As Hedge Funds Endure Rocky Year, | Stock Market News Today


Investments in private companies are saving the year for stock-picking hedge funds.

Prominent managers that invest in both public and private companies in the same funds have seen their portfolio of public investments flail, weighed down by losses from January’s meme-stock rally and a retreat by fast-growing technology stocks. But soaring valuations of private companies and a hot U.S. IPO market have boosted their private wagers. That has helped mask their poor performance in public markets and driven up their overall returns.

Dan Sundheim’s $25 billion D1 Capital Partners, for example, is down 4% in its public bets for the year through September—but up 71% before fees in its private investments, said people familiar with the firm. The S&P 500 had a total return of 15.9% for the period.

D1 clients opt into share classes that offer varying levels of exposure to private investments. Clients in the share class that can invest up to 15% in private companies have seen gains of about 4.5%, after fees, for the period. The gains stand at 14% and 21% for clients in share classes that can invest up to 35% and 50% in private companies.

Meanwhile, Boston-based Whale Rock Capital Management was down 11.2% for its public investments in a hedge fund that can invest up to a quarter of its clients’ money in private companies, said people familiar with the fund. The performance of the fund’s private wagers shrank the fund’s losses to 3.3% for the year through September.

Hedge funds without private companies in their portfolios have had a rougher time. Palo Alto, Calif.-based Light Street Capital Management, which manages late-stage growth and other funds along with a hedge fund that only invests in public companies, is down 18.6% for the year through September in its hedge fund, said people familiar with the firm. That has brought the fund’s size down to about $1.7 billion. Its growth funds have fared much better, the people said, with Light Street’s first such fund, whose investments include the restaurant-software provider

Toast Inc.

and the software-development company

GitLab Inc.,

expected to have an internal rate of return of more than 100%.

The rush into private investing by public-market investors has helped fuel surging valuations for private companies. And as hedge funds, along with mutual funds and sovereign-wealth funds, deploy billions of dollars, they often crowd out venture and growth funds.

Hedge funds made up 27% of the money raised in private rounds this year through June, despite participating in just 4% of the deals, according to a recent report by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

“These tech companies are growing exponentially, and managers want to capture that huge exponential growth for their clients,” said Susan Webb, founder and investment chief at the New York-based outsourced-investment firm Appomattox Advisory.

The higher-return potential is stark. Private-equity and venture strategies gained an average 14.2% a year in the decade ended in 2020, Goldman said, while hedge funds overall averaged half those annual returns over the period—and were subject to the stresses of regular redemption cycles.

Toast, a restaurant-software provider that went public last month, is an investment of a Light Street Capital Management growth fund.



Photo:

Richard Drew/Associated Press

Hybrid funds can offer distinct benefits, said Udi Grofman, global co-head of the private-funds group at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. “The beauty of the structure is that it allows the capital of the investors, in between being invested in private investments, to be exposed to public markets,” Mr. Grofman said. Clients typically sit on cash to fund capital calls by venture and private-equity funds.

Stock-picking hedge funds had a banner year in 2020, buoyed by markets that set new highs after bottoming that March.

Their fortunes in public markets have changed this year. The meme-stock rally in January, which sent the price of companies including GameStop Corp. and

AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc.

to extraordinary heights, dealt losses to myriad hedge funds. Whale Rock gained 71% last year, while the D1 share class investing up to 15% of clients’ money in private companies climbed 60%; in January they lost about 11% and 30%, respectively, in just their public investments.

While D1 has almost recouped those losses, Whale Rock and other growth-oriented stock pickers have struggled. Fund managers say sector rotations that have alternately favored growth or value have made it difficult to navigate markets. Long out-of-favor sectors such as energy and financials have been on a tear.

Meanwhile, private markets have continued to be supportive. The U.S. IPO market is flourishing, and companies are continuing to raise more money in private markets than in the past. Hedge funds are contributing to the brisk pace of fundraising. D1 and Tiger Global Management, which manages a series of private-equity funds in addition to a hybrid hedge fund, have participated in private funding rounds this year through September at a pace of more than a deal a week for D1 and more than two deals every three days for Tiger, according to PitchBook Data Inc.

The 44-year-old Mr. Sundheim, who started D1 after several years as chief investment officer at Viking Global Investors, said at a recent capital-introduction conference that he hadn’t expected to get as big in private companies as he has. D1 is invested in 90 private companies, he said.

He said judgment was the only competitive advantage in public markets as private markets offered the additional benefit of firms’ reputations playing a role in gaining access to deals. He said D1 in its earliest investments acted as a resource to management teams so they would be strong references for D1. Mr. Sundheim also said he was confident in his portfolio of public investments over the next three to five years.

Write to Juliet Chung at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Robinhood Stock Sale Soured By Investor Confusion, Valuation | Sidnaz Blog


Robinhood Markets Inc.’s


HOOD 3.45%

bid to revolutionize IPOs has created losses for investors instead, after one of the year’s most highly anticipated listings fell flat.

In a regulatory filing in early July, the trading platform’s co-founders said they would open their initial public offering to customers on equal terms with institutional investors. They said they recognized it may be the first IPO many would participate in, and pledged to “never sacrifice the safety of our customers’ money.”

It now appears Robinhood’s commitment to “democratizing” the IPO process played a role in the offering’s big initial stumble Thursday. An innovative auction system sowed some confusion among investors, many already suspicious of the valuation of a business that has drawn scrutiny from regulators and criticism from customers, people involved in the process said.

The stock, initially priced at $38, the bottom of the target range, sits below that. It is a disappointing result at a time when IPOs are booming and investor appetite for new issues is robust.

Robinhood proudly tore up the traditional IPO playbook. It insisted a large chunk of its stock—in the end up to 25%—go to its individual-investor customers compared with the normal retail allocation of well under 10%. It said employees could sell a portion of their stock right away instead of being locked up for six months. And when it came to determining the price of its IPO, Robinhood decided to use a hybrid-auction process, which attempts to assign shares to investors based on what they are willing to pay, regardless of who they are.

Robinhood co-founder Baiju Bhatt, in gray suit, and CEO and co-founder Vladimir Tenev in the Wall Street area of New York City on Thursday.

The hybrid auction has worked in other IPOs in the past year. In typical listings, underwriters give their investor clients updates throughout the roadshow—the seven- to 10-day period in which a company pitches its stock. These updates typically include guidance on how much demand bankers are seeing for the shares and the rough price they ultimately expect to set.

In this case the company and lead underwriters

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

and

JPMorgan Chase

& Co. gave few such updates, people familiar with the matter said. When some large investors called the other underwriters on the deal, some of those bankers pleaded ignorance.

The opaqueness of the process sowed suspicion among some investors who assumed the deal was going poorly and adjusted their orders accordingly, investors and bankers said.

Many had already expressed concern about how much of Robinhood’s revenue comes from a controversial practice called payment-for-order-flow, which the Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing, people who attended the roadshow said. Others questioned what they saw as the high valuation the eight-year-old company was seeking—in excess of $30 billion.

Another concern: whether Robinhood’s controversial decision earlier this year to stop users from buying meme stocks like

GameStop Corp.

would prompt some to eschew the offering.

Wednesday night, as bankers met with Robinhood Chief Executive

Vlad Tenev

to set the price, some investors said they were only told it would be within the $38 to $42 target range. This surprised many large institutions, who are used to more guidance heading into a pricing meeting.

A Robinhood IPO event in Times Square.

An unusually large percentage of shares were set to be allocated to hedge funds, which are more likely to “flip” IPO stock on the first day of trading, according to people close to the deal. To bring in more of the biggest institutional funds who are viewed as “buy-and-hold” investors, Robinhood chose $38 a share instead of the higher price some funds were willing to pay.

The company and Goldman felt comfortable that the lower price was conservative enough that the shares would rise on their first day of trading, especially given the buzz around Robinhood in the lead-up to the listing, according to people close to the deal.

Instead, the stock opened at $38 a share, unusual at a time when big initial pops for hot IPOs are more the norm. It rose higher briefly, touching $40 before dropping through the IPO price. It closed down 8.4% Thursday.

The shares fell further still Friday morning before regaining some ground in the early afternoon.

The brokerage app Robinhood has transformed retail trading. WSJ explains its rise amid a series of legal investigations and regulatory challenges. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Robinhood’s Stock Market Debut

Write to Corrie Driebusch at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Should You Be Buying What Robinhood Is Selling? | Sidnaz Blog


In rare cases, such pitches have paid off big time. More often, you’d have done yourself a favor by taking roughly half your money and lighting it on fire instead.

Just as Robinhood isn’t the first brokerage to offer commission-free trading, it isn’t the first to seek to “democratize” investing or to sell a piece of itself to its own customers.

On June 23, 1971, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. became the first New York Stock Exchange firm catering to individual investors to offer its shares to the public.

Thirsty for fresh capital in a struggling stock market, Merrill flogged its shares to its own customers, tapping the firm’s “awesome recognition among that vast segment of the population,” reported The Wall Street Journal the next day. “Primarily small investors, the type long championed by Merrill Lynch, quickly purchased the entire amount.”

Nearly 400 insiders at the firm unloaded a total of 2 million shares in the offering. From its initial $28 per share, the stock shot to about $42—a 50% pop—then closed around $39. That valued Merrill at 30.5 times its prior-year earnings, much higher than the overall stock market’s price/earnings ratio of 18.7.

Less than three weeks later, Merrill announced that its net earnings had fallen nearly 50% from the prior quarter.

For the rest of 1971, Merrill’s stock lost 9.4%; the S&P 500 gained 4%, counting dividends.

In 1972, when the S&P 500 rose nearly 19%, Merrill sank 7.7%. And in 1973-74, when the S&P 500 lost 37%, Merrill’s stock slumped by 61%. In its first three full years, Merrill’s stock lost three-quarters of its value; the S&P 500 fell only 5%.

Here in 2021, Robinhood’s offering is one of several trading and investing IPOs:

Coinbase Global Inc.,

the cryptocurrency exchange, went public in April, and

Acorns Grow Inc.,

which helps users invest in tiny increments, said in May that it expects to go public later in the year. Since its Apr. 14 debut, Coinbase is down about 27%. Robinhood fell 8% on its first day of trading Thursday.

One of Wall Street’s oldest and frankest sayings is “When the ducks quack, feed ‘em”—meaning that whenever investors are eager to buy something, brokers will sell it like mad.

Back in 1971, that was the brokers’ own shares. Roughly half a dozen major firms sold stock to the public soon after Merrill, including Bache & Co. and Dean Witter & Co. By 1974, according to data from the Center for Research in Security Prices LLC, several of them had dealt losses at least as devastating as Merrill’s.

In 1987, Jane and Joe Investor got invited to join in on the fun of Charles Schwab Corp.’s IPO, when roughly three million of the offering’s eight million shares were reserved for employees and customers of the firm.

Unlike Merrill, which was rescued from the brink of failure in 2008 when

Bank of America Corp.

bought the firm, Schwab went on to generate spectacular long-term performance. Over the full sweep of time since its 1987 IPO, Schwab is up more than 26,500%, or 17.9% annualized. The S&P 500 gained less than 3,500%, or an average of 11.3% annually.

However, Schwab went public in late September 1987. Only 18 trading days later, on Oct. 19, the U.S. stock market took its biggest one-day fall in history, plunging more than 20%.

Schwab’s stock got brutalized. In their first year, Schwab’s shares fell 59.1%. After three years, the market as a whole had gained 0.6% annually; Schwab’s stock lost an annualized average of 6.9%, according to CRSP.

How many of the original buyers in 1987 stuck around long enough to reap the giant rewards that came much later? That’s impossible to know, but the likeliest answer has to be: very few.

Every once in a while, outside investors in a brokerage IPO do well.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

began trading on May 4, 1999. If you’d bought Goldman stock in the IPO and held it ever since, you’d have earned 9.1% a year, versus 7.6% in the S&P 500, according to FactSet.

Yet Goldman was a giant then, as it is now; it was late to the IPO party because it had held on to its partnership structure for so many years. Most brokerage IPOs, like Robinhood’s, occur when the firms are younger and smaller.

That makes them typical. Companies selling shares to the public for the first time tend to be small, with minimal profits; they also require additional invested capital to sustain their rapid growth.

That’s what Savina Rizova, global head of research at Dimensional Fund Advisors, an asset manager in Austin, Texas, calls “a toxic combination of characteristics that points to low expected returns.”

On average, IPOs have severely underperformed seasoned stocks in the long run. And, history suggests, brokerages doing IPOs are better at timing the market for themselves than for you.

Write to Jason Zweig at [email protected]

More from The Intelligent Investor

The brokerage app Robinhood has transformed retail trading. WSJ explains its rise amid a series of legal investigations and regulatory challenges. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Robinhood IPO Is No Giveaway | Sidnaz Blog


Robinhood Markets likes to give away free shares to attract new customers. Its public offering to investors is a different matter.

The offering bears some similarity to recent IPOs such as

Coinbase Global

and

Rocket Cos.,

which made their debut in the midst of crypto and mortgage booms, respectively. Investors had the challenge of trying to chart out a normalized earnings and revenue path. So far, neither of those prior examples have worked out for initial public investors.

Robinhood derives the vast majority of its revenue from trading by its customers, including in cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin. In this topsy-turvy market, it will be quite difficult to forecast what that activity level looks like a year from now. Plus, its primary trading revenue source is payment for order flow, one of the most hotly debated topics in finance and in Washington.

Amid that uncertainty, there is one measure that cuts through a lot of the noise: how much an investor would be paying at the IPO valuation per funded account. That is a way to benchmark Robinhood to established peers in the retail brokerage business.

At the proposed IPO price range set on Monday, a funded Robinhood customer account is worth about $1,500 to $1,600. Contrast that to a long-term average of about $2,000 for E*Trade over the past 15 years, before it was acquired for about $1,800 by Morgan Stanley, according to figures compiled by Christian Bolu of Autonomous Research. Charles Schwab, a much broader wealth- and asset-management business, has traded around $3,600 historically, and is closer to $4,000 today.

Vlad Tenev, co-founder and chief executive officer of Robinhood Markets. It will be Robinhood’s broad appeal that is most vital to justifying the IPO price.



Photo:

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News

So that multiple isn’t by itself wild and suggests that, even if Robinhood has to alter its revenue model, it could still be a viable business just by virtue of the number of customers it has. But it also is giving Robinhood credit for a lot of growth it has yet to achieve. Consider that Robinhood’s typical funded account had about $4,500 worth of assets in custody at the end of the second quarter. The established retail brokers’ typical accounts are well into the six figures.

Yes, Robinhood’s accounts on average trade more. But overall, Robinhood still generates much less revenue out of its customers, in part because they are smaller. In the first quarter, average revenue per user was $137 at Robinhood. By contrast, TD Ameritrade and E*Trade were generating more than $500 around the time they were acquired, according to Autonomous. Charles Schwab was above $600 in the first quarter.

So the per-account price implies that Robinhood will either far better monetize its customers in the future, grow them at a much faster rate, or some combination thereof. Faster growth is much more likely, based on recent history: Schwab added 1.7 million net new brokerage accounts in the second quarter, while Robinhood added 4.5 million funded accounts on net. “Expanding the universe of investors has been, and we expect will continue to be, a significant driver of our market-leading growth,” Robinhood writes in the IPO prospectus.

Meanwhile, per-user revenue trends are already slowing. Preliminary second-quarter results given by Robinhood imply a drop-off in average revenue per user to under $120, with Robinhood noting that, while cryptocurrency and options trading are growing, equities trading activity in the second quarter was lower than it was a year ago.

The company can build on other revenue streams, which include margin loans to customers and cash management. But low pricing is a vital part of the company’s mission to expand its customer base. The company is still building out its securities lending platform, which could generate incremental revenue. In the face of slowing trading activity, though—and that includes crypto in the third quarter, according to the company—it is hard to bank on significant per-user revenue growth in the near future.

So it will be Robinhood’s broad appeal that is most vital to justifying the price. That makes the IPO itself a pivotal moment. Robinhood will be distributing potentially over 20 million shares to its own customers via its own platform. If the deal doesn’t perform well out of the gate for any reason, that could frustrate some of its most engaged customers.

Investors might have to wait for the dust to settle on this offering before thinking about nabbing any Robinhood stock for themselves.

The brokerage app Robinhood has transformed retail trading. WSJ explains its rise amid a series of legal investigations and regulatory challenges as it looks forward to its IPO. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Write to Telis Demos at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Baby-Food Maker Little Spoon Raises $44 Million | Sidnaz Blog


Little Spoon Inc., a direct-to-consumer baby-food company targeting millennial parents, raised $44 million in a venture-capital funding round.

The so-called Series-B financing round values the company at roughly $200 million, people familiar with the matter said. It was led by Valor Equity Partners.

Little Spoon ships organic purées, toddler meals and vitamins to customers, bypassing grocery stores and other distribution outlets. Last year, Little Spoon launched Plates, its meals for toddlers and bigger children. The company also offers a virtual community that provides caregivers with a platform to connect and interact.

“Packaged baby food hasn’t evolved in line with the modern parent,” Chief Executive

Ben Lewis

said in an interview. “It was this glaring void that we couldn’t ignore,” added Mr. Lewis, who co-founded Little Spoon in 2017 with

Lisa Barnett,

Michelle Muller

and

Angela Vranich.

Little Spoon is one of several upstart baby-food companies to jump aboard the organic trend, aiming to attract the growing demographic of millennial parents. Recent reports of high levels of toxic metals in several top baby-food brands opened the door for new competitors focused on safety.

Co-founders Lisa Barnett, Angela Vranich, Michelle Muller and Ben Lewis.



Photo:

Little Spoon Inc.

Little Spoon also emphasizes that it is a mission-driven company. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it has donated more than $100,000 of its products to food pantries and introduced a program to supply the products at cost to first responders and anyone who experienced pandemic-related financial hardship, according to the co-founders.

“It’s exactly the kind of company we like to invest in,” said

Jon Shulkin,

a board member and partner at Valor Equity Partners, which also invested in Little Spoon during its Series A financing round. “They’re solving a problem and doing good work.” He said he is optimistic about the company’s growth prospects because there are “always ways to scale” for makers of baby and children’s food.

Little Spoon said it is growing quickly, delivering seven million meals since the onset of the pandemic out of the 15 million delivered since the company’s founding. Large baby-food makers have had to adapt as some parents make their own and others embrace baby-led-weaning, in which infants are served pieces of real food rather than purées.

While overall food sales surged during pandemic-related shutdowns around the U.S., the baby-food segment didn’t receive the same boost, according to market-research firm IRI. Sales of baby food dropped in the spring of 2020, and though they have climbed since, growth has continued to lag behind the broader food segment.

Write to Corrie Driebusch at [email protected]j.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Space Race, Nasdaq, IBM, Nvidia: What to Watch When the Stock | Sidnaz Blog


To the moon! Well, not quite, but into space at least today for

Jeff Bezos,

the billionaire baron of ecommerce. Also not going to the moon is

Amazon


AMZN -0.67%

stock, though it is 0.4% up premarket on Tuesday morning.

  • One reason for Mr. Bezos’s rocket ride is the more earthly goal of winning government contracts for the kind of less thrilling scientific projects the provide reliable revenue. His Blue Origin company is playing catch-up with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
  • Mr. Musk’s electric vehicle maker

    Tesla,


    TSLA 0.31%

    is getting a bit of a boost Tuesday morning ahead of the open, rising 1% premarket. It is also gaining more attention on the message boards among day traders, according to Topstonks.com. The company reports earnings next Monday and tends to see its stock rise in the days ahead as investors start hoping for exciting announcements.

  • In the wider markets, U.S. stock futures are trending higher ahead of the open following Monday’s broad selloff. S&P 500 futures are up 0.5%, while Dow futures are up 0.6%. Nasdaq-100 futures are up 0.4%
  • Nasdaq the company, not the index, is itself rising premarket, up 1%, after The Wall Street Journal’s exclusive that it will spin out its Private Market for shares in start-ups that trade among some investors before an initial public offering. The business will go into a standalone joint venture company and get investment from three Wall Street banks and SVB Financial Group, a tech specialist bank.
  • Nvidia


    NVDA 15.18%

    is up 0.8% on large volumes following a 15% rise Monday. The shares are up nearly 80% over the past year, putting the chip maker into the top 10 list of U.S. public companies. It also executed its four-for-one stock split overnight, which has given some investors more ways to trade the stock-performance.

  • International Business Machines


    IBM -0.71%

    is up 3.4% ahead of the open on Tuesday after turning in decent second-quarter numbers Monday after the close. The computing group’s efforts to refocus on cloud-based computing and spin off its old-fashioned IT services business is winning fans among investors. At the same time, it has benefitted from companies beginning to invest again as the economy reopens.

IBM reported earnings on Monday..



Photo:

sergio perez/Reuters

Chart of the Day
  • Stocks, commodities and other financial markets took a stumble Monday on growing concerns about the strength of the post-Covid-19 global recovery.

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

UBS Profit Jumps on Wealth Management Boom | Sidnaz Blog


A pedestrian passes a UBS branch in Zurich earlier this month.



Photo:

Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg News

UBS Group AG


UBS -2.22%

posted better-than-expected second-quarter earnings from strong client activity in the world’s buoyant markets.

On Tuesday, Switzerland’s biggest bank said net profit jumped to $2 billion from $1.23 billion a year earlier, outpacing analyst expectations of $1.34 billion. It said wealth clients traded more, pushing transaction revenues 16% higher from a year earlier, and added that recurring fees were 30% higher on their existing trades and products.

At UBS’s investment bank, deal advice for mergers and acquisitions and other corporate transactions pushed global banking revenue 68% higher, helping to offset a 14% decline in market-trading income.

UBS said markets revenue would have been flat but it took an additional $87 million hit the quarter from the late March default by family office Archegos Capital Management. UBS was one of about a half-dozen banks that lent to Archegos to take large, concentrated positions in stocks. The Swiss bank said in April that it had lost $861 million when exiting the trades, most of it booked in the first quarter.

UBS helps the world’s rich manage their wealth and competes with Wall Street banks in investment banking.

On Tuesday, Chief Executive

Ralph Hamers

said wealth clients are investing more with the bank in private markets and in separately managed accounts, adding that they are also freeing up liquidity as a buffer against unforeseen events by refinancing assets and borrowing from the bank.

He said momentum is on UBS’s side and that its strategic choices are paying off. The bank refocused around wealth management a decade ago and pared back its investment bank. It has been less in the limelight than its smaller domestic rival,

Credit Suisse

Group AG, which lost more than $5 billion from the Archegos affair this year.

Write to Margot Patrick at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

William Ackman Needs a Soothing Pitch After Universal Music Drama | Sidnaz Blog


Pershing Square Tontine Holdings had planned a $4 billion purchase of a 10% stake in Universal Music Group.



Photo:

Bing Guan/Bloomberg News

William Ackman’s

blank-check company picked a good target but a poor deal structure. To keep investors happy, both need to be right on a second attempt.

On Monday,

Pershing Square Tontine Holdings


PSTH -1.45%

$4 billion purchase of a 10% stake in Universal Music Group was called off. The world’s biggest record label will be spun off from its French owner

Vivendi

and listed on the Amsterdam stock exchange in September. The SPAC’s investors were offered early exposure to an attractive business at a low valuation.

The deal’s complexity has been part of its undoing. After spending 72% of the SPAC’s cash on the Universal stake, $1.6 billion would be left over for another acquisition. Investors also would get warrants to buy into an additional blank-check deal. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which is scrutinizing SPAC deals more closely these days, said that as more than 40% of its assets would be in a minority stake, Pershing Square Tontine risked becoming an unregistered investment company.

The SPAC’s workaround caused a headache for investors. The Universal shares were to be locked up in a trust for four months, which would trigger a fall in Pershing Square Tontine’s share price—bad news for a sizable chunk of the SPAC’s shareholders who bought the stock on margin. The final nail in the coffin was the SEC’s opinion that the Universal stock purchase wouldn’t meet the New York Stock Exchange’s SPAC rules.

Mr. Ackman still gets his hands on the record label because the

Pershing Square Holdings


PSH -4.85%

hedge fund will buy the stake instead. This way, though, he will tie up a lot more capital in Universal than initially planned. Under the original deal, his fund would have owned a 3% stake but that number could now be closer to 10%.

More pressing is the need to pacify institutional investors and family offices that liked the idea of a stake in Universal and missed out. The deal also was supposed to showcase what the hedge-fund billionaire could accomplish with future blank-check vehicles. It hasn’t been a good start.

Pershing Square Tontine Holdings’ shares are down almost one-fifth since the Universal deal was announced and now trade just in line with their net asset value. Its founder has learned the lesson to keep things simple; the SPAC will do a conventional deal next, according to an investor letter Monday. Investors will be harder to impress the second time around.

Private companies are flooding to special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, to bypass the traditional IPO process and gain a public listing. WSJ explains why some critics say investing in these so-called blank-check companies isn’t worth the risk. Illustration: Zoë Soriano/WSJ

Write to Carol Ryan at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Robinhood IPO Expected to Value Trading App at About $33 Billion | Sidnaz Blog


Menlo Park, Calif.-based Robinhood Markets operates a stock-trading platform for individual investors.



Photo:

olivier douliery/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Trading app Robinhood Markets Inc. said it expects to raise about $2 billion in its initial public offering, which would give it a market value of about $33 billion, according to a securities filing Monday.

Robinhood would sell about 52.4 million shares in the offering, and other stockholders would sell about 2.6 million. At the $40-a-share midpoint of the offering range, Robinhood would raise about $2 billion.

The Menlo Park, Calif.-based company operates a stock-trading platform for individual investors.

In the first quarter of 2021, Robinhood recorded revenue of $522.2 million, the company said in a regulatory filing. It posted a loss of $6.26 a share. In the first quarter of 2020, the company’s net loss was 23 cents a share on revenue of $127.6 million.

The brokerage app Robinhood has transformed retail trading. WSJ explains its rise amid a series of legal investigations and regulatory challenges as it looks forward to its IPO. Photo illustration: Jacob Reynolds/WSJ

Write to Matt Grossman at [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Ackman SPAC Decides Against Buying 10% Stake in Universal Music | Sidnaz Blog


Universal Music’s headquarters in Santa Monica, Calif., earlier this year.



Photo:

Bing Guan/Bloomberg News

Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd.


PSTH -1.81%

, a blank-check company led by hedge-fund manager

William Ackman,

said it won’t proceed with its proposed acquisition of a 10% stake in Universal Music Group and will assign its share-purchase deal to

Pershing Square Holdings Ltd.

Vivendi

SE—Universal’s majority owner—said it approved Pershing Square Tontine’s request to assign its rights and obligations under a June 20 agreement to investment funds with significant economic interests or management positions held by Mr. Ackman.

The French media company said the equity interest eventually acquired in Universal Music will now be between 5% and 10%. If it falls below 10%, Vivendi said it would still sell the additional interest to other investors before the planned spinoff of Universal Music into an Amsterdam-listed company in September.

On June 20, Pershing Square Tontine agreed to buy 10% of the ordinary shares of Universal Music in a deal valuing the world’s largest music company—home to stars including Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Queen and the Beatles—at about $40 billion.

Pershing Square Tontine said its decision to withdraw from the deal was prompted by issues raised by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said its board didn’t believe the deal could have been completed given the SEC’s position.

The blank-check company said its board concluded that assigning its Universal Music stock-purchase deal to Pershing Square was in the best interest of shareholders. Pershing Square Tontine said Pershing Square intends to be a long-term Universal Music shareholder.

Pershing Square Tontine said it would seek a new transaction, which will be structured as a conventional special purpose acquisition company merger. The company said it has 18 months remaining to close a deal.

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Source link

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /