|Bid||0.0000 x 4000|
|Ask||0.0000 x 21500|
|Day's range||56.9800 - 57.0000|
|52-week range||32.0100 - 59.9400|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||N/A|
|PE ratio (TTM)||0.00|
|Earnings date||30 Oct 2019 - 4 Nov 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||53.75|
Bremont, which began making watches in 2002, wants to bring British watchmaking back. The brand’s watches are inspired by, but not limited to, the British armed forces, famous cars, and legendary airplanes. Bremont’s latest watch is a very limited creation, with some very interesting bits.
UK telecommunications and satellite operator Inmarsat on Monday revised its US$1.75bn leveraged loan as investors, wary of a cooling economy, raised concerns about the company's leverage, limited cash flow and increased competition in the telecommunications and satellite operations industry, sources familiar with the transaction told Refinitiv LPC. Inmarsat, which will use the term loan B to support its purchase by a consortium of investors led by Apax Partners, decreased the size of the term loan B by US$700m from US$2.7bn and increased its concurrent bond to US$1.825bn from US$1.125bn on September 20.
High activity levels in the United States and expansion efforts in European markets, primarily in the United Kingdom and Germany, are likely to boost Copart's revenues in fourth-quarter fiscal 2019.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Sotheby’s is under fire for accepting a $2.7 billion takeover bid from billionaire art lover Patrick Drahi. The handling of the sale reflects poorly on the board, even if it led to a generous offer relative to where the stock was trading.The venerable auctioneer received a takeover approach from a group of unidentified private equity investors in December. Others, including Drahi, followed. As the shares fell from nearly $60 in the middle of 2018 to less than $40 by the year-end, the board should have been on alert to repel opportunistic approaches. It doesn’t look that way judging by the timeline set out in Sotheby’s regulatory filings.The buyout consortium said it thought the auctioneer was worth a mere $50 a share. The board rejected this – but without much conviction. In fact, it offered the bidder help to raise the price. That would have given the impression Sotheby’s was keen to sell itself. Doubtless encouraged by the board’s friendly rejection, the private equity group raised its offer to a still ungenerous $52.50 a share in May.Meanwhile, Drahi and a host of others were sniffing around. Board members discussed the correct price for any deal, but they couldn’t agree. The designated director for Sotheby’s biggest shareholder, Chinese insurer Taikang Asset Management, suggested $100 a share.A knockout bid still hadn’t emerged. Time to get on with the day job? No. A message was conveyed to Drahi that the board was open to a deal and “certain directors” would back one at $65 a share. Faced with this blatant come-on, the billionaire refused to make the desired offer.A board confident in its view of the company’s intrinsic value, and unswayed by short-term share price falls, would surely have left it there. Not Sotheby’s. It invited Drahi to “get as close as he could” to a price “in the $60s”. He still didn’t oblige.Sotheby’s lowered its target to $57.50 a share. An intermediary was told that Third Point LLC, an activist that owns 14% of the company and controls several board seats, was ready to sell at the right price. Drahi called the board’s bluff once more, returning with a $57 a share offer in June.Sotheby’s buckled and also agreed to pay Drahi $111 million if a gatecrasher came along. His offer was at a big 61% premium to then share price, but largely because the stock had fallen further.Obviously boards should have diverse opinions. Still, couldn’t Sotheby’s have come to a solid view of what it was worth and stuck to it? If some directors think the company is worth $65 a share – barely above where the shares traded last year – why was it backing this deal? Or was that number a tactical ploy? As unhappy U.K. shareholder RWC Partners notes, the auctioneer only used the more pessimistic of its internal financial forecasts as it weighed up its future as an independent company.The board was at least right not to try to get an auction going or solicit a firm offer from Taikang: it’s far from certain a Chinese bidder would be able to complete a deal. Above all, Sotheby’s shouldn’t have been actively trying to sell itself in the face of bad offers.If a deal is too cheap, an auction will follow. The snag here is that the break fee adds to the cost of any counter-bid. At 3% of Sotheby’s enterprise value, it is unhelpful to shareholders but not an insurmountable obstacle. The board’s tactics could yet be vindicated if an auction gets going.To contact the author of this story: Chris Hughes at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Chris Hughes is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals. He previously worked for Reuters Breakingviews, as well as the Financial Times and the Independent newspaper.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
International collector, philanthropist and entrepreneur Miles S. Nada purchases "The Ultimate Sneaker Collection"l for a whopping $1,287,500.
The so-called Nike "Moon Shoe," designed by Nike co-founder and track coach Bill Bowerman for runners at the 1972 Olympics trials, was the top lot in the first-ever auction dedicated to sneakers at Sotheby's auction house in New York. Sotheby's said the price was a world auction record for a pair of sneakers. The buyer was Canadian investor and car collector Miles Nadal, who had previously paid $850,000 for 99 other pairs of rare or limited collection sneakers offered by Sotheby's.
VCRs didn't really exist when the first men walked on the moon, but NASA wasahead of the curve and recorded the event for posterity on videotapes — whichjust sold at auction for $1
Sotheby’s is planning to auction off an out-of-this-world collection on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing — but owning a piece of space history comes at a hefty price.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Google and Facebook Inc. are in regulators’ sights again. Britain’s monopolies watchdog is gathering input for its “Online Platforms and the Digital Advertising Market” study.Behind this seemingly nebulous title lies a golden opportunity to make Big Tech face some hard questions about its control over digital advertising. This could be a first, since no-one has as yet managed successfully to unpick the workings of the ad tech market. The answers could steer the conversation about a breakup of the two behemoths to their digital advertising assets, rather than their consumer-facing offerings – something that both companies would desperately like to avoid.The Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation will span data collection, the firms’ dominant consumer-facing platforms and competition in online ads. Officials should focus their limited resources on the last of those three. Data and platform dominance feed the advertising model, and privacy is of course an important concern. But the regulator needs to follow the money.Between them, Google and Facebook secured 56% of all global internet ad dollars in 2018, according to the World Advertising Research Council. That should rise to 61% this year.A close examination of the two firms’ earnings demonstrates how they’ve managed to consolidate their dominance. In North America, the growth in the number of active Facebook users has slowed to a crawl over the past two years. Yet the average revenue per user has continued to grow exponentially.Meanwhile at Google, the number of impressions from its network members (i.e. websites where Google is responsible for placing the ads) also grew more slowly last year. To offset that, the cost-per-impression grew by 12%, up from 8% a year earlier.This points towards the power both firms have to squeeze money out of advertisers. Brands can and do complain about Google and Facebook till they’re blue in the face, but if they want to advertise online they have little choice but to still send ever more ad dollars their way.The British study explicitly cites Google and Facebook's control over multiple important stages in the programmatic advertising process, what’s known as the “advertising stack.” That’s noteworthy. Other studies in Germany, France, Australia and elsewhere have more broadly tackled the use of data. Britain should avoid starting on a path that may just replicate their findings. Concentrating on the ad stack gets right to the heart of the firms’ business models.The issue with the modern competitive landscape is that the distinction between the various roles in programmatic ad categories is blurring. The competition lawyer Damien Geradin, who has long been critical of Google, likens it to the sale of a painting where Sotheby’s is the auctioneer, the buyer’s agent and the seller’s agent. When you buy a painting, you tell the Sotheby’s buying agent your maximum budget is $100,000. A day later, you’re told you were the winning bidder, and paid just $75,000.The problem is, you’ve no idea how high the next bid was. Nor does the seller know how much was offered. Maybe both got a good deal, but it’s hard to tell. You simply have to take the auction house’s word for it.Now substitute ad views or clicks for the painting, and Google for Sotheby’s, and you get a sense of some of the problems in online advertising. Walled gardens have developed where money goes in, and results come out, but brands and publishers have little visibility on everything that happened in between.It won’t be easy to disentangle the workings of this industry. The CMA has just 25 people dedicated staff to the study – Facebook and Google meanwhile have thousands of employees in the U.K. alone.When Australia published the preliminary report of its Digital Platforms Inquiry in December, it admitted it was “difficult to estimate with precision whether the pricing for search or display advertising may be considered excessive.” That’s a serious problem. If the regulator, with its legal authority, can’t ascertain the truth, then brands themselves have even less of a chance.It’s all but impossible to reach an independent evaluation of the price and effectiveness offered by the duopoly against competing platforms. Britain’s competition cops would do well to embed themselves deeply in the firms’ operations, rather than simply seeking written responses and interviews. The CMA is accepting comments until the end of July, and in six months will decide whether to turn the study into an investigation. At the end of the study phase, the regulator can only make recommendations to lawmakers. An investigation would allow it to seek remedies to fix what it might deem an imbalanced situation. And Britain has clout. It’s likely Facebook and Google’s biggest market in Europe: the U.K. digital ads market is almost three times as big as France’s.There are already heavy hints about what remedies might entail. The CMA’s announcement at the start of this month went so far as to moot “the separation between certain activities in the digital advertising value chain.” That might be a more astute way to tackle Google and Facebook, than, for instance, making them hive off YouTube or WhatsApp respectively.If the CMA has the same difficulties that the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission had, then suggesting standardized measures to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of online ads would be a sensible first step. That would at least help us understand whether a deeper breakup of the firms’ advertising operations is necessary.\--With assistance from Elaine He.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jennifer Ryan at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or 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/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Sotheby's (BID) is looking like an interesting pick from a technical perspective, as the company is seeing favorable trends on the moving average crossover front.
A federal judge in New York rejected Sotheby's bid to dismiss a $380 million lawsuit where Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev accused the auction house of helping his longtime art dealer's scheme to overcharge him on dozens of masterworks. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said Sotheby's failed to establish that the case did not belong in his court because Rybolovlev was already litigating in Switzerland, where much of the key evidence and many witnesses were located, and that principles of international comity justified dismissal. Furman found no showing that New York was "genuinely inconvenient" and Switzerland was "significantly preferable," saying the New York case had made more progress and Sotheby's might save money by defending itself in its home forum.
A federal judge in New York rejected Sotheby's bid to dismiss a $380 million (£299 million) lawsuit where Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev accused the auction house of helping his longtime art dealer's scheme to overcharge him on dozens of masterworks. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said Sotheby's failed to establish that the case did not belong in his court because Rybolovlev was already litigating in Switzerland, where much of the key evidence and many witnesses were located, and that principles of international comity justified dismissal. Furman found no showing that New York was "genuinely inconvenient" and Switzerland was "significantly preferable," saying the New York case had made more progress and Sotheby's might save money by defending itself in its home forum.
Under the terms of the proposed transaction, shareholders of Sotheby’s will receive only $57.00 in cash for each share of Sotheby’s that they own. KSF is seeking to determine whether this consideration and the process that led to it are adequate, or whether the consideration undervalues the Company. If you believe that this transaction undervalues the Company and/or if you would like to discuss your legal rights regarding the proposed sale, you may, without obligation or cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Managing Partner Lewis S. Kahn (firstname.lastname@example.org) toll free at any time at 855-768-1857, or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bid/ to learn more.
A U.S. judge on Friday rejected Greece's effort to dismiss an unusual lawsuit in which Sotheby's and the owners of an ancient Greek bronze horse sued the country, seeking court permission to put the statue on the auction block. U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla rejected Greece's claim that she lacked jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, saying the case triggered an exception for "commercial activity" that allowed Greece to be sued. Filed by Sotheby's and descendants of art collectors Howard and Saretta Barnet, the lawsuit sought a declaration that the family owned the 14-centimeter (5.5-inch) high horse, which dates from the 8th century BC - and that Sotheby's could sell it.
Investors are buying up US real estate like hot cakes making up 11% of total home sales in 2018, the highest on record, according to WSJ. Zillow (ZG) is one such investor that has pivoted to be more than just a real estate tool.