has raised more than $12 billion since its founding nine years ago and has never turned a profit.WeWork had been targeting a share sale of about $3.5 billion in September, people familiar with the matter said in July. A listing of that size would be second only to Uber Technologies Inc.’s $8.1 billion listing this year.After the company filed publicly for the offering in August, its valuation shrank amid investor scrutiny.WeWork has been driving ahead with its desire to IPO, in part to gain access to much needed capital. The company needs to raise at least $3 billion through an IPO to tap into an additional $6 billion credit line that bankers have been setting up in recent weeks. The facility requires the company to carry out its offering by Dec. 31, the people said.Share ClassesThe original IPO plan included three classes of common stock, with holders of Class A shares getting one vote per share, while Class B and Class C owners got 20 votes for each. This arrangement would have given Neumann the vast majority of the voting power.The company is changing its high-vote stock from 20 votes to 10 votes a share. But it’s keeping the different classes, which it says “may result in a lower or more volatile market price” of its Class A common stock in part because certain indices like the S&P 500 exclude companies with such structures.The high-vote stock will automatically decrease to one vote per share in the event that Neumann becomes permanently incapacitated or dies, something that would previously only have occurred if Neumann’s ownership fell to 5% or lower.The company already has taken some steps to improve its governance, such as adding a woman to its board and having Neumann return $5.9 million of partnership interests initially granted to him as compensation for trademarks used in a rebranding. Yet its IPO filing last month raised a variety of other concerns. Among them: The company paid Neumann rent and lent him money.Neumann will also limit his ability to sell stock in each of the second and third years following this offering to no more than 10% of his shareholdings. WeWork’s Class A stock has been approved for listing on Nasdaq under symbol “WE”.The New York-based company, which changed its name to the We Co. this year, disclosed in its filings that it had lost $2.9 billion in the past three years and $690 million in just the first six months of 2019. Its annual revenue, though, had more than doubled to $1.8 billion in 2018, compared with $886 million the previous year.(Adds latest valuation talks in fifth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Anders Melin, Tom Giles and Sarah McBride.To contact the reporters on this story: Gillian Tan in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Giles Turner in London at email@example.com;Michelle F. Davis in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Liana Baker at email@example.com, Michael J. Moore, Dan ReichlFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. said a new video service won’t have a material impact on its financial results, seeking to counter research from a Goldman Sachs analyst who cut his share price target on concern that aggressive pricing of the TV+ offering will trim profit.Earlier this week, Apple outlined a strategy that involved lower prices on several devices and services, including a monthly cost of $4.99 for TV+. It will also be free for one year with purchases of new Apple devices. This is relatively rare for a company that has historically charged premium prices to support healthy profit margins.Rod Hall, the Goldman Sachs analyst who covers Apple, cut his price target on Apple shares to $165 from $187, saying the company’s plan to offer a trial period for TV+ was “likely to have a material negative impact” on average selling prices and earnings per share.“We do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results,” Apple said in an email.The stock jumped after the statement, trimming losses from earlier in the day. It traded down 1.8% at $219 at 2:56 p.m. in New York.The TV+ service is entering a crowded video-streaming field that already includes Netflix Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Hulu and AT&T Inc.’s HBO. In November, Walt Disney Co. plans to launch a Disney+ streaming service, with a giant catalog of titles, for $6.99 a month. Netflix’s entry-level subscription is $8.99 a month in the U.S.Apple, which doesn’t currently have a back catalog of content for TV+, announced the $4.99-a-month pricing on Tuesday, sparking a rally in its shares and declines in Netflix and Disney stock. In India, the TV+ service will be 99 rupees ($1.40) a month. (Updates with background on TV+ in final paragraphs.)To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org;Nico Grant in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair BarrFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Deutsche Bank (DB) agrees to pay settlement charges despite not admitting the allegations. Also, it agrees to share information with the regulators that can help prove other banks guilty.
The question goes to the heart of securities markets, which routinely churn billions of dollars of orders per day. Without it, they cannot meet regulatory requirements such as getting the best price on trades, reporting transactions or valuing assets.
(Bloomberg) -- When Elisha Wiesel was promoted to chief information officer at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., his colleagues in the securities division, riffing on the all-night scavenger hunt he founded to raise money for charity, locked him in his office with puzzles to solve. When he got out, his reward was a baseball cap emblazoned with the tagline “SecDiv Escapee.”Now Wiesel has pulled off a bigger exit. He’s leaving Goldman Sachs, and says he helped pick his successor.Amazon Web Services Inc.’s Marco Argenti will join as a partner and work with George Lee, who was named as Wiesel’s co-CIO last year, the bank said Thursday in memo to staff. Atte Lahtiranta of Verizon Media Group will become chief technology officer.“I wanted to stay for 25 years and I wanted to make sure engineering was pointed in what I felt would be a sustainable direction for growth,” Wiesel, 47, said in an interview.As he rose to the top ranks of the bank, he became a well-known figure on Wall Street for the nerdy and popular Midnight Madness scavenger hunt and carrying on the causes of his Nobel Laureate father.Wiesel will stay through year-end to help with the transition, so he hasn’t started packing up yet. A deck of J. Aron playing cards and a Lucite cube marking his membership in Goldman’s Quarter Century Club sit on a marble table in his office, while the boxes on the floor contain Clif bars and hand sanitizer.‘Think, Sweat’In 1994, when he was a senior at Yale, Wiesel put his resume in a book and wrote at the top, “I want a job writing computer games.” When J. Aron, the commodities broker owned by Goldman, called for an interview, he said “no.”“And my roommate was sitting there and said, ‘Dude, that’s Goldman Sachs.’ And he threw a soccer ball at my head, and told me to take the interview,” Wiesel said. “When I went in, what I remember was, here was this finance company asking me harder programming questions that were making me think and sweat more than any of the other shops hiring.”Wiesel got an offer and turned it down “for stupid reasons,” he said, but the guy who would be his boss “refused to accept my ‘no.’ He kind of Jedi mind-controlled me back into the building.”His mark on Goldman’s engineering division includes pushing for salaries on par with technology companies and relaxing the dress code. But more than anything, Wiesel says he has worked to increase respect for engineers at the firm. “I remember when people thought I was there to reboot their machine,” he said.New TeamAt J. Aron he worked for Lloyd Blankfein and Gary Cohn, who would wind up leading the firm for the longest stretch of Wiesel’s tenure. He remembers Blankfein chastising him in the lobby of 85 Broad when he arrived on Rollerblades. “He’d say, ‘I’m invested in that head, get a helmet!’” Wiesel recalled.His first encounter with Cohn was when he “screamed at me for being an idiot, because I was being an idiot,” Wiesel said. “He kept asking me about an implied volatility for the option price, and I didn’t know what an option was yet, because I’d literally just arrived.” He made it his business to find out, and worked for Cohn for years.Blankfein was also the one who called him in 2004 to tell him he’d been named a partner, and last week to congratulate him and offer his help in the future. “That’s kind of the warm Goldman Sachs partnership that Lloyd was really a cultural carrier for.”As for the cultural imprint that the new leadership team of David Solomon, John Waldron and Stephen Scherr will make: “It’s too early. One year is not enough time,” Wiesel said. “David, John and Stephen are very decisive leaders. I’m not selling my Goldman stock.”‘Stay Late’His advice to people just starting out from college is to “stay late at night when no one is bugging you for anything, that’s when you can pursue equity,” he said. In his case, he took on late-night shifts of others, running software, to barter lessons in numerical methods and stochastic calculus from colleagues.Wiesel said he’s going to think a while about his next act before committing to anything, but he’s ready to move on from banking. He’s assembled a map of options with the app MindNode that includes traveling the world, computer games and teaching.He’s interested in the intersection of philanthropy and engineering, and intrigued by the health care company that Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon are building. He’s certain he’ll spend more time working on the legacy of his father, the Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, deciding on things like the disposition of his papers.Wiesel has started working on a retirement play list. Would Solomon the part-time DJ spin it? “I’m not much of an EDM guy,” he said. “So far, it has the Dead Kennedys and the Smiths.”To contact the reporter on this story: Amanda Gordon in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Pierre Paulden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Steven Crabill, Michael J. MooreFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- I used to tell people that I was in the room when the 1980s – the bull-market-greed-is-good ‘80s – began. It was June 1982, and the room was a luxe Waldorf Towers suite leased by Lazard Freres. An investment banker at the firm had loaned the suite to a Texas oilman named T. Boone Pickens Jr., the founder and chief executive of Mesa Petroleum, based in Amarillo, Texas.Boone, who had a big reputation in Texas, and virtually no reputation outside it, was making an audacious play: He was trying to take over Cities Service, a company ten times Mesa’s size. And I was sitting right next to him, watching him try.I had just turned 30, a new staff writer at Texas Monthly. Boone was 54. Profiling him was my first assignment, even though I knew nothing about business. Then again, he didn’t know much about hostile takeovers. One thing I understand now is that he and his team – which included a very young Hamilton James, who went on to become a senior executive at the Blackstone Group Inc. – were improvising, every step of the way.Of course, back then you could count on one hand the people who knew how to do a hostile takeover. It was all new – and corporate America wasn’t happy about it. Men like Boone weren’t called “shareholder activists;” they were called “corporate raiders” or “greenmailers.” There were investment banks (Goldman Sachs was one, as I recall) that refused to advise anyone attempting a hostile takeover. Chief executives wouldn’t dream of trying to buy a company that didn’t want to be bought – if for no other reason than it was impolite. The price of the stock was low on their list of priorities.What I wind up reflecting on now, as I think about Boone, who died on Wednesday at the age of 91, is the role he played in the revolution that has taken place in the way companies think and operate. Michael Jensen, a finance professor at the University of Rochester, is usually given credit for laying the foundation for the modern emphasis on shareholder value. But few people in the executive suites or on Wall Street knew who Jensen was.They knew who Boone was, though. He -- and Carl Icahn, and a small handful of others -- loudly proclaimed that everything they were doing was in the interest of shareholders. It was the rationale for their raids. Boone used to lecture me back then: Joe, he’d say, CEOs don’t own the company. The shareholders do. People used to ask me whether this was just something he said to justify his takeover plays. No, I would reply, he really means it.Boone made five hostile takeovers in the 1980s. He didn’t land any of his targets, but he did become a public figure. When he went after Gulf Oil in 1984, he received the first-ever “highly confident” letter from Michael Milken (meaning that Milken would be able to raise enough in junk bonds to pay for the deal). That same deal also got him on the cover of Time magazine, with an illustration showing him playing high stakes poker. Thus did he help usher in another facet of modern business: the risk-taking, swashbuckling, larger-than-life businessman. It’s not too much to say that Elon Musk is an heir.For the next 20 years – and I can also see this more clearly than I could at the time – Boone struggled. He started a shareholder rights organization, but it didn’t go anywhere. He had a tight-knit group of young whipper-snappers who had worked on his deals, but one by one, they left. He got into petty feuds with various people in Amarillo, including the editor of the newspaper. At one point, he had the idea of selling rights to the water under his ranch to Dallas or San Antonio. He was damned if he was going to sell it to Amarillo.By the mid-1990s, he was in the middle of a horrific divorce and was suffering from depression. Mesa had been borrowing money to pay to shareholders – he wanted to show that he put his money where his mouth was – but the company was going broke. Richard Rainwater and his wife, Darla Moore, made a deal to restructure the company. They did, and then – much to Boone’s surprise -- they tossed him out.What followed was what I think of as the most astonishing part of his career. In 1997, Boone set up shop in Dallas and started an energy hedge fund. He raised $27 million from friends in Texas, and put in another $10 million of his own money. By the end of 1999, the fund had dwindled to $4.4 million.And then? Then, the price of natural gas started to go up, and the value of Boone’s fund soared. It helped immensely that he finally put his divorce behind him, and that he got on antidepressants for a short time. In the office he was sharp again, something he hadn’t been in years. He was also, for the first time in his life, a billionaire.As for me, that story I wrote about him in 1982 changed my life. I became enthralled with business, and it became my beat. When Boone got a big contract to write his autobiography in 1986, he hired me to be his ghostwriter. But I had too much ego to be a good ghost, and he had too much ego to let me write his book. He fired me halfway through the project, and I sued him for the money I felt I was owed. Although we quickly settled, we were estranged for the next decade.One day I got a note from him, about a story I had written for Fortune magazine. He thanked me for something I had written about shareholders. I took it to mean that he wanted to reconnect, so I went to visit him. He told me about his depression, and his divorce, and the therapy he was in with his grown children, with whom he had never had an easy relationship. “Joe,” I remember him saying, “never say no to therapy.”From then on, we were friends. There were things he did that bothered me immensely, especially funding the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. But there were also things he did late in his life that I really admire. His effort to move the country as much as possible away from coal and oil, and towards natural gas, is high on that list. His critics used to complain that he was talking his own book, but so what? He believed in natural gas with all his heart.I went to visit him in Dallas in November 2016, by which time he was 88. He sat in his conference room having his daily meeting with his aides and traders while they analyzed the latest energy trends. Why was Exxon Mobil Corp’s stock rising? Were rising gasoline prices affecting motorists? What were the Saudis going to do? Boone wore hearing aids and sometimes had to lean in to understand what was being said, but he was still very much the decision-maker. “Boone,” said one of his guys, “has balls like nobody I’ve ever known.”A month later, Boone had the first in a series of strokes. He was soon using a walker, and struggling with his speech. The last time I saw him was a year ago, at his ranch. It was difficult to watch him; in addition to his physical problems, you could see that he had things he wanted to say but just couldn’t get the words out.One afternoon, Boone had someone drive him around the part of the property that had wells – yes, Boone drilled for oil and gas on his ranch – and that seemed to perk him up. He employed a full-time geologist, and after we’d visited a few wells, we went into a big room where one wall was papered over with an enormous map of the ranch’s geological formations. The geologist started to explain a few things, but Boone interrupted her. For about ten minutes, he talked without trouble. For me, it was a nice moment.When I first met Boone in 1982, he quickly sized me up as “an East Coast liberal.”“You probably don’t know many conservatives,” he said (correctly). “I’m going to show you that a conservative can be a good guy.”And he did, too. Rest in peace, Boone.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Germany will finally get another major listed tech company when software maker TeamViewer AG completes a 2.3 billion-euro ($2.5 billion) initial public offering this month -- the biggest in the industry in almost two decades.While Germany has several established tech companies, including software giant SAP SE, there have been few sizable newcomers since chipmaker Infineon Technologies AG listed in 2000. TeamViewer will provide a boost to the weakest European IPO market in years and comes as Germany’s economy teeters on the brink of a recession. The share sale, which is oversubscribed, will be the country’s largest so far this year.Founded in 2005, TeamViewer has developed from a local provider of remote computer access tools to one that offers connectivity to customers in about 180 countries. The company plans to further expand in Europe, Asia and the U.S., and will add to its offerings for large corporate customers to help them connect anything from mobile phones and tablets to machine sensors, smart farming equipment or wind turbines.With a sudden influx of new offerings in Europe, IPO investors have a lot to choose from. Apart from TeamViewer, private equity firm EQT Partners AB is also marketing its initial public offering, with a management roadshow kicking off next week. On Thursday, Helios Towers Plc -- one of sub-Saharan Africa’s largest mobile-phone tower operators -- announced plans to list on the London Stock Exchange.TeamViewer’s owner, private equity firm Permira, plans to sell as many as 84 million shares for 23.50 euros to 27.50 euros each via holding firm TigerLuxOne, the company said late Wednesday. TeamViewer stock is expected to start trading on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange on Sept. 25.The price range would give the company a market value of between 4.7 billion euros and 5.5 billion euros. Bloomberg News previously reported the valuation could be 4 billion euros to 5 billion euros. The listing will improve TeamViewer’s brand recognition and make it easier for it to grow organically and via “selected acquisitions,” spokeswoman Martina Dier said.TeamViewer may hire more people in the U.S. and opened offices in China, Japan, India and Singapore last year to expand sales in those markets. In China alone, TeamViewer has “tens of millions” of free users, more of whom the company wants to convert into paying customers, according to Chief Executive Officer Oliver Steil.“Our big growth combined with strong profitability -- even if market conditions have been difficult -- makes our financial profile attractive to investors,” Steil said in an interview last month.TeamViewer’s cash billings grew more than 35% in the first half, faster than last year’s 25% growth, to over 140 million euros, the CEO said. The company posted a cash operating profit margin of more than 50% during the period. It says its software has been installed on more than 2 billion devices.Permira bought the company for 870 million euros in 2014. It has since partnered with firms including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Salesforce.com Inc. to bolster its cloud offerings.The free float, a measure of company stock available to trade, will be 30% to 42%, depending on the size of the IPO, according to the statement.Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley are arranging the IPO, with Bank of America Corp., Barclays Plc and RBC Capital Markets. Lilja & Co. is acting as an independent adviser to Permira and TeamViewer.(Updates with company comment in sixth paragraph. An earlier version of the story was corrected to remove reference to IPO proceeeds)To contact the reporter on this story: Stefan Nicola in Berlin at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Dale Crofts at firstname.lastname@example.org, Andrew Blackman, Chris ReiterFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Goldman Sachs has hired a senior executive from Amazon Web Services (AWS) to replace departing technology boss Elisha Wiesel, in a move that could accelerate the bank’s migration to cloud services. Goldman announced the appointment of Marco Argenti, erstwhile vice-president of technology at cloud-technology provider AWS, in an internal memo on Thursday.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Ostensibly, a lot has happened with PG&E Corp. this week. It emerged that San Francisco Mayor London Breed had offered to buy the city’s power grid from the utility. Then, PG&E filed a reorganization plan to emerge from bankruptcy. This all seems pretty important.It hasn’t registered with the stock. Having had a day or so to absorb the late-Monday court filing and a couple of days to mull Mayor Breed’s offer, the stock trades around the $11 level it’s been at for a few weeks.That makes sense. San Francisco’s proposal is like someone showing up at your hospital bed and offering to buy the bed. The $2.5 billion being proposed wouldn’t even cover 10% of the high end of estimated liabilities PG&E faces. In return, the company would give up its network in the second-largest city (by population) in its service territory; a city that is also wealthy, growing and doesn’t face serious wildfire risk, making it relatively more valuable.Apart from the company, the bankruptcy court and PG&E’s claimants aren’t likely to be thrilled about this either. Labor isn’t. State regulators and politicians should also be wary, as removing San Francisco could leave the remaining PG&E with that delicious cocktail of higher risk premium and fewer resources (see this). If that buyout proposal looks DOA, PG&E’s reorganization plan looks more TBD. This proposes raising up to $14 billion in new equity mostly via a rights issue, with some existing shareholders attaching backstop commitments. In lieu of a detailed capital structure for the emerging entity, it came with a clutch of letters from major banks such as Barclays Plc and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. expressing confidence they could arrange tens of billions of dollars of debt and equity finance for PG&E’s exit.The most controversial aspect, and the one that renders it all a bit moot at this point, is the plan’s cap on wildfire victims’ liabilities at $17.9 billion. As it was, CreditSights analysts were estimating liabilities north of $20 billion – and that was before the bankruptcy judge ruled last month that victims of the Tubbs Fire in 2017 could seek a jury trial to determine PG&E’s potential liability. Prior to this, a finding by CalFire, the state’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, that PG&E’s equipment wasn’t responsible for that fire led many to assume the company was off the hook. Now it could face potentially billions more in liability.Suffice to say, with the equity backstop contingent on the $17.9 billion cap and no more big fires, and the banks’ letters expressing confidence rather than binding commitment, the current plan looks more like a placeholder.Of course, this is a negotiation, and PG&E has to signal progress with a first draft of some sort to keep control of the process. But the cap on liabilities has drawn the anger of victims’ lawyers already. This matters in particular because PG&E’s filing still expresses the possibility of gaining legislative approval early next year to issue so-called Wildfire Victim Recovery Bonds. These would securitize a portion of future profits to fund payouts, thereby enabling shareholders to take only a temporary hit to value rather than permanent dilution from straight equity issuance. However, PG&E has failed once already on this front in Sacramento. It will be all too easy for opponents to fight the next push if they can point to a plan that covers bondholders and shields equity holders to a degree but caps payouts to victims.All of which means that, for all the noise, the balance of risk hasn’t changed. PG&E still faces pressure from rival plans, especially the big equity check being dangled by the Ad-Hoc Committee of Unsecured Bondholders. The uncertainty attached to the Tubbs trial and the potential for dilution loom large. Plus, this will all play out against the backdrop of California’s current wildfire season, with the northern part of the state displaying “above normal significant fire potential” this month.Back in late June, PG&E’s stock hit a summer peak of almost $24 on hopes that a mixture of state help and securitization would shield investors. As I wrote then, however, the reality is that PG&E needs a lot of new capital, and equity tends to take the hit in that situation. Three months on, the exact path out of Chapter 11, and what that will mean for its shares – which have fallen by more than half – remains murky. Having bought the rumor over the summer, there seems little rationale for buying the news now. To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- China removed one more hurdle for foreign investment into its capital markets almost 20 years after it first allowed access.Global funds no longer need approvals to purchase quotas to buy Chinese stocks and bonds, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange said in a statement on Tuesday. It removed the $300 billion overall cap on overseas purchases of the assets, about two-thirds of which remain unused.It’s the latest push by Chinese authorities to increase use of the yuan in international transactions, and comes as they seek out more foreign capital to balance payments. Scrapping the investment quota is also another step in policy makers’ efforts to open up China’s financial system to the world.It’s unclear how much fresh investment the latest moves will attract into China’s $13 trillion bond and $6.9 trillion equity markets, given that foreign investors had only used $111 billion of the $300 billion quota available to them through Aug. 30. There are also alternate routes of investment, including trading links with Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd., that allow offshore money managers to trade stocks and bonds in China via the former British colony.”It is certainly a positive and it underscores the fact that the trade war with the U.S. has a positive effect on China -- it is pushing its reform agenda more than expected,” said Adrian Zuercher, head of asset allocation for Asia Pacific at UBS Wealth Management. “We might not see immediate inflows, but the cap was an important roadblock for institutional investors which has now been removed.”Foreign investors held 2 trillion yuan ($281 billion) of Chinese bonds and 1.6 trillion yuan of stocks onshore at the end of June, according to central bank data. The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index dropped 0.1% as of 9:48 a.m.The process of granting overseas investors similar ease of access as local players started in 2000, when China was negotiating entry into the World Trade Organization. It picked up pace last year after U.S. President Donald Trump attacked China as a one-sided beneficiary of global commerce.China began easing rules last year, when it removed lock-in periods and allowed investors who used the quotas to repatriate their money at any time. There had previously been limits on the amount foreigners could take out of the country in one go.Separately, the country has allowed foreign banks and insurers to take controlling stakes in their local ventures. UBS Group AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Nomura Holdings Inc. have all won approval for majority control of their local securities joint ventures, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and DBS Group Holdings Ltd. have applications pending.Under the changes to the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors and Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors programs, foreigners need only to register before investing in Chinese securities, a move that will “make China’s bond and equity markets better and more widely accepted by international markets,” according to SAFE’s statement.The latest move will play into the strength of quantitative investors because they perform best with high volumes of stocks that humans have a hard time analyzing, said Mike Chen, director of Dynamic Equity at Boston-based PanAgora Asset Management Inc. which has $45 billion of assets under management.“If the quota is no longer there, you know you can just invest freely, and that means that the whole gamut of stocks and bonds within the Chinese investment universe is now open to foreign investors,” Chen said. “This is a welcome development and really plays into the quant strength,” given that quantitative trading benefits from higher volumes of stocks being traded.Yet for some global funds, the uncertainty of getting money out of the country has been an impediment for inbound investment, bankers and analysts have said. One lawyer cites the example of a major fund that needed almost four months to get approval to repatriate investment proceeds to its headquarters under the QFII program a few years ago, at a time when the yuan was under depreciation pressure. The person asked not to identified discussing client matters.“It is a gesture, trying to reduce red tape and reinforcing the message that they are continuing to open the Chinese capital markets,” said Gerry Alfonso, director of international business department at Shenwan Hongyuan Group Co. “It probably does not have a massive short term impact on stocks, but overall it is a good development.”(Updates with investor comment in 12th paragraph. A previous version of this story corrected PanAgora’s assets under management.)\--With assistance from Helen Sun, Livia Yap, Gwen Everett and Nishant Kumar.To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Lucille Liu in Beijing at email@example.com;Jun Luo in Shanghai at firstname.lastname@example.org;Amanda Wang in Shanghai at email@example.com;Tian Chen in Hong Kong at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Candice Zachariahs at email@example.com, Daniel Taub, Michael J. MooreFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Peloton Interactive Inc. seeks to raise as much as $1.16 billion in an initial public offering as it prepares to pitch the subscription exercise business to investors.The home-fitness startup plans to offer 40 million Class A shares at $26 to $29 each, it said Tuesday in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A listing at the top of that range would value Peloton at about $8.1 billion based on the shares to be outstanding as listed in its filing.The company is planning to start its IPO roadshow Wednesday, with presentations this week in Frankfurt and London, according to a schedule obtained by Bloomberg. Meetings with investors will continue in cities including Toronto, San Francisco and New York through Sept. 25, when the shares are set to be priced, according to the schedulePeloton’s roadshow is kicking off as unprofitable unicorns looking to go public face scrutiny over their business prospects. WeWork plans to schedule meetings with investors as soon as this week, even after a steep cut in its potential value spurred a major shareholder to pressure the company to put off the offering.Valuation GoalPeloton earlier had planned to seek a valuation of $8 billion to $10 billion in its IPO, people familiar with the matter have said. It was worth about $4.2 billion in its most recent private funding round last year.“The path to profitability will be the No. 1 focus and I think that would do a lot for their valuation,” said Michael Kawamoto, an analyst with D.A. Davidson & Co.Peloton lost $196 million on sales of $915 million during the 12 months ended June 30, according to its filings. That compared with a loss of $48 million on $435 million in sales during the same period a year earlier.Founded in 2012, Peloton describes itself as the “largest interactive fitness platform in the world” with more than 1.4 million members, according to its filing.The company sells exercise bikes and treadmills that have screens connected to the internet for showing its own workout programs. It also has an app that shares its exercise programming with users who don’t own its hardware.‘Connected Fitness’Its basic “connected fitness” subscription costs $39 a month and the bikes start at about $2,000.Holders of the Class A shares will get one vote per share, while Class B holders will have 20 votes a share, according to the filing.Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. are leading the offering, the filing shows. The company is planning to be listed on Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol PTON.(Updates with valuation in second paragraph)\--With assistance from Julie Verhage.To contact the reporters on this story: Gillian Tan in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Michelle F. Davis in New York at email@example.com;Crystal Tse in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael J. Moore at email@example.com, ;Liana Baker at firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Hytha, Matthew MonksFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
WeWork Parent We Co. may have made some positive steps to clean up its act as its IPO got into trouble, but a close look at changes to a recent SEC filing reveals some problems with profitability that are tough to remedy. That's according to IPO Edge Editor-in-Chief John Jannarone, who told Cheddar TV that […]
After much anticipation, Apple is finally releasing its new credit card to the public. The credit card is now available to all iPhone owners in the U.S. “What the iPod was to the music industry, and what the iPhone was for cell phones and mobile carriers, so is the Apple Card to financial services.
Surprise leadership from Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) and other big banks kicked off the trading week. But can it last? Let's take a look at what's happening off and on the price chart.Source: Tero Vesalainen / Shutterstock.com On a session in which the S&P 500 rose a scant 0.05%, BAC stock and peers JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM), Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) put together a strong performance. Bank of America took the lead with its standout gain of 3.3%. JPM, WFC and GS stock finished up on either side of 2.5%.Behind the strength, BAC was one of the day's presenters at an investors' conference. But the reaction in shares wasn't about Bank of America whetting investors' appetites with an unusually upbeat forecast. Monday's bid was more about a relief rally off and on the price chart.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsWall Street's bid in BAC stock happened on the back of low, single-digit investment banking revenue growth for the third quarter. With the unit having underperformed many of its peers, the year-over-year increase due to the bank's commitment to regaining market share caught investors attention. As well, Chief Operating Officer Tom Montag noted a good performance for BAC's equity trading business thus far this quarter. * 10 Stocks to Sell in Market-Cursed September Also of benefit -- a spike in long-term yields relative to short-term rates supports BAC stock's lending business. The action in Treasurys has occurred amid reports of an October meeting between the U.S. and China, which in turn has eased fears over the two country's trade war and a larger global recession. BAC Stock Weekly ChartIf the sum total of supports behind BAC stock's rally on Monday and Tuesday's bid in shares doesn't sound like a lot, it's because in the scheme of things, it likely isn't. But looked at on BAC stock's price chart, Wall Street's resolve to leave no stock behind makes appreciable sense.The plain and simple reality is BAC stock has been a laggard the past couple years. A mostly lethargic congestion pattern has consumed Bank of America since 2018. BAC stock has been wrestling with the 62% retracement level tied to the stock's 2006 - 2009 Fibonacci cycle which saw shares go from an all-time-high to a multi-decade low.This difficulty is in stark contrast to leading Dow Jones Industrial Average constituents Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) Home Depot (NYSE:HD), Visa (NYSE:V) or McDonalds (NYSE:MCD). But it gets worse for Bank of America.As the provided weekly chart illustrates, BAC stock's technical ennui has resolved itself in a series of lower highs since early 2018. Even the Dow Jones' historic bull market has managed to claw its way to a narrow higher-high pattern over this period.But Bank of America's difficult behavior could ultimately work in its favor. Today's buying efforts could turn into a larger rotation where BAC's relative weakness works its way into a period of outperformance. The million dollar question is "Will it?" The Bottom Line on BAC StockIf you're inclined to buy BAC shares today, I'd advise setting a stop-loss below $27.57. This exit is tied to the three-day low in shares and would also mark a second violation of the 62% retracement level and the 200-day simple moving average. In our view there is sufficient evidence that such a move would avoid further price congestion -- and possibly anything worse.Investment accounts under Christopher Tyler's management do not currently own positions in any securities mentioned in this article. The information offered is based upon Christopher Tyler's observations and strictly intended for educational purposes only; the use of which is the responsibility of the individual. . For additional market insights and related musings, follow Chris on Twitter @Options_CAT and StockTwits. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Stocks to Sell in Market-Cursed September * 7 of the Worst IPO Stocks in 2019 * 7 Best Stocks That Crushed It This Earnings Season The post Should You Buy Bank of America Stock Today? appeared first on InvestorPlace.
Mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion company Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) has launched a new US$465m leveraged loan, as the franchise benefits from an improved media rights agreement with pay TV sports channel ESPN that secures greater revenue, people familiar with the matter said. UFC is adding the US$465m loan to an existing US$1.875bn term loan B that matures in 2026. UFC’s parent company, Hollywood talent agency Endeavor Operating Company (formerly WME-IMG), bought UFC for US$4bn in 2016.
(Bloomberg) -- Executives of WeWork and its largest investor, SoftBank, are discussing whether to shelve plans for an initial public offering of the money-losing co-working company, said people with knowledge of the talks.SoftBank is pressing WeWork to postpone the stock offering after investors expressed serious concerns about the business and its corporate governance, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. WeWork, which owns or leases office space and then rents it to companies typically needing short-term space, had planned to hold a roadshow to promote the offering as soon as this week, an executive told analysts last week. Representatives for SoftBank and We Co., the parent of WeWork, declined to comment.In the span of a few months, WeWork has gone from one of America’s most valuable unicorn startups to a punchline in investment circles. Early this year, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. pitched WeWork as a $65 billion business.But when the company filed a preliminary prospectus last month it revealed the company had racked up billions in losses, was burning cash and had an arcane corporate structure riddled with potential conflicts. In just the first six months of 2019, WeWork lost $690 million, bringing its total losses to almost $3 billion in the past three years, the filing showed. Now WeWork advisers are estimating the company is worth less than a third of Goldman’s figure.SoftBank StakeSoftBank Group Corp. and its affiliates hold about 29% of WeWork stock, Bloomberg reported last week. That’s even more than co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Adam Neumann, though he maintains effective voting control through a three-class share structure.SoftBank has invested a total of about $10.65 billion into the New York-based company, but that has been at a range of valuations. SoftBank’s Vision Fund invested just once at about a $20 billion valuation in early 2017, while SoftBank Group kept pouring money into WeWork, most recently in January at a $47 billion valuation.The WeWork IPO comes at a critical time for SoftBank, which is currently trying to convince investors to bankroll a second $108 billion iteration of its Vision Fund. A sputtering IPO with a possible drop in the value of SoftBank’s stake could complicate the current fundraising effort.An IPO at a $15 billion valuation would result in a $4 billion writedown for the Japanese conglomerate and a $5 billion loss from the latest reported fair value for the Vision Fund, while a debut at $25 billion isn’t likely to result in losses, Chris Lane, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., wrote in a report. Lane estimates that WeWork is worth about $24 billion, with SoftBank holding a roughly 31% stake.“If correct this would not imply significant losses on the investment made to date, but would still be a blow to an investment team which is targeting a 40% annual IRR,” Lane wrote. “With investor concern regarding the mid-to-near term outlook for the global economy the timing for this IPO isn’t ideal.”WeWork needs $7.2 billion over the next four years to see the company through its cashflow negative period, but the total cash needs swell to $9.8 billion if there is a recession in 2022, Lane wrote. Despite the investor concerns, Bernstein remains upbeat on WeWork’s long-term growth prospects and sees it as “fundamentally an attractive business.”SoftBank’s shares rose as much as 4.3% in Tokyo on Tuesday, while the Nikkei 225 stock average was little changed. The Financial Times reported on SoftBank’s position earlier Monday.Neumann has been the subject of scrutiny from investors over disclosures in WeWork’s IPO paperwork. The company paid Neumann rent and spent $5.9 million to acquire a trademark he owned, as it lent him money. In recent months, WeWork has sought to address some of its governance issues, including by adding a woman to its board.Credit RequirementWeWork has lined up a $6 billion credit line that is contingent on it raising at least $3 billion in an IPO, according to its prospectus.The company is already considering additional financing. WeWork is planning to rely on junk bonds for funding for the foreseeable future, a company executive said in a meeting with analysts, according to a person familiar with the matter.The executive said WeWork could also explore whole-business securitizations, or the practice of pledging royalties, fees, intellectual property and other key assets as collateral, the person said. Those types of bonds are becoming more popular. They may enable companies with riskier ratings to improve their credit by cutting financing costs and issuing higher-quality bonds.(Updates with context of IPO timing on Vision Fund in seventh paragraph)\--With assistance from Ed Hammond, Gillian Tan and Pavel Alpeyev.To contact the reporters on this story: Sarah McBride in San Francisco at email@example.com;Ellen Huet in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Milian at email@example.com, ;Liana Baker at firstname.lastname@example.org, Michael Hytha, Anne VanderMeyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Goldman Sachs is launching what it calls its "most ambitious" recruiting campaign. Yahoo Finance's Akiko Fujita and Julia La Roche discuss.