November 17, 2024

Advertising: Seacrest Buys Marketing Agency to Expand Reach

The acquisition, to be announced on Wednesday, reflects Mr. Seacrest’s plan to build a diversified media company on the back of his many day jobs, which include hosting Fox’s “American Idol” and radio shows for Clear Channel. In a telephone interview, he said of the acquisition, “Part of my overall goal in the business is to connect content, brands and consumers. I think that this is a great opportunity to do that.”

Mr. Seacrest already has his own marketing deals. One with Ford Motor resulted in a campaign this year called “Random Acts of Fusion.” Mr. Seacrest is the M.C. for the campaign, appearing in online videos, commercials and Twitter messages.

Mr. Seacrest said he saw more such partnerships on the horizon. Showing up on camera, though, is not the main point of the deal with Civic Entertainment. He said the company’s co-founders, Stuart Ruderfer and David Cohn, would continue to run the company independently in New York.

“They’ll do what they do best,” he said, while he will tap into his connections across industries.

He could, theoretically, line up some of the celebrities he interviews on the radio, or some of the reality stars whose shows he produces for the E! channel, for an event put together by Civic.

Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed. It was conducted through Mr. Seacrest’s new personal investment arm, the Seacrest Global Group, not through an investment fund set up this year by the majority investors in Clear Channel, THL and Bain Capital. That fund, with up to $300 million in commitments, is seeking bigger investments than the one Mr. Seacrest made in Civic.

Mr. Seacrest called the deal the first “of what I hope to be many,” citing an interest in creating a very diversified portfolio.

Mr. Ruderfer said he and Mr. Cohn had been talking with Mr. Seacrest for a few months. “Ryan has a very unique vision for building a new media and entertainment model, and we’re extremely excited to partner up with him on doing that,” he said.

Mr. Ruderfer added, “I think a lot of people have aspired to bring Hollywood together with excellent marketing services. I think this is genuinely fulfilling that promise, and it’s genuinely new in that way,”

Civic, which has 45 employees, has been behind prominent campaigns for clients like CNN, NBC, HBO, AE, and the National Football League. It specializes in so-called experiential marketing, which is based on people going to places or events.

For example, for HBO’s “The Pacific,” the company helped organize a wreath-laying ceremony for war veterans at the World War II Memorial in Washington. For Southwest Airlines, it helped set up a bar and lounge called the Southwest Porch in Bryant Park in New York City. For the History channel’s “Swamp People,” it planted alligators and cypress trees inside the city’s Chelsea Market. It produced a series of restaurant spaces for CNN, the CNN Grill, at the Republican and Democratic conventions and the SXSW technology conference.

Some of its work has involved creating content, a growing area for big brands like the N.F.L., which commissioned Civic to come up with a plan for its Facebook and Twitter pages. For NBC News, Civic helped devise Education Nation, a series of summit meetings that has attracted well-known speakers and has become an annual event.

Something like Education Nation “enhances the brand of NBC News,” Mr. Ruderfer said.

Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, said Mr. Ruderfer and Mr. Cohn had brought “great contacts and great energy” to Education Nation.

Mr. Capus is also a fan of Mr. Seacrest, whose wide-ranging pact with NBC, announced in April, made him a special correspondent on the “Today” show. Mr. Capus said, “I think it’s going to be a terrific pairing.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/media/seacrest-buys-marketing-agency-to-expand-reach.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Train Wreck: The New York Post’s Subway Cover

Robert Stolarik for The New York Times

“It all happened so fast.”

That’s what R. Umar Abbasi, a freelance photographer for The New York Post, said of the fatal subway incident on Monday that he caught with his camera. One man threw another into harm’s way, causing him to be run over by an oncoming train. This last part happened in the blink of a shutter.

But the decision to put the image on the The Post’s cover and frame it with a lurid headline that said “this man is about to die”? That part didn’t happen quickly. The treatment of the photo was driven by a moral and commercial calculus that was sickening to behold. (If the image is not already burned into your skull, it can be found all over the Web, including in The New York Times’s City Room blog. Tut-tutting about a salacious photo here while enjoying the benefits of its replication seems inappropriate.)

And it’s not just the media commentators who are weighing in. Twitter crackled with invective and recriminations. Every once in a while a journalism ethics question actually engages the public, and so it was with the brutally documented death of Ki-Suck Han, 58, of Elmhurst, Queens. Here are some guesses why.

1. Within its four corners, The Post cover treatment neatly embodies everything people hate and suspect about the news media business: not only are journalists bystanders, moral and ethical eunuchs who don’t intervene when danger or evil presents itself, but perhaps they secretly root for its culmination.

2. We are all implicated by this photo, not just the man who took it. The ensuing coverage talked about how “graphic” the image was, but there is nothing graphic about it. Photographs of the dead are graphic, but they are of people on the other side, the ones that are beyond hope. Here there was no blood, no carnage, only someone who is doomed, but still among us. (The photographs of the jumpers from the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center are considered tasteless for the same reason.)

The picture of a man alone on a track in one of the most crowded cities in the world is a reminder that when bad things happen, we are often very much alone. The photographer did not put down his camera and attempt to intervene, but no one else on that platform set aside their fears and chose to act, either. And that indifference to the misery and peril of others is not restricted to that platform, or this city, or this country. It is widespread and endemic, an ugly fact about much of the world.

3. The fear evoked by the photo is primal, the stuff of horrid fairy tales. New Yorkers will see it in acutely personal ways. Subways are a quotidian aspect of life here, but with their close quarters and hurtling trains, the platforms are also potential kill boxes. Does that big scary homeless guy want a quarter or does he want to push me off this platform? More generally, out in the world, public spaces have become fraught. Movie theaters, workplaces and college campuses are common areas that can, and do, become wholesale crime scenes.

4. The image is a kind of crucible of self-analysis. Never mind what the photographer did, what would we do? In that sudden moment, our base impulses emerge. Photographers shoot, heroes declare, and most of us cower. We are not soldiers, expected to engage in selfless acts that trump survival instincts. We are civilians and if called to duty, who among us will accept? (I couldn’t help but think of the four friends who perished in the roiling waters of upstate New York’s Split Rock Falls in 2003, after one slipped in and the others, one by one, tried to save him.)

In the Aurora, Colo., movie shooting incident, some died while shielding others. And it is highly likely that others scrambled over smaller or slower people to flee. The other reason people can’t resist looking (and wish to unsee once they do)? That train is coming for all of us, one way or another. Death comes on its own schedule and we won’t know our time is up until the light of an oncoming train manifests itself.

5. The tabloid values that mark modern news media existence work fine when a celebrity tips over or a rich perpetrator is caught red-handed, but not so much when death is imminent. I’m not immune to the blunt, dirty pleasure of a well-executed tabloid cover, but there were many other images to choose from. Never mind the agency of the photo — it doesn’t matter whether the photographer was using his flash to warn, as he suggested, or documenting the death of a man — once it is the can, it should have stayed there.

Instead, The New York Post milked the death of someone for maximum commercial effect, with a full-page photo inside of his frozen helplessness, replete with helpful pointers to show the train bearing down and, on the Web, a video about the photographer’s experience that was a kind of slow-motion deconstruction. The marginal civic good served by the story — watch yourself on the subway platform — could have been performed in far more honorable ways. He ended up run over twice.

  •  It’s not always simple. When a colleague at The Times jumped from our old building in 2002, The Post ran a photo of the building with a dotted line indicating his descent. People at our shop were appalled, but I found myself in the minority. His act was a very public one, he apparently wanted to send a message, and The Post was merely serving as a conduit. And when The New York Times came under fire in August for running on our Web site an extremely graphic photo of a victim in the Empire State Building shooting, I thought it was appropriate at the time. The victim was not recognizable and the blood that ran from him was a reminder that, unlike the way it is portrayed on television, gun crime is extremely violent. But his family was livid and I wonder how I would have felt if I had known him.

Soon enough, new boundaries will be tested. In an era when most people have a camera in their hand or pocket, mass shootings will be memorialized on cellphone videos and ubiquitous security cameras will dish up fresh horrors. I’d like to think that the people’s right to know will be leavened by the people’s right to live in a world where mayhem is not a commodity.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/train-wreck-the-new-york-posts-subway-cover/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Markets Take a Step Backward

Opinion »

Editorial: Rigging the Financial System

Will authorities really hold banks and bankers accountable for manipulating interest rates?

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Freeport to Buy Plains Exploration and McMoRan

A mine in Indonesia's Papua province operated by Freeport McMoRan Copper  Gold.Muhammad Yamin/ReutersA mine in Indonesia’s Papua province operated by Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold.

Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold said on Wednesday that it would buy two oil and natural gas companies, Plains Exploration and Production and the McMoRan Exploration Company, in a return to the energy business.

The two transactions will create a natural resources titan worth about $60 billion, including debt, and will formally reunite Freeport with McMoRan, the oil exploration company it spun off in 1994.

Under the terms of the deals, Freeport will pay about $6.9 billion in cash and stock for Plains. That offer consists of $25 a share in cash and 0.6531 of a Freeport share, worth about $50 a share based on Tuesday’s closing prices.

Related Links

And Freeport will pay $14.75 a share in cash and 1.15 units of a trust that will hold a 5 percent interest in future production of McMoRan’s deepwater exploration operations. Freeport and Plains together already own about 36 percent of the smaller exploration company.

“This transaction will enable us to add assets with exceptional exploration and development potential to a world-class mining company to create a premier minerals and oil and gas business focused on value creation for shareholders,” James R. Moffett, Freeport’s chairman, said in a statement.

JPMorgan Chase is providing $9.5 billion to help pay for the cash portion of the deal and to repay some of Plains’s existing debt.

Freeport was advised by Credit Suisse and the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen Katz. Plains was advised by Barclays and the law firm Latham Watkins. McMoRan was advised by Evercore Partners and the law firm Weil, Gotshal Manges.

A drilling rig operated by Plains Exploration  Production in the Santa Barbara Channel off the California coast in 2007.Bryan Walton/Santa Maria Times, via Associated PressA drilling rig operated by Plains Exploration and Production in the Santa Barbara Channel off the California coast in 2007.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/freeport-to-buy-plains-exploration-and-mcmoran/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Netflix Reaches Deal to Show New Disney Films in 2016

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, called the deal with Disney Evan Agostini/Associated Press Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, called the deal with Disney “a bold leap forward for Internet television.”

LOS ANGELES — Walt Disney Studios said on Tuesday that it had completed a deal to show films from its Disney, Pixar and Marvel banners on Netflix, replacing a less lucrative pact with Starz.

The agreement is the first time one of Hollywood’s big studios has chosen Web streaming over pay television. Netflix has made similar “output” deals with smaller movie suppliers like DreamWorks Animation and the Weinstein Company. But all of the majors — Disney, Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers, Sony and 20th Century Fox — have stayed with Starz, HBO or Showtime until now.

Library titles like “Dumbo,” “Alice in Wonderland” and “Pocahontas” will become available on Netflix immediately, Disney said. Netflix will begin streaming new release Disney films starting in late 2016, when the current accord with Starz expires. The deal announced on Tuesday includes direct-to-DVD movies.

Financial terms were not disclosed, but analysts estimated that the deal could be worth about $300 million annually for Disney. The deal does not include films from DreamWorks Studios, which has a theatrical distribution arrangement with Disney but relies on Showtime as a pay-TV partner. Nevertheless, the deal will include movies from Lucasfilm, which Disney is acquiring.

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, called the deal “a bold leap forward for Internet television.” Janice Marinelli, president of Disney-ABC Domestic Television, said in a statement, “Netflix continues to meet the demands of its subscribers in today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.”

The so-called pay TV window is one of the entertainment industry’s most important business tools. In the past, Starz, HBO and Showtime paid about $20 million a picture for exclusive rights a few months after films arrive on DVD. But Netflix — capitalizing on a consumer shift to streaming content on computers, tablets and Internet-connected televisions — has been aggressively going after the business by offering more lucrative terms.

With the Disney deal, Netflix will be able to offer customers exclusive access to a pipeline of films that are reliably some of the year’s biggest box-office successes. Netflix has also made it a priority to strengthen its children’s and family offerings.

As for Starz, anything that increases the marketplace clout of Netflix is damaging. Moreover, Starz does not have the original programming strength of HBO or Showtime to fall back on.

Starz will continue to have films from Sony, but the absence of Disney movies will be a hole in its offerings. In a statement on Tuesday, however, Starz said that it had decided to part ways with Disney, not the other way around.

“Our decision not to extend the agreement for Disney output past that time allows us the opportunity to implement our plan to dramatically ramp up our investment in exclusive, premium-quality original series, which will best meet the needs of our distributors and subscribers,” the company said in the statement.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/netflix-bests-starz-in-bid-for-disney-movies/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: After a Quarterly Gain, Pandora Warns of a Loss to Come

Pandora Media, the company behind the Internet radio service Pandora, has enjoyed a meteoric rise in popularity. But investors are concerned about its future.

The company reported $120 million in revenue for its fiscal third quarter, which ended in October, up 60 percent from the same period last year. Pandora also had net income of $2.1 million, or 1 cent a share, matching analysts’ predictions. The company offered 3.6 billion hours of personalized music streams to its users during the quarter, which amounted to 59 million people.

“This quarter exceeded our expectations as we monetized mobile at record levels and grew total mobile revenue 112 percent,” Joe Kennedy, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

But the company also lowered its expectations for the fourth quarter and the fiscal year, warning that it would face a loss of 6 to 9 cents a share, greater than it had earlier expected. In a conference call with analysts, Mr. Kennedy said he anticipated a drop in advertising in January because of concerns about the economy.

Pandora’s stock closed up 5.5 percent on Tuesday, at $9.45, but once its earnings were released the price fell nearly 18 percent in after-hours trading. The stock was down almost 41 percent from its initial offering in June 2011.

The company faces competition from Microsoft, which recently introduced a digital service, Xbox Music; Apple, which is said to be preparing an Internet radio service, although Apple has not commented on those reports; Spotify and others.

Pandora’s licensing costs also weighed on the company. In the third quarter, it paid $65.7 million, or about 55 percent of revenue, in “content acquisition costs,” which include music royalties. The company pays a fraction of a cent in royalties for every stream it serves, which in recent quarters amounted to 50 to 60 percent of its revenue.

Pandora has supported the Internet Radio Fairness Act, a bill that would change how its royalty rates are set (most likely lowering them). But the bill got a cool reception last week from members of a House Judiciary subcommittee.

The bill was expected to expire with the end of the current Congress, but a version of it could be introduced next year. Music groups favored a bill that would also include long-sought changes the royalties paid by terrestrial radio broadcasters.

“It was a huge win to have a hearing on our issue, especially during a lame-duck session,” Harvey Valentine of the Internet Radio Fairness Coalition, which includes Pandora, said late Monday in response to questions about the bill. “The discussion has started in earnest, and that is a big step forward.”

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/after-a-quarterly-gain-pandora-warns-of-a-loss-to-come/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Deal Professor: For CVC Capital, Formula One’s Perils Extend Beyond the Racecourse

Harry Campbell

Fasten your seat belts. The deal-making for the $10 billion Formula One auto racing empire has already taken more than a few sharp turns as a result of accusations of bribery, collusion and corruption.

And the race is not over. A private equity firm is now challenging Formula One’s 2005 sale in a lawsuit filed in New York.

Formula One has long been identified with Bernie Ecclestone, an 82-year-old Englishman referred to in the British tabloids as “F-1 Supremo.” He built the business, starting as a trader of motorcycle parts. Yet the controlling stake in the Formula One companies had been held by the German media magnate Leo Kirch.

Deal Professor
View all posts


In 2002, Mr. Kirch defaulted on loans secured by the stake, and three banks — JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers and BayernLB, a bank controlled by the German state of Bavaria — became the owners of Formula One.

Not equipped to run a racing empire, the banks probably just wished to sell the stake at a face-saving price. But as long as they owned it, they needed Mr. Ecclestone to operate the business. And Mr. Ecclestone just wanted to be in control.

A standoff existed until 2005, when CVC Capital Partners, a British private equity firm, announced that it had acquired the banks’ stakes for $1.25 billion. For good measure, CVC also paid hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire part of the Formula One interest held by a Liechtenstein trust named Bambino, which had been set up to benefit the Ecclestone family.

The Formula One investment has proved spectacularly successful. Since its purchase, CVC has paid itself $2 billion in dividends, sold part of Formula One in May for $2.5 billion and, according to the data provider Standard Poor’s Capital IQ, still owns a 42.4 percent stake. This year, Formula One filed for an initial public offering on the Singapore stock exchange, with an intended valuation of as much as $10 billion. Mr. Ecclestone’s net worth is estimated at $2.4 billion.

But this enormously rewarding investment may now be in jeopardy.

In 2011, the German media reported accusations that the deputy chief of BayernLB, Gerhard Gribkowsky, had taken a $44 million bribe from Mr. Ecclestone in connection with the sale of Formula One. Mr. Gribkowsky was responsible for the disposition of the bank’s 47.4 percent interest in Formula One.

Mr. Gribkowsky was charged with bribery, embezzlement and tax evasion. At the banker’s trial in Munich last year, Mr. Ecclestone testified that Mr. Gribkowsky was “shaking him down,” and that the payment was made to prevent Mr. Gribkowsky from claiming to the British tax authorities that Mr. Ecclestone controlled the Bambino trust, something that would invalidate the ability of the trust to hold the Formula One stake tax-free.

Mr. Ecclestone denied that he controlled the trust, but said he and the trust made the payment to ensure the banker’s silence. Mr. Gribkowsky was convicted on charges of tax evasion, bribery and embezzlement this year and sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. But that was not the end of the legal mess.

Last month, Bluewaters Communications Holdings, which in 2005 was a competing bidder for Formula One, sued Mr. Ecclestone, CVC and BayernLB in New York State Supreme Court.

Bluewaters claims that Mr. Ecclestone’s payment was made in order to have Mr. Gribkowsky steer the sale of Formula One to CVC, Mr. Ecclestone’s favored buyer. Bluewaters was backed in its bid by $1 billion in financing from Apollo Global Management and King Street Capital Management.

Bluewaters contends that it bid $1 billion for the stakes held by three banks, less than what CVC paid. Yet the firm says it also offered to pay “10 percent more” than any other bona fide offer. In other words, Bluewaters agreed to outbid the highest bidder. It was a crazy, aggressive strategy that few bidders would even dare to undertake, and it might be that Mr. Gribkowsky and the other banks simply did not take the bid seriously.

But in its complaint, Bluewaters said its offer had been ignored because Mr. Ecclestone did not trust Apollo, which he viewed as being too hard to work for, and because of his preference for CVC’s bid. Moreover, Bluewaters claimed BayernLB had paid Mr. Ecclestone $41.4 million from the funds it received from CVC in order to then pay Mr. Gribkowsky to steer the bid to CVC.

A representative for CVC did not respond to requests for comment. But Mr. Ecclestone has told Pitpass, a racing news Web site, that the money was paid to him for an indemnity from him for any mistakes in Formula One’s financial records, not as a payment for Mr. Gribkowsky.

Bluewaters is claiming at least $650 million in damages, the lost profit it would have earned had it bought Formula One. And there are others who appear to believe the payment to Mr. Gribkowsky was for more than silence.

At Mr. Gribkowsky’s sentencing, the judge stated that “in this process we assume the driving force was Mr. Ecclestone,” a sentiment also expressed during trial by the prosecutor, who asserted that Mr. Ecclestone was an “accomplice in an act of bribery.”

On the heels of Mr. Gribkowsky’s conviction, BayernLB has demanded that Mr. Ecclestone pay it hundreds of millions of dollars to reimburse it for its losses related to the payment.

German authorities and British tax officials are reportedly investigating, though Mr. Ecclestone has not been accused of any wrongdoing in Germany or Britain.

In response to a request to Mr. Ecclestone for comment, his office said he was traveling and could not be reached before deadline.

Mr. Ecclestone, an outsize personality, built the Formula One franchise over decades. It is hard to envision any situation in which he would willingly give up control of his baby.

Still, the accusations show that something went terribly awry in the sale of Formula One.

As the investigations gather steam, it is unclear what will happen to the company. In large measure, Formula One is Mr. Ecclestone. It is a league dependent on race organizers, many of whom are Mr. Ecclestone’s friends and peers. If he is not involved to orchestrate the league, there is no clear successor to manage these relationships.

Formula One acknowledged in its Singapore I.P.O. prospectus that was highly dependent on Mr. Ecclestone. Market turmoil in June led Formula One to abandon its initial offering. And Mr. Ecclestone is still intimately involved: the Bambino trust holds 8.5 percent of Formula One, and he owns 5.3 percent.

Formula One, with more than 30 subsidiaries and intricate relationships with race sponsors, has been criticized for its complex ownership structure. Now it is the ownership itself that is coming under attack.

This is a troubled time for CVC and Formula One. They risk losing Mr. Ecclestone as they become embroiled in multiple investigations. And it will certainly be much harder to take the company public or sell it.

Ultimately, though, this is a lesson in deal-making and how the machinations surrounding any sale can lead those involved to extreme measures, even possibly illegal ones. And when the deal-making is in the billions and all dependent on one man, there is even more room for foolhardy errors, a pile-up that can only come back to haunt those involved, as CVC may be finding out.


Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/hazards-of-formula-one-extend-beyond-the-racecourse/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: HSBC Sells Stake in Chinese Insurer for $9.4 Billion

HONG KONG — HSBC Holdings, one of Europe’s biggest banks, said Wednesday it would sell its entire stake in a leading Chinese insurer to a Thai conglomerate for 72.7 billion Hong Kong dollars ($9.4 billion.)

HSBC said it would sell its 15.6 percent stake in Ping An Insurance, based in Shenzhen, to the Charoen Pokphand Group, controlled by the Thai billionaire Dhanin Chearavanont, in a deal to be financed partly by the China Development Bank, a policy lender wholly owned by the state of China.

HSBC headquarters in Hong Kong.Bobby Yip/ReutersHSBC headquarters in Hong Kong.

HSBC has been shedding assets to cut costs and streamline its business, and at the same time bolstering its balance sheet in the face of tighter global capital requirements for banks. Since Stuart T. Gulliver took over as chief executive at the beginning of 2011, the bank, which is based in London, has sold more than 40 noncore assets and has booked about $4 billion in gains on those sales this year alone.

HSBC disclosed last month that it was in talks over a potential sale of its Ping An stake, which it started building in 2002, and said Wednesday it expected to book a post-tax gain of $2.6 billion on completion of the deal with the Thai company.

‘‘This transaction represents further progress in the execution of the group’s strategy,’’ Mr. Gulliver said in a statement announcing the sale. ‘‘China remains a key market for the group.’’

Founded in Hong Kong and Shanghai almost 150 years ago, HSBC currently operates 133 outlets across 33 branch offices in mainland China. After the Ping An stake sale it will retain minority investments in several Chinese lenders, including a 19.9 percent stake in the Bank of Communications that is worth around $10 billion at current share prices, a stake in Industrial Bank, a midtier institution based in Fujian Province, and an 8 percent stake in the Bank of Shanghai.

The two-part Ping An transaction will see Charoen Pokphand, a conglomerate with businesses ranging from distribution of agricultural products like fresh eggs to operating one of the world’s biggest chains of 7-11 convenience stores, purchase 1.2 billion Ping An shares from HSBC at a price of 59 Hong Kong dollars ($7.61) apiece.

HSBC said it would transfer 21 percent of the shares to the Thai group on Friday. The sale of the remaining 79 percent of the shares at the same price is being financed partly with cash and partly by a loan from the China Development Bank to Charoen Pokphand, and the transfer of those shares is expected to be completed by Jan. 7, contingent on receiving approval from the China Insurance Regulatory Commission.

Shares in Ping An rose 4 percent to 60 Hong Kong dollars in late morning trading in Hong Kong on Wednesday following the announcement — exceeding the stake sale price by 1 dollar in a sign investors are confident the transaction will go ahead. Shares in HSBC rose 1 percent to 79.50 Hong Kong dollars by late morning, and are up around 35 percent in the year to date.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/hsbc-sells-stake-in-chinese-insurer-for-9-4-billion/?partner=rss&emc=rss

To Fight Climate Change, College Students Take Aim at the Endowment Portfolio

As they consider how to ratchet up their campaign, the students suddenly find themselves at the vanguard of a national movement.

In recent weeks, college students on dozens of campuses have demanded that university endowment funds rid themselves of coal, oil and gas stocks. The students see it as a tactic that could force climate change, barely discussed in the presidential campaign, back onto the national political agenda.

“We’ve reached this point of intense urgency that we need to act on climate change now, but the situation is bleaker than it’s ever been from a political perspective,” said William Lawrence, a Swarthmore senior from East Lansing, Mich.

Students who have signed on see it as a conscious imitation of the successful effort in the 1980s to pressure colleges and other institutions to divest themselves of the stocks of companies doing business in South Africa under apartheid.

A small institution in Maine, Unity College, has already voted to get out of fossil fuels. Another, Hampshire College in Massachusetts, has adopted a broad investment policy that is ridding its portfolio of fossil fuel stocks.

“In the near future, the political tide will turn and the public will demand action on climate change,” Stephen Mulkey, the Unity College president, wrote in a letter to other college administrators. “Our students are already demanding action, and we must not ignore them.”

But at colleges with large endowments, many administrators are viewing the demand skeptically, saying it would undermine their goal of maximum returns in support of education. Fossil fuel companies represent a significant portion of the stock market, comprising nearly 10 percent of the value of the Russell 3000, a broad index of 3,000 American companies.

No school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks. At Harvard, which holds the largest endowment in the country at $31 billion, the student body recently voted to ask the school to do so. With roughly half the undergraduates voting, 72 percent of them supported the demand.

“We always appreciate hearing from students about their viewpoints, but Harvard is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels,” Kevin Galvin, a university spokesman, said by e-mail.

Several organizations have been working on some version of a divestment campaign, initially focusing on coal, for more than a year. But the recent escalation has largely been the handiwork of a grass-roots organization, 350.org, that focuses on climate change, and its leader, Bill McKibben, a writer turned advocate. The group’s name is a reference to what some scientists see as a maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million. The level is now about 390, an increase of 41 percent since before the Industrial Revolution.

Mr. McKibben is touring the country by bus, speaking at sold-out halls and urging students to begin local divestment initiatives focusing on 200 energy companies. Many of the students attending said they were inspired to do so by an article he wrote over the summer in Rolling Stone magazine, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math.”

Speaking recently to an audience at the University of Vermont, Mr. McKibben painted the fossil fuel industry as an enemy that must be defeated, arguing that it had used money and political influence to block climate action in Washington. “This is no different than the tobacco industry — for years, they lied about the dangers of their industry,” Mr. McKibben said.

Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, said that continued use of fossil fuels was essential for the country’s economy, but that energy companies were investing heavily in ways to emit less carbon dioxide.

In an interview, Mr. McKibben said he recognized that a rapid transition away from fossil fuels would be exceedingly difficult. But he said strong government policies to limit emissions were long overdue, and were being blocked in part by the political power of the incumbent industry.

Mr. McKibben’s goal is to make owning the stocks of these companies disreputable, in the way that owning tobacco stocks has become disreputable in many quarters. Many colleges will not buy them, for instance.

Mr. McKibben has laid out a series of demands that would get the fuel companies off 350.org’s blacklist. He wants them to stop exploring for new fossil fuels, given that they have already booked reserves about five times as large as scientists say society can afford to burn. He wants them to stop lobbying against emission policies in Washington. And he wants them to help devise a transition plan that will leave most of their reserves in the ground while encouraging lower-carbon energy sources.

“They need more incentive to make the transition that they must know they need to make, from fossil fuel companies to energy companies,” Mr. McKibben said.

Most college administrations, at the urging of their students, have been taking global warming seriously for years, spending money on steps like cutting energy consumption and installing solar panels.

The divestment demand is so new that most administrators are just beginning to grapple with it. Several of them, in interviews, said that even though they tended to agree with students on the seriousness of the problem, they feared divisive boardroom debates on divestment.

That was certainly the case in the 1980s, when the South African divestment campaign caused bitter arguments across the nation.

Brent Summers contributed reporting from Burlington, Vt.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/energy-environment/to-fight-climate-change-college-students-take-aim-at-the-endowment-portfolio.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

In Archstone Sale, Equity Residential and AvalonBay Divide Spoils

So it was not surprising when Equity Residential, the apartment building behemoth where Mr. Zell is chairman, announced last week that it would be the majority partner in a $16 billion deal, including the assumption of $9.5 billion in debt, to acquire Archstone, based in Englewood, Colo.

The deal, expected to close in the first quarter of next year, is the biggest real estate transaction since the Blackstone Group completed its $26 billion purchase of Hilton Hotels in November 2007, according to Real Capital Analytics, a New York research firm.

More surprising was the disclosure that Equity Residential had approached its biggest publicly traded rival, AvalonBay Communities, of Arlington, Va., last January to become its minority partner in the deal. The two companies, both real estate investment trusts, or REITs, worked together to split Archstone’s portfolio of more than 45,000 rental units as well as its development and land sites. Under the terms of the deal, AvalonBay will acquire 40 percent of Archstone.

The acquisition comes at a time when shares of once-red-hot multifamily REITs have softened even though rents and occupancy remain strong. Analysts say, however, that the market is overreacting to a slight slowdown in rent growth.

In Archstone, the buyers are getting a company that commands the highest rent among large-scale apartment companies, according to Green Street Advisors, of Newport Beach, Calif. Sixty-nine percent of Archstone’s properties are considered top quality, Green Street Advisors said, compared with 49 percent for Equity Residential and 45 percent for AvalonBay. Archstone pioneered the use of sophisticated software — much like the kind used by airlines and hotels — to keep buildings full at the highest possible rents.

In a conference call with investors last week, executives of Equity Residential and AvalonBay said the Archstone properties would complement their existing portfolios, enabling both companies to grow in a way that would not be possible with incremental deals. For Equity Residential, the deal will accelerate its long-term efforts to get out of real estate markets where it is easy for developers to keep putting up new buildings. The company plans to sell its properties in Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix and Jacksonville.

Like the acquiring companies, Archstone is concentrated in places where zoning laws, high land costs and antidevelopment sentiment make it more challenging to build. The acquisition “allows each of us to get more of what we wanted than either of us could have gotten on our own,” Timothy J. Naughton, chief executive at AvalonBay, said on the call.

AvalonBay, itself the product of a merger, has been known mainly as a developer, while Equity Residential has grown mainly through acquisitions. But Equity Residential will acquire four of Archstone’s current development projects, to AvalonBay’s three, and 15 sites to be developed in the future. AvalonBay will take on just three land parcels.

The executives said each company got exactly what it wanted. Mr. Naughton said that his company would pick up 23 additional buildings in Southern California, a market that AvalonBay views as very promising.

David J. Neithercut, chief executive of Equity Residential, said the deal would increase the company’s holdings in San Francisco by 48 percent and Boston by 41 percent. “These have been extremely challenging markets in which to increase our exposure,” he said.

Executives from Equity Residential and AvalonBay declined requests for interviews. Robert M. White Jr., president of Real Capital Analytics, predicted that in the near future, other REITs are likely to grow in the same way. “The existing REITs have tremendous access to capital — capital a private owner can’t get,” he said. “That really favors some of the bigger REITs getting even bigger.”

While Equity Residential and AvalonBay were devising plans to carve up Archstone over the last year, Lehman Holdings, the owner of Archstone, was also pursuing an alternative strategy to take the company public. Archstone had a long history as a public company when Lehman Brothers and Tishman Speyer bought it in 2007, in a $22 billion deal that ultimately helped bring about Lehman’s downfall.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/realestate/commercial/in-archstone-sale-equity-residential-and-avalonbay-divide-spoils.html?partner=rss&emc=rss