Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government.
Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a 'golden share' — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected.
'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership,' the two companies said. 'This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.'
The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said.
'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said.
The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work and what investments would be made.
Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment.
Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans.' The Japan-based steelmaker had been offering nearly $15 billion to purchase the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in a merger that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, yet he expressed optimism in working out an arrangement once in office.
'We have a golden share, which I control,' said Trump, although it was unclear what he meant by suggesting that the federal government would determine what U.S. Steel does as a company.
Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.'
Still, Nippon Steel has never said it was backing off its bid to buy and control U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary.
The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations.
The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement.
The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement.
The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction.
Trump reserves the authority to issue further actions regarding the investment as part of the order he signed on Friday.
___
Associated Press writer Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Making private assets accessible to your 401(k): Expert weighs in
Empower announced that it will be offering private market investments and real estate opportunities for clients' 401(k) plans. Bow River Capital managing director of evergreen strategies Jeremy Held sits down with Wealth's Brad Smith to speak more about these trends and the illiquid nature of these asset classes. Hear more about three types of alternate assets to consider adding to your personal portfolio. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Wealth here. Wall Street is increasingly interested in bringing private assets to everyday investors. Financial services firm Empower, which oversees $1.8 trillion in 401k accounts for 19 million people, recently announced that it will offer private credit, equity, and real estate into some of its accounts later on this year. But there are certain issues tied to private assets and mainstream use. According to our very own Bob Powell, private assets can be complex and illiquid, meaning they aren't. Easily bought or sold, these assets tend to have higher fees and there's less transparency because private companies aren't subject to the same disclosure rules as public companies. Our next guest says that there's plumbing that will have to be modified to allow these assets into 401ks. Here with more we've got Jeremy Held who is the managing director of Evergreen Strategies at Boat River Capital. Great to have you here with us. Boat River we know is a Denver-based. Alternative asset managers specializing in private credit equity and real estate among other assets. So what kind of changes do need to be made to that plumbing in order for this to be reality and accessible to more people saving for retirement? Yeah, look, I think the 401k market is a huge opportunity for investors to access the same types of private investments that institutional investors have had for years. The problem is and the challenges, and these are challenges that can be overcome. Is that the plumbing, the operations, the mechanics of investing in 401ks is really made for mutual funds with daily accessibility, and I do think that the benefits do outweigh some of those challenges in terms of accessing just a much broader set of investments so I do think that. The 401k industry, the private equity industry, the, the operations firms that access the space will definitely make changes because I think it's in the, in the best interest of investors to have access to private companies in addition to public companies. And so we had talked about the liquid nature of some of these investments if they were packaged up and put into a broader investment vehicle for retirement. Should people who are saving for retirement still be concerned about the illiquid nature or what should be the thought process or the conversations you're having? Yeah, you know it's, it's a great question. I think you know what investors should be asking themselves at all times, whether they're retirement investors, taxable investors, is do I need to have 100% of my assets, 100% liquid, 100% of the time. And if the answer to that is no, even if it's 85% or 90 or 95% of their assets are liquid, if they open up a small percentage to being illiquid, you can really open up the opportunity set for investors and and invest in a much broader array of companies. And so with that in mind, what is kind of the time horizon that you see more often among the clients that you're working with? Yeah, I mean, typically. We're working with long term oriented clients. They're they're building a financial plan for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years and beyond. I mean you think about it, 401k accounts are really ideally suited for a long investment horizon. You have people that are contributing to their 401k accounts in their 20s and 30s. They have a long term time horizon, and I think private assets are really ideally suited for that time horizon for some of those private assets. I, I wonder what happens and how do you approach it when a private company. Makes their foray into becoming a publicly traded company because obviously the liquidity profile then changes significantly. It does and I think what's happened a lot over the past really two or three decades, there's half as many public companies today as there were in the 90s. Companies are staying private a lot longer. A lot of private, a lot of public companies are being taken. And so there is that that opportunity for a private company to go public, but there's also the opportunity for public companies to go private, and I think investors want to have access to that broader that broader universe. What are the other assets outside of companies as we talk about and think about real estate and the credit side of this too? Yeah, I think when people think about accessing markets today. They're not just thinking about public or private, they're saying I want an allocation to real estate and I'm gonna own some public real estate and some private real estate. I want an allocation to credit. I'll own some public credit and some private credit and the same thing, of course, in in equity. I'm gonna own public equities and private equity. And they think about how do I build the most diversified portfolio possible and that includes both public and private assets. What's the entry point for a retirement vehicle like this? Yeah, I think Evergreen funds, which are a new type of vehicle that are really transforming the way people access private investments, is really the best entry point. These are vehicles that are immediately invested. They're highly diversified minimums as low as $50,000 and that's really a much more efficient way for a broader universe like 401k investors to access the private markets. Do you see those minimums going lower in the future as more people try to gain exposure? I do. I do think there's gonna be some changes from a regulatory perspective. Historically, alternative investments have been limited to qualified purchasers, accredited investors. Those eliminations, those restrictions are going away, and I do think you'll see minimums go from what used to be 5 million now it went to $1,050,000 and ultimately those will go even below there. Great to have you here with us, Jeremy in town from Denver, Colorado. Appreciate the time. Yeah, thanks, Brad.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors in Trupanion (NASDAQ:TRUP) have seen favorable returns of 92% over the past year
These days it's easy to simply buy an index fund, and your returns should (roughly) match the market. But investors can boost returns by picking market-beating companies to own shares in. To wit, the Trupanion, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRUP) share price is 92% higher than it was a year ago, much better than the market return of around 11% (not including dividends) in the same period. If it can keep that out-performance up over the long term, investors will do very well! In contrast, the longer term returns are negative, since the share price is 2.4% lower than it was three years ago. So let's assess the underlying fundamentals over the last 1 year and see if they've moved in lock-step with shareholder returns. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. Given that Trupanion didn't make a profit in the last twelve months, we'll focus on revenue growth to form a quick view of its business development. When a company doesn't make profits, we'd generally hope to see good revenue growth. Some companies are willing to postpone profitability to grow revenue faster, but in that case one would hope for good top-line growth to make up for the lack of earnings. Trupanion grew its revenue by 14% last year. That's a fairly respectable growth rate. Buyers pushed the share price 92% in response, which isn't unreasonable. If revenue stays on trend, there may be plenty more share price gains to come. But it's crucial to check profitability and cash flow before forming a view on the future. The company's revenue and earnings (over time) are depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers). If you are thinking of buying or selling Trupanion stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet. It's nice to see that Trupanion shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 92% over the last year. That's better than the annualised return of 6% over half a decade, implying that the company is doing better recently. In the best case scenario, this may hint at some real business momentum, implying that now could be a great time to delve deeper. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Even so, be aware that Trupanion is showing 1 warning sign in our investment analysis , you should know about... If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: many of them are unnoticed AND have attractive valuation). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
