|Bid||15.35 x 3000|
|Ask||15.36 x 800|
|Day's Range||15.14 - 15.43|
|52 Week Range||12.53 - 24.24|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||2.34|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||25.07|
|Earnings Date||Feb 20, 2017 - Feb 26, 2017|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.20 (1.34%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||May 15, 2019|
|1y Target Est||22.31|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Canadian transportation champion Bombardier Inc. is running out of road. Its shares lost more than one-third of their already much diminished value last week after another disastrous profit warning.The trains and private jet manufacturer may be forced to exit its commercial aerospace joint venture with Airbus SE because of a shortage of cash; a writedown looms when the group reports 2019 results next month. In the meantime, it’s looking at ways to accelerate repayment of its $10 billion debt pile, which suggests a breakup might be on the cards. Bombardier has held talks about a combination of its rail businesses with French rival Alstom SA, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, adding that this is one of several options being considered.On the other side of the Atlantic another storied industrial conglomerate, ThyssenKrupp AG, is suffering a comparable crisis. The German steel and car-parts maker has put its prized elevator division up for sale to help with its massive debt and pension liabilities.When their respective restructurings are completed, these vast and politically important employers will be shadows of their former selves. ThyssenKrupp has already been booted from Germany’s benchmark Dax index, while Bombardier’s on the cusp of becoming a penny stock (again).So how did they get into such a mess and why haven’t they managed to extricate themselves, despite years of restructuring and several false dawns? In both cases, hubris, shoddy governance and poor project management have played a role in their downfall. The fate of the two companies was sealed around a decade ago when they bet the farm on high-risk growth strategies — and lost. Bombardier signed off on the C-Series, an ambitious attempt to break Airbus and Boeing Co.’s lock on the commercial aerospace market. The small, fuel-efficient jet won rave reviews but orders were disappointing and delays caused costs to balloon to about $6 billion and debt to pile up. Bombardier made things worse by trying to bring several new business jets to market at the same time. Weak sales forced it to abandon development of the Learjet 85 — resulting in a $2.5 billion writedown — and to cede control of the C-Series to Airbus for the humiliating sum of one Canadian dollar.ThyssenKrupp’s original sin was sinking about 12 billion euros ($13.3 billion) into a pair of steel plants in Brazil and the U.S. to try to keep pace with the acquisitive ArcelorMittal SA. Poor construction work and a faulty business plan led to massive losses from which ThyssenKrupp has never really recovered.Woeful governance had a hand in both corporate disasters. Bombardier has a dual-share structure that gives the founding Bombardier-Beaudoin families majority voting control even though they own a much smaller fraction of the share capital. Pierre Beaudoin served as chief executive officer from 2008 until 2015 — during which time his father, Laurent, remained chairman — but he didn’t do a very good job. Pierre is now the chairman.ThyssenKrupp’s anchor shareholder, the Krupp Foundation, presided over a management culture that prized fealty and the preservation of corporate perks, including the company’s hunting grounds, but failed to prevent compliance breaches. Recent boardroom fireworks at the German giant (two chief executives and a chairman have departed in quick succession) suggest it remains dysfunctional.In their attempt to stop the rot, ThyssenKrupp and Bombardier have followed a similar script. Scrap the dividend, sell underperforming assets, slash thousands of jobs and cut costs. But the cash flow needed to cut debt has never consistently materialized and things have got worse.In 2019 ThyssenKrupp burned through 1.1 billion euros of cash and it expects to consume even more in 2020, risking a breach of banking covenants. Bombardier burned about $1.2 billion in cash last year, far in excess of the roughly break-even target it set at the start of the year.A problem for both companies has been estimating the cost and completion date of large projects. It’s one reason why ThyssenKrupp’s industrial plant construction unit — once a decent source of cash flow from large customer prepayments — has become a bottomless money pit (the unit is now up for sale). At Bombardier, several high-profile train projects have run late and over budget. Bombardier must pay penalties for late delivery.Judging by their balance sheets, both companies appear to be in trouble. ThyssenKrupp has just 2.2 billion euros in net assets, while Bombardier’s liabilities far exceed its reported assets.However, unlike Bombardier’s, ThyssenKrupp’s bonds still trade well above par and its 7.4 billion euros market capitalization is almost four times that of the Canadian company. That’s because ThyssenKrupp still has something of value to sell: The elevators unit could fetch more than 15 billion euros if management decides to part with all of it (the sale process is ongoing and ThyssenKrupp might opt to keep a majority stake).Bombardier doesn’t face an immediate cash crunch thanks to the proceeds of recent asset sales and no big debt maturities this year. But having already offloaded its ageing Q400 turboprop aircraft line and its Belfast wing factory, it’s not exactly overburdened with stuff to sell to meet future liabilities.Neither of Bombardier’s two remaining core divisions, trains and private jets, is worth as much as ThyssenKrupp’s elevators. In 2015 Bombardier sold a 30% stake in its rail division to the Quebec public pension fund, valuing the whole unit at $5 billion. The business aviation division would probably fetch more.For both businesses, the difficulty with flogging more silverware is that what’s left over probably won’t generate much profit.The moral of these twin corporate calamities is simple: If tens of thousands of people depend on you for employment, don’t bite off more than you can chew. And make sure the higher-ups know what’s going on.To contact the author of this story: Chris Bryant 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.Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies. He previously worked for the Financial Times.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.
An Italian court ruled on Tuesday that one of three blast furnaces at ArcelorMittal's Ilva steel plant need not be shut down despite concerns it was in breach of safety rules, throwing a lifeline to the loss-making plant in southern Italy. The decision overturns a previous order from a local magistrate that the furnace should be closed after the death of a worker at Europe's biggest steel plant in the city of Taranto. The ruling removes a potential hurdle in talks between state-appointed commissioners managing the Ilva plant and ArcelorMittal to revive a 2018 deal for the world's biggest steelmaker to buy the loss-making steelworks.
ArcelorMittal's (MT) latest deal underpins the company's commitment to unlock value worth up to $2 billion from its portfolio of assets by mid-2021.
The company, whose net debt stood at $10.7 billion at the end of September, said on Monday the sale of the stake in Global Chartering Ltd (GCL) to DryLog Ltd would cut its debt by $530 million. ArcelorMittal said it expected to close the deal before the end of this year. GCL operates 28 dry cargo vessels, 25 of which are on long-term leases and three owned outright, and will continue to handle a share of ArcelorMittal's shipments.
ArcelorMittal, the world’s leading steel and mining company, announces it has signed a share purchase agreement with DryLog Ltd (DryLog) for the sale of a 50% stake in Global Chartering Limited (GCL), its wholly owned shipping business, and will subsequently form a 50:50 shipping joint venture with DryLog. GCL currently operates 28 dry cargo vessels, which range from Supramax to Cape Size, 25 of which are on long-term leases and will be transferred into the joint venture, with the remaining three being owned outright. The joint venture will benefit from the combination of the two businesses respective knowledge and expertise, and ArcelorMittal’s extensive annual cargo commitments, a portion of which will be handled exclusively by the JV.
ArcelorMittal announces that AM InvestCo has signed a non-binding agreement with the government appointed Ilva commissioners that forms a basis to continue negotiations on a new industrial plan for Ilva, including discussions on a substantial equity investment by a government-controlled entity. The new industrial plan would contemplate investments in green technology, including through a new company funded by public and private investors. In the meantime, at the hearing today (20 December) the Ilva commissioners and AM InvestCo have requested a further postponement, until the end of January, of the Ilva commissioners’ application for interim measures.
ArcelorMittal and commissioners of the Ilva steelworks have moved closer to a deal over the future of the ailing plant and have agreed to extend their talks, a lawyer representing the company said on Friday. "There is an agreement that lays out the groundwork for negotiations that will continue until a deadline of Jan. 31 in order to reach a binding accord," ArcelorMittal lawyer Ferdinando Emanuele told reporters. A Milan court was scheduled to discuss on Friday a government bid to stop ArcelorMittal's withdrawal from Europe's biggest steel plant, but the hearing is now likely to be postponed to leave room for the negotiations.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Anil Ambani, the younger brother of Asia’s richest man, faces a $680 million legal test to answer one and only one question: Just what did he know about what his employees were doing on his behalf? Other Indian tycoons will take an abiding interest in his defense.The $680 million is the amount Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. is seeking to recover from the former Indian billionaire by invoking what they say is a personal guarantee he gave in 2012 to secure a $925 million loan for Reliance Communications Ltd., his mobile services firm that’s now in bankruptcy. Ambani, whose older sibling Mukesh controls Reliance Industries Ltd., India’s most valuable company, claims he never knowingly provided any guarantee.In his version, he had only authorized his employees to furnish a non-binding “personal comfort letter” to lenders, including ICBC, China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China. Somehow, that letter of comfort morphed into what the banks now argue to be an iron-clad guarantee under English law. “A truly remarkable feature of Mr. Ambani’s case,’’ London Judge David Waksman said in his order Monday, “is that he has himself proffered no explanation as to why he should have been deceived in this way.”As to how personal assets were put at risk unbeknownst to the boss until RCom defaulted in 2017, the order noted that Ambani’s lawyer had argued that his client's “position was that ‘he hasn’t got a clue’ how all of this came about.” Judge Waksman stopped short of awarding the summary judgment requested by ICBC, though not before characterizing Ambani's evidence as “inexplicably incomplete, implausible and highly unlikely.”A trial will commence next year. Pending the verdict, the court may ask some or all of the claim to be deposited with it.Ambani’s representative focused on the the judge’s decision to dismiss the banks’ application for a summary judgment. “Mr. Ambani has contested the proceedings and put up a strong legal defense, and will continue to contest the proceedings and seek leave to defend, without any conditions as to making of deposits or payments being imposed,” the representative said in a statement, according to Bloomberg News.This is the younger Ambani’s second brush with the pitfalls of personal guarantee. Earlier this year, he managed to avoid a three-month prison term when his elder brother showed up just in time to settle the $80 million claim of Ericsson AB. The Swedish telecom equipment maker had obtained a contempt-of-court order to put Ambani in jail if the payment – which he had personally guaranteed – wasn’t received by March 19.Other Indian business families should treat Ambani’s travails as a cautionary tale.When India’s economy was booming, and firms were greedy to use leverage to grow, many of their controlling shareholders liberally gave out personal guarantees to lenders. But the rosy assumptions behind aggressive, debt-fueled expansion have come unstuck for many borrowers in an economy that has slowed down sharply. The Ruia family recently lost its crown jewel — a 10 million-tons-a-year integrated steel plant in western India — to ArcelorMittal.Even here, the former asset owners had backed their borrowings with personal guarantees, and State Bank of India, the main lender, had even made an attempt to enforce them. With Mittal’s $6 billion check in the bank, that recovery may have now become a moot point. But from Dec. 1, personal guarantees on corporate loans will be adjudicated under Indian bankruptcy law. That will put a healthy fear in the minds of Indian businessmen about borrowing too recklessly. Their own assets could end up getting liquidated together with those of their companies.As for Ambani, he’ll get his day in an English court to prove his lack of awareness. The bar is high, though. “I consider it extremely unlikely that his role was really limited to simply chairing board meetings with little or no interest or role in what RCom was doing, especially in the context of a major refinancing which was needed urgently,” Judge Waksman noted.This has all the ingredients of an engaging courtroom drama.To contact the author of this story: Andy Mukherjee at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies and financial services. He previously was a columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He has also worked for the Straits Times, ET NOW and Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
ArcelorMittal SA (NYSE: MT) was trading notably higher during the Monday session on what seemed to be no news, so Benzinga reached out to an analyst to see if they knew why. "ArcelorMittal is beta to the European market, as it represents more than 30% of their EBITDA," KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Philip Gibbs told Benzinga. The price action in the Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF (NYSE: VGK) showed that European equities were indeed trading higher.
ArcelorMittal SA said on Monday it had formed a joint venture with Nippon Steel Corp to run Essar Steel, the bankrupt Indian steel company that ArcelorMittal has taken over. Last month, India's Supreme Court had cleared the way for ArcelorMittal to take over Essar Steel following a legal tussle that dragged through multiple courts for over two years.ArcelorMittal and Nippon Steel had bid jointly for Essar, which has a capacity of 10 million tonnes of steel per year.
16 December 2019 - 12:40 CET – ArcelorMittal announces that it has today completed the acquisition of Essar Steel India Limited (‘ESIL’), and simultaneously established a joint venture with Nippon Steel Corporation (‘Nippon Steel’), called ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Limited (‘AM/NS India’), which will own and operate ESIL.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN OR INTO OR TO ANY PERSON LOCATED OR RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS (INCLUDING PUERTO RICO, THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS, GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, WAKE ISLAND AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) (THE “UNITED STATES”) OR TO ANY U.S. PERSON (AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED) OR IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INVITATION FOR OFFERS. Luxembourg, 9 December 2019 – 10:15 CET - On 29 November 2019, ArcelorMittal (“ArcelorMittal” or the “Company”) announced the commencement of an invitation (subject to offer restrictions) to holders of the bonds (“Bondholders”) set forth in the table below (the “Bonds”) to submit offers to sell (each such offer, an “Offer to Sell”) any and all of the Bonds to the Company for cash (the “Invitation”) on the terms and subject to the conditions set out in the Invitation for Offers dated 29 November 2019 (the “Invitation for Offers”).
The Italian state is ready to take an 18% stake in the troubled Ilva steel plant in southern Italy through a public agency, newspaper Il Messaggero reported on Sunday, citing a draft proposal to save the factory. Industry ministry officials will present the plan on Monday to steel firm ArcelorMittal, the daily said, in an attempt to convince it to scrap its threat to walk away from a 2018 deal to buy the plant in the city of Taranto. The factory directly employs around 8,200 workers in one of Italy's least prosperous areas.
4 December 2019, 13:00 CET ArcelorMittal today announces its financial calendar for 2020. Earnings results announcements: 6 February 2020: Q4 and full year 20197 May 2020:.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Next week, the European Union’s leaders will commit to cutting net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. This historic pledge will require the continent to radically overhaul its entire economy, including a revolution in the production of steel, cement and chemicals — whose carbon emissions are particularly difficult to abate.None of this will happen, however, unless European companies feel able to invest in making themselves greener without suffering a loss of competitiveness. So the European Commission has been toying with the idea of a so-called “carbon border tax,” which would penalize imports from countries that don’t meet the same environmental standards.It’s a sensible idea but one that’s likely to cause the EU no end of grief. If U.S. President Donald Trump gets wind of a European “Green Deal” that includes a possible tax on American imports to help fight climate change (something he appears not to believe in), he’ll no doubt hit the roof. The climate crisis and trade conflicts are two of the world’s biggest challenges and they might be about to collide.(1)The logic of a carbon border tax is straightforward. To reach net zero emissions, Europe will have to expand the scope and effectiveness of its carbon trading system, which aims to to curb CO2 by making polluters pay. But if the price of purchasing pollution allowances keeps climbing (as it has been), businesses might decamp to countries with laxer emissions controls, a phenomenon known as “carbon leakage.” “If necessary, if there is carbon leakage, we will have to think about a carbon border tax,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told the United Nations climate summit in Madrid this week. The risk of carbon leakage is much debated. There’s been little evidence of it so far but that’s probably because carbon prices have been low and heavy industry hasn’t had to expend much effort on cutting emissions; the power-generating sector has done most of the work.Things are about to become much tougher for Europe’s big industrial companies. In future, they’ll have to shut down their most polluting plants or make them clean. Much of the technology to do the latter is still in its infancy and is expensive. By forcing non-EU businesses to pay the same carbon price as local companies via the border tax, the theory is that the EU could cajole other countries into following its climate lead, while ensuring a level playing field for domestic industry. Naturally, large steelmakers such as ArcelorMittal SA are strongly in favor.Structuring and policing such a tax would certainly be complicated; measuring the carbon content of imported products isn’t simple. There are hints that it will be confined to just a few sectors at first. But the politics are even more nightmarish. Following the U.S. retaliation this week against France’s digital tax, there’s a danger a carbon border tax would prompt Trump to ratchet up his trade crusades. German industry is particularly worried about this.The EU says any border tax would have to be compliant with World Trade Organization rules. But Brussels needs to tread carefully and Trump isn’t the only worry.A decade ago the bloc tried to impose a carbon tax on flights landing in the EU, regardless of where they took off. International condemnation was brutal and swift. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote a letter strongly objecting to the EU’s unilateral approach. The U.S. Senate voted unanimously to block American airlines from complying. Amid fears that China would scrap a multi-billion dollar order for Airbus jets, Europe backed down.(2) Is the EU about to overstep again? Maybe it has no choice. “The world is a different place than it was 10 years ago,” says Andrew Murphy of the research group Transport & Environment. “With smart diplomacy there's no reason why a carbon border adjustment has to suffer the same fate as aviation did.”The urgency is certainly greater now and lots more countries have embraced emissions trading. But only last week China warned the EU against imposing a carbon tax on its exports.Europe shouldn’t let itself be dissuaded. Plenty of smart people think carbon border taxes are necessary, including Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, both former heads of the Federal Reserve. As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, the continent has a unique responsibility to curb planet-heating carbon emissions, including those embedded in goods consumed here but produced elsewhere. So long as net carbon emissions keep rising the planet will keep getting hotter. Countries and companies leading the way shouldn’t be punished for tackling this.(1) For more see this Centre for European Reform paperand this Bruegel blog postand paper. Carbon border taxes are also mentioned in the United Nations' Emissions Gap reportand by the Energy Transitions Commission.(2) Only intra-European flights were subject to emissions trading.To contact the author of this story: Chris Bryant 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 the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Chris Bryant is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies. He previously worked for the Financial Times.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN OR INTO OR TO ANY PERSON LOCATED OR RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS (INCLUDING PUERTO RICO, THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS, GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, WAKE ISLAND AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) OR TO ANY U.S. PERSON (AS DEFINED BELOW) OR IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DISTRIBUTE THE INVITATION FOR OFFERS. Luxembourg, 29 November 2019 – 10:15 CET – ArcelorMittal (“ArcelorMittal” or the “Company”) announces the commencement of an invitation (subject to offer restrictions) to holders of the bonds (the “Bondholders”) set forth in the table below (the “Bonds”) to submit offers to sell (each such offer, an “Offer to Sell”) any and all of the Bonds to the Company for cash (the “Invitation”).
ArcelorMittal confirms that it has given notice that it will redeem all of the outstanding 5.500% Notes due March 1, 2021 (CUSIP: 03938LAU8; ISIN: US03938LAU89) (the “5.500% Notes”) on December 27, 2019 (the “Redemption Date”). Following prior tender offers, the current outstanding principal amount of the 5.500% Notes is U.S.$756,095,000 (original issuance of U.S.$1,500,000,000). The 5.500% Notes shall be redeemed at a price equal to the greater of (1) 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be redeemed and (2) the sum of the present values of the Remaining Scheduled Payments (as defined in the Indenture) of the Notes to be redeemed, discounted to the date of redemption on a semi-annual basis (assuming a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months) at the Treasury Rate (as defined in the indenture dated as of May 20, 2009, as supplemented by the fourth supplemental indenture dated as of March 7, 2011, each between the Company and HSBC Bank USA, National Association) plus 35 basis points (the “Redemption Price”), in each case plus accrued and unpaid interest thereon to the Redemption Date.
ArcelorMittal today announces plans to roll out a new sustainability programme across Europe, aiming to secure ResponsibleSteel site certification for all its ArcelorMittal Europe - Flat Products sites. The 12-month programme will enable each site to prove that our production processes meet rigorously defined standards across a broad range of social, environmental and governance criteria.