0J2R.L - Alstom SA

YHD - YHD Delayed price. Currency in USD
8,072,000,000.00
+18.30 (+0.00%)
At close: 6:07PM EDT
Stock chart is not supported by your current browser
Previous closeN/A
YTD returnN/A
Expense ratio (net)N/A
CategoryN/A
Last cap gainN/A
Morningstar ratingN/A
Morningstar risk ratingN/A
Sustainability rating
Net assetsN/A
Beta (5Y monthly)N/A
YieldN/A
5y average returnN/A
Holdings turnoverN/A
Last dividendN/A
Average for categoryN/A
Inception dateN/A
  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Italian banking M&A is getting real!

    You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan. It looks Italian banking M&A is finally happening after the country's top lender Intesa Sanpaolo launched a surprise 4.9 billion euro bid for rival UBI Banca.

  • Germany's $93 Billion Train Project Looks Fantastic, for France
    Bloomberg

    Germany's $93 Billion Train Project Looks Fantastic, for France

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- In 2014 the French manufacturer Alstom SA was burning cash, its debt was rising and it was under investigation in the U.S. for alleged bribery. By selling its sprawling energy division to its better capitalized rival General Electric Co. the following year, Alstom shed 70% of its revenue, paid down borrowings, and refocused on its remaining business: building trains. In hindsight, it played a blinder.Five years later Alstom is involved in another transformational deal, only this time it’s in the driving seat, while Canadian manufacturer Bombardier Inc. is the one in need of emergency balance sheet help, having burned through cash because of delayed aircraft projects and mismanaged rail contracts.On Monday the Canadian conglomerate completed a downsizing that’s every bit as drastic as Alstom’s was. The French manufacturer has agreed to pay about 6 billion euros ($6.5 billion) for Bombardier’s rail activities, which account for about half of the Canadian company’s sales. Alstom will own a globe-spanning rail business with 15.5 billion euros of combined sales and a 75 billion-euro order backlog. Having already announced an exit from commercial aviation, Bombardier will be left to focus on making private jets.The fossil-power assets that Alstom parted with in 2015 were hurt not long afterward by the rise of solar and wind power, forcing GE to book billions of dollars of impairments. GE is now mulling a sale of the steam turbine business. There’s reason to think Alstom’s trains acquisition will be a better deal than the one secured by the Americans.Unlike gas turbines, rail demand is booming because of urbanization and climate fears. Germany, where Bombardier’s train unit has its headquarters, plans to invest an astonishing 86 billion euros ($93 billion) in expanding and modernizing its railways by 2030. As long as Bombardier’s rail contracts aren’t in a worse state than is known publicly, and competition authorities agree to the takeover, Alstom should do fine.At first glance, it’s surprising that these two big train companies are stitching together a deal so soon after the European Commission blocked Alstom’s attempt to join with Siemens AG’s rail unit.  Alstom’s willingness to endure the approval process again attests to the new deal’s attractions and the more limited risk of it being blocked. While Alstom and Bombardier both have large European businesses, Bombardier isn’t a big player in European signalling or very high-speed trains, where the Commission’s antitrust worries are most acute. While getting bigger will help Alstom compete against Chinese rail colossus CRRC, that’s not the main appeal.Bombardier’s rail unit generated a derisory 0.8% operating return on sales in 2019 after it screwed up several large contracts. But Alstom is confident things will improve with better management; until recently Bombardier’s profit margins were superior to Alstom’s. Meanwhile, Bombardier’s installed fleet of about 100,000 vehicles will provide lucrative servicing work.Including assumed liabilities, Alstom is paying about 12 times Bombardier’s historic adjusted operating profit, in line with similar transactions. Alstom’s own shares trade on more than 17 times operating profit, according to Bloomberg data. It is acquiring a business with similar revenue, while paying a lot less than its own 11 billion-euro market capitalization.Alstom’s share price has more than doubled since 2016 thanks to strong orders and those better margins. That explains why it’s funding most of the transaction with equity, rather than debt. Alstom’s shareholders will be asked to contribute 2 billion euros via a rights issue, with a bigger chunk coming from Canadian pension fund Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (CDPQ), which will have an 18% stake in the combined company.About 400 million euros in promised yearly cost savings — worth about 3 billion euros to Alstom shareholders — won’t depend much on plant closures, which can be politically difficult and expensive. That’s reassuring for investors and employees.For Bombardier, the benefits don’t look as impressive, reflecting the pressure to sell. The transaction lets it shift about $1 billion of pension liabilities to Alstom but Bombardier must pay to retire some convertible stock that it sold to CDPQ back in 2015. This means it will receive only about $4.5 billion of net proceeds to help pay down its $9 billion debt pile. Net indebtedness should decline to about $2.5 billion, or about 2.5 times the Ebitda it expects to generate from its remaining business aviation activities.Such leverage is still ample for an aerospace company, albeit one with a refreshed lineup of private jets and a $14 billion order backlog. Unlike trains, corporate aircraft have a more uncertain future in an era of climate-related flight shame. Still, the lesson of Alstom’s recent history is that it’s possible to shrink and thrive. On an investor call this week, Alstom’s senior managers sounded like they couldn’t believe their luck in getting hold of Bombardier trains given such a rosy demand outlook. They shouldn’t celebrate just yet. When GE announced its takeover of Alstom’s energy business in 2014, Siemens AG prepared a counterbid. Siemens also has history with Bombardier, having held talks about a possible combination of their rail businesses in 2017. For now, there’s no sign of a rerun — the antitrust hurdles are off-putting — but the Germans will be watching closely.To contact the author of this story: Chris Bryant at cbryant32@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis 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.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-On Our Radar: HSBC, Glencore, Italian banks and Alstom

    You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan. After hitting fresh highs yesterday, futures point to a lower opening for European bourses this morning after tech behemoth Apple said it will miss its revenue guidance as the coronavirus outbreak slowed production as well as demand in China.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-European banks are killing it

    * Wall Street closed for Washington's Birthday Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters. You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Luxury and virus: Not just about Chinese shoppers

    * Wall Street closed for Washington's Birthday Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters. You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-STOXX at new record: Now what?

    * Wall Street closed for Washington's Birthday Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters. You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan. After failing four times to break above the 400-points threshold over the last 20 years, the STOXX 600 has finally made it and by a decent margin!

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Euro currency tailwinds? Beware of what you wish for!

    * FTSE 100 down 1.4% dragged down by oil stocks, Centrica Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters. You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan. The euro has hit a significant milestone this week falling against the dollar to a May 2017 low, with the move inevitably raising the question of what could this mean for European companies' earnings outlook.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-ESG winners: when zero plays a big role

    * FTSE 100 down 1.5% dragged down by oil stocks, Centrica Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters. You can share your thoughts with Thyagaraju Adinarayan (thyagaraju.adinarayan@tr.com), Joice Alves (joice.alves@tr.com), Julien Ponthus (julien.ponthus@tr.com) in London and Danilo Masoni (danilo.masoni@tr.com) in Milan.

  • Is Alstom SA (EPA:ALO) A High Quality Stock To Own?
    Simply Wall St.

    Is Alstom SA (EPA:ALO) A High Quality Stock To Own?

    One of the best investments we can make is in our own knowledge and skill set. With that in mind, this article will...

  • Bloomberg

    Europe's Ballyhooed “Industrial Strategy” Might Be a Disaster

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- The European Union is getting close to unveiling a ballyhooed “industrial strategy,” the better to give the continent’s companies a leg up in competing against American and Chinese rivals. Not so fast. Based on what’s leaked so far, half of the proposals sound reasonable, but the other half could prove disastrous. It’s not too late to rethink.This latest push for an industrial strategy started last year, after the EU’s antitrust czar, Margrethe Vestager, wisely blocked a rail merger between two manufacturing giants, Alstom SA of France and Siemens AG of Germany, because their combined market power would’ve been bad for customers. Predictably, France, with its long history of coddling “national champions,” complained.More surprisingly, so did Germany, which has a tradition that favors tough competition law and otherwise eschews state intervention. What changed minds in Berlin was the perceived competitive threat from China. It would be naive for Europe not to nurse its own continental champions, Chancellor Angela Merkel said.This vogue for European champions is the product of flawed logic. It’s Eurocrat code for letting government officials, in Brussels or national capitals, designate specific companies or technologies as “strategic.” As the bureaucrats then mete out their largess, they fall into predictable mental traps.First, they tend to confuse size with strength, when it’s often small and obscure niche firms, such as the appropriately named “hidden champions” in Germany’s Mittelstand, that have the best shot at becoming globally competitive. Second, they assume that they’re better than private investors at knowing which firms and technologies will prevail. They’re wrong. The market is usually better at picking winners, and it’s always better at spotting losers and pulling money out of failing ventures that politicians want to keep on life support.What happens in practice is that the alleged champions become lobbying machines that seek privileges at the expense of taxpayers, smaller rivals and consumers. This is one of China’s big problems, and one reason why its state-owned enterprises haven’t blossomed even more. Ironically, Europe should panic only if China ever drops its industrial policy.What’s true for companies also applies to technologies. Brussels has set itself a laudable goal of becoming carbon neutral, but keeps misdefining its role as allocator of capital, rather than mere regulator. For example, the EU has just decided to put billions of taxpayer euros into a pot that also includes money from BMW AG, BASF SE, Fortum Oyj and others, to pay for those companies to build lithium-ion batteries for cars. If it’s a good investment, why can’t they do it with private capital alone? If it’s bad, why do it at all? And how did Brussels even decide that batteries are more “strategic” than, say, fuel cells or something else?The EU would be on firmer ground if it just stuck to supporting basic research. That’s where market failures are common, because boffins often have trouble raising funds for breakthroughs that could benefit entire industries rather than individual firms. As the internet once sprang out of a project by the U.S. Department of Defense, tomorrow’s green tech or artificial intelligence could come out of labs funded partially by the EU. But it’s the scientists who should choose what to research.By far the best industrial policy, however, is simply to focus all of the EU’s energy on completing two existing but unfinished projects. One is the so-called single market, the other the stalled integration of the EU’s disparate capital markets. The U.S. and China offer home-grown firms huge domestic markets to expand into, and the U.S. also provides deep and liquid troves of capital for that purpose. The EU doesn’t.The EU may be one market for goods, from toothpaste to MRI machines. But in services it just isn’t. Just ask a Belgian pharmacist hoping to move to Germany, or a Danish lawyer wanting to practice in Italy. Or imagine how much better cellphones would work if operators competed across the whole EU. A single market in services, moreover, is crucial for the development of fintechs and 5G, and in turn essential to progress in the “internet of things” and AI.A capital markets union worthy of the name is just as important. Thanks to America’s sophisticated finance markets, U.S. companies, from startups to behemoths, have easy access to cheap capital. By contrast, firms in the EU (excluding the U.K.) tend to get money from banks instead of venture capital, bond or equity markets. The money is there, but it’s divided into many national pots, so the cost of capital and hassle of raising it is unnecessarily high. Cross-border capital flows in the EU have been pretty flat since the 2008 financial crisis.So Brussels should get busy working down a long and unsexy list, from harmonizing 27 different insolvency and bankruptcy codes (a prerequisite for a common bond market) to re-regulating life insurers so they can invest across the whole EU. That way, Europe’s firms can tap into affordable funding to invent and build the things that will make them global champions.Brexit should be a wake-up call. The U.K. was usually able to deflect the worst ideas (often from France) about European industrial policy. And it was the only EU member with a top-notch capital market. Now the 27 other members must figure out alone how to stay competitive. In doing so, the EU should resist jettisoning its proven liberal principles for a crude economic nationalism. Europe won’t beat China by becoming Chinese.To contact the author of this story: Andreas Kluth at akluth1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Andreas Kluth is a member of Bloomberg's editorial board. He was previously editor in chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for the Economist. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Bombardier and ThyssenKrupp: A Tale of Two Industrial Calamities
    Bloomberg

    Bombardier and ThyssenKrupp: A Tale of Two Industrial Calamities

    (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 cbryant32@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis 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.

  • Manchester United Is the General Electric of Football
    Bloomberg

    Manchester United Is the General Electric of Football

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Manchester United Plc is the General Electric Co. of soccer.Both are storied giants used to dominating their respective fields, who enjoyed their heyday in the 1990s. In Alex Ferguson and Jack Welch respectively, they had dominant leaders who set an all-but-impossible standard to follow (even if there are questions about what they left to their unfortunate successors). And in recent years, both have a track record of poor capital allocation that has seen them underperform their rivals.Where Man Utd has spent hundreds of millions of pounds over the past eight years buying players such as French midfielder Paul Pogba and Belgian attacker Romelu Lukaku, GE went on a spending spree that included the 12.4 billion-euro ($13.8 billion) acquisition of Alstom SA’s power generation business. That deal’s entire value was ultimately written down.When Jeff Immelt took over as GE’s chief executive officer in 2001, it was the biggest company in the S&P 500. Over his 16-year tenure, he spent some $200 billion buying companies, yet shareholders enjoyed annual returns of just 0.5%. In the same period, the S&P 500 was averaging returns of 7.4% a year.Man Utd is much the same. After winning 12 English Premier League titles in 20 years, the club has won just one championship since its 2012 initial public offering. That’s even as it spent a net 740 million pounds ($965 million) through June 2019 buying new players. In the same period, its bitter rival Liverpool FC spent spent less than half that amount, yet was crowned European champion last year and is running away with the Premier League this season.Soccer fans will argue all day that their club owners under-invest in the playing squad to milk the club for cash. Man Utd is owned by the American Glazer family and chants of “Glazers Out” are regularly heard at the team’s Old Trafford stadium. Fans accuse them of leveraging up the club and keeping the IPO proceeds for themselves.The story for investors is just as grim. Since the IPO, Man Utd has returned 5.8% a year. Italy’s Juventus Football Club SpA, Germany’s Borussia Dortmund GmbH and AFC Ajax NV in the Netherlands, all publicly traded, have averaged returns of 22% in the same period.Adding to the ignominy, the consulting firm Deloitte expects revenue at Man Utd, which has long challenged Spain’s Real Madrid and Barcelona for the title of the world’s most valuable soccer team, to fall as much as 11% this year, as failure to qualify for the European Champions League hurts sales. That could allow domestic rivals Manchester City FC and Liverpool to overtake it, knocking the Red Devils off the top spot in England for the first time since Deloitte began its Money League report on soccer 23 years ago.The problem isn’t that Man Utd has skimped on player investment — the numbers show that it hasn’t, at least in recent years. But it has invested poorly. A useful point of comparison is Juventus, which occupies a similar status in Italy, having won more Italian championships, known as Scudettos, than any other team.After the Turin-based club, run by the same Agnelli family that controls Fiat Chrysler Automotive NV, sold Pogba to Man Utd for 89 million pounds, it reinvested the proceeds in a string of players who subsequently led the team to the final of the Champions League, Europe’s top club competition. In the 12 months after Pogba’s departure, Juventus’s share price climbed 141%, although admittedly this was from a very low starting point.Since the Italian team signed Cristiano Ronaldo, a five-time winner of the FIFA Ballon d’Or award for the world’s best player, for 100 million euros in 2018, stock increases have added almost 800 million euros to its market capitalization. That’s a very good return on investment, regardless of how Ronaldo plays.The comforting news for Man Utd is that it differs from GE in one key respect: its problems are easier to solve. In aviation, power generation, and oil and gas equipment, GE makes products for markets that face an extremely uncertain future. The Manchester giant just needs to invest its capital more shrewdly. The best way to do that is to improve its long-term recruitment strategy, and for that it will need more effective management structures in place. Ed Woodward, the club’s executive vice-chairman, is the man in the firing line for increasingly angry fans. Immelt would no doubt commiserate.\--With assistance from Elaine He.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at awebb25@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Alex Webb is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe's technology, media and communications industries. He previously covered Apple and other technology companies for Bloomberg News in San Francisco.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.

  • Is Alstom SA's (EPA:ALO) Capital Allocation Ability Worth Your Time?
    Simply Wall St.

    Is Alstom SA's (EPA:ALO) Capital Allocation Ability Worth Your Time?

    Today we are going to look at Alstom SA (EPA:ALO) to see whether it might be an attractive investment prospect...

  • Is Alstom SA's (EPA:ALO) CEO Paid Enough Relative To Peers?
    Simply Wall St.

    Is Alstom SA's (EPA:ALO) CEO Paid Enough Relative To Peers?

    In 2016 Henri Poupart-Lafarge was appointed CEO of Alstom SA (EPA:ALO). First, this article will compare CEO...

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Closing snapshot: Not a bad day

    * Earnings drive top movers Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters and anchored today by Julien Ponthus. European stocks edged higher today as investors found some comfort on a scaling-back of recession bets amid optimism about a China-U.S. trade deal. With this string of not-great but good-enough news, the Euro stocks index hit its highest since February 2018, while European blue chips had their best day in two years with the banking sector enjoying its best session in six months.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Italy, the contrarian 2020 bet?

    * Earnings drive top movers Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters and anchored today by Julien Ponthus. Germany has long been dragging its feet on such a project that included a common deposit insurance scheme and clearly its new stance is a welcome development but, as always, there is a but and, of course, the devil is in the details.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Money for nothing in the age of rage

    * Earnings drive top movers Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters and anchored today by Julien Ponthus. A post by Ray Dalio's Linkedin (find it here: https://bit.ly/2qo3IdR ) is doing the rounds this morning, with the hedge fund billionaire putting his finger on the big debate raging around quantative easing and MMT amid growing global discontent. The theme, as it turns out, has emerged as a central topic in the Reuters Global Investment Outlook Summit.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-Ray of hope for Europe: $1 trln flow into ESG funds by 2030

    * Earnings drive top movers Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters and anchored today by Julien Ponthus. Yes, that massive amount of cash is likely to flow into ESG funds as the theme has become mainstream, especially in Europe.

  • Reuters - UK Focus

    LIVE MARKETS-UK High Street: available at your local large, mid and small cap index

    * Earnings drive top movers Welcome to the home for real-time coverage of European equity markets brought to you by Reuters stocks reporters and anchored today by Julien Ponthus. It's a rare thing to witness: at one stage this morning, the UK high street theme was top of the FTSE 100, FTSE 250 and the British small cap index.

By using Yahoo, you agree that we and our partners can use cookies for purposes such as customising content and advertising. See our Privacy Policy to learn more