Watch CNBC's full interview with billionaire investor Mario Gabelli
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Open Championship news: Why Trump's Turnberry faces uphill battle to host again
The post Open Championship news: Why Trump's Turnberry faces uphill battle to host again appeared first on ClutchPoints. For years, golf traditionalists have championed Turnberry as one of the Open Championship's most majestic venues. With its sweeping coastline views and iconic history, the Ayrshire course once stood firmly in the rotation of legendary links. But despite its reputation, Turnberry hasn't hosted an Open since 2009, and it might be a long time before that changes, per ESPN. According to new R&A chief executive Mark Darbon, Turnberry hasn't been scrapped entirely, but the hurdles in its path are steep. Darbon cited significant transportation and infrastructure limitations, not political optics, as the main reasons the course remains on the outside looking in. 'We love the golf course,' Darbon said, 'but we've got some big logistical challenges there.' In his view, the surrounding road, rail, and accommodation systems simply can't meet the modern scale of an Open Championship. That said, the politics of it all are hard to ignore. Turnberry was removed from consideration back in 2015, and former R&A head Martin Slumbers was direct in 2021, stating the Open would not return to Turnberry until the focus could remain solely on the championship and not on its ownership. That was shortly after the U.S. Capitol riots and during heightened global scrutiny of Donald Trump, who owns the course. Infrastructure first, politics second Despite past public statements, Darbon emphasized that the R&A continues to engage in constructive conversations with Trump's team. He said they recently met with Eric Trump and other Trump Golf leaders to go over the ongoing challenges. While the dialogue was described as positive, Darbon made it clear that the R&A holds final say—regardless of any potential pressure from the British government or future political visits. 'We've spoken to [the government] specifically about Turnberry, and I think they've made it clear that the decision around where we take our championship rests with us,' Darbon said. Trump, whose courses have yet to host a men's major, reportedly maintains hope that his signature Scottish course could once again be in the spotlight. But the R&A appears focused on scale and logistics more than political appeasement. And Turnberry simply may not be able to keep up. It's not the only iconic venue under review. Muirfield, another historic Scottish course, faces its own issues. While beloved by purists, its outdated practice grounds and infrastructure also need modernization to meet the demands of a contemporary Open. Darbon confirmed talks with Muirfield are ongoing, with hopes of a return in the future. As for Turnberry, until its access and infrastructure match the prestige of its past, it will likely remain a postcard-worthy outlier. Related: Why 2023 U.S. Open winner just got banned from Oakmont Country Club Related: Kai Trump follows in Travis Kelce, Livvy Dunne's footsteps with NIL bonanza
4 hours ago
Beef prices have soared in the US — and not just during grilling season
OMAHA, Neb. -- Anyone firing up the grill this summer already knows hamburger patties and steaks are expensive, but the latest numbers show prices have climbed to record highs. And experts say consumers shouldn't expect much relief soon either. The average price of a pound of ground beef rose to $6.12 in June, up nearly 12% from a year ago, according to U.S. government data. The average price of all uncooked beef steaks rose 8% to $11.49 per pound. But this is not a recent phenomenon. Beef prices have been steadily rising over the past 20 years because the supply of cattle remains tight while beef remains popular. In fact, the U.S. cattle herd has been steadily shrinking for decades. As of Jan. 1, the U.S. had 86.7 million cattle and calves, down 8% from the most recent peak in 2019. That is the lowest number of cattle since 1951, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Many factors including drought and cattle prices have contributed to that decline. And now the emergence of a pesky parasite in Mexico and the prospect of widespread tariffs may further reduce supply and raise prices. Here's a look at what's causing the price of beef to rise. The American beef industry has gotten better at breeding larger animals, so ranchers can provide the same amount of beef with fewer cattle, said David Anderson, a livestock economist at Texas A&M. Then in 2020, a three-year drought began that dried out pastures and raised the cost of feed for cattle, according to the American Farm Bureau. Drought has continued to be a problem across the West since then, and the price of feed has put more pressure on ranchers who already operate on slim profit margins. In response, many farmers slaughtered more female cattle than usual, which helped beef supplies in the short term but lowered the size of future herds. Lower cattle supplies has raised prices. In recent years cattle prices have soared, so that now animals are selling for thousands of dollars apiece. Recent prices show cattle selling for more than $230 per hundredweight, or hundred pounds. Those higher prices give ranchers more incentive to sell cows now to capture profits instead of hanging onto them for breeding given that prices in the years ahead may decrease, Anderson said. 'For them, the balance is, 'Do I sell that animal now and take this record high check?' Or 'do I keep her to realize her returns over her productive life when she's having calves?'' Anderson said. 'And so it's this balancing act and so far the side that's been winning is to sell her and get the check.' The emergence of a flesh-eating pest in cattle herds in Mexico has put extra pressure on supply because officials cut off all imports of cattle from south of the border last year. Some 4% of the cattle the U.S. feeds to slaughter for beef comes from Mexico. The pest is the New World screwworm fly, and female flies lay eggs in wounds on warm-blooded animals. The larvae that hatch are unusual among flies for feeding on live flesh and fluids instead of dead material. American officials worry that if the fly reaches Texas, its flesh-eating maggots could cause large economic losses as they did decades ago before the U.S. eradicated the pest. Agricultural economist Bernt Nelson with the Farm Bureau said the loss of that many cattle is putting additional pressure on supply that is helping drive prices higher. President Donald Trump's tariffs have yet to have a major impact on beef prices but they could be another factor that drives prices higher because the U.S. imports more than 4 million pounds of beef every year. Much of what is imported is lean beef trimmings that meatpackers mix with fattier beef produced in the U.S. to produce the varieties of ground beef that domestic consumers want. Much of that lean beef comes from Australia and New Zealand that have only seen a 10% tariff, but some of it comes from Brazil where Trump has threatened tariffs as high as 50%. If the tariffs remain in place long-term, meat processors will have to pay higher prices on imported lean beef. It wouldn't be easy for U.S. producers to replace because the country's system is geared toward producing fattier beef known for marbled steaks. It's the height of grilling season and demand in the U.S. for beef remains strong, which Kansas State agricultural economist Glynn Tonsor said will help keep prices higher. If prices remain this high, shoppers will likely start to buy more hamburger meat and fewer steaks, but that doesn't appear to be happening broadly yet — and people also don't seem to be buying chicken or pork instead of beef. Nelson said that recently the drought has eased — allowing pasture conditions to improve — and grain prices are down thanks to the drop in export demand for corn because of the tariffs. Those factors, combined with the high cattle prices might persuade more ranchers to keep their cows and breed them to expand the size of their herds. Even if ranchers decided to raise more cattle to help replace those imports, it would take at least two years to breed and raise them. And it wouldn't be clear if that is happening until later this fall when ranchers typically make those decisions. 'We've still got a lot of barriers in the way to grow this herd,' Nelson said. Just consider that a young farmer who wants to add 25 bred heifers to his herd has to be prepared to spend more than $100,000 at auction at a time when borrowing costs remain high.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Do Upstream Mergers Really Deliver Value for Shareholders?
I've been noodling around with an idea for a while now. The thing on my mind is when do investors actually gain from the big gobs of money E&P companies spend on M&A? A lot of promises are made in the early days. But as time wears on, I rarely see any effort made to reconcile results with these promises. So bear with me as I go through this little exercise. Now I am not saying that M&A isn't necessary as strong companies buy out smaller, weaker companies to get their premium assets. That part of the transaction is easily understood, and I will review that thought in the ExxonMobil/Pioneer Natural Resources case as we go through this exercise. My point here is investors are still waiting for these results to show up in their mail box. In fairness, not a lot time has elapsed, but I think trends are instructive. Let's dive in. Upstream M&A: Shell game? The upstream industry has been on a buying binge the last several years with hundreds of billions worth of transactions on the books. One of the most notable thus far has been ExxonMobil's (NYSE:XOM) acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, for approximately $253 per share or a substantial $64.5 billion, including debt, in an all-stock transaction. As noted in the deal slide from the announcement, this was an 18% premium to recent pricing for Pioneer. In exchange for XOM diluting current holders of its stock by about 255 mm shares or ~6%, the company made some firm promises in regard to the future upside for the combined company. Among other things XOM holders were told the transaction would be 'immediately accretive to EPS.' Hold that thought. Some time has gone by since the deal closed in May of 2024 and it seemed appropriate to peek under the hood to see how the company was delivering on these commitments. It's also worth reviewing just what drove Exxon's interest in paying a premium to Pioneer to obtain their Midland acreage. The Industrial Logic of ExxonMobil and Pioneer Industrial logic is the term applied to these mega deals. It's one of the terms, along with synergy and accretive, that are bandied about on announcement day. As you can see below, Pioneer's Midland basin acreage was like a missing puzzle piece to Exxon's prior footprint in the play. Exxon is a technology company with a track record of pushing the envelope to drive down costs and increase production, but to fully deploy their technical expertise, they needed more room. When you snap the two pieces together, you get a blocky, connected plot of land that runs for 50-75 miles east and west, and the better part of a couple of hundred miles north and south. 1.4 million acres is a sizeable chunk of dirt. That's significant and opens the door to huge numbers of 4-5 mile laterals, with centralized logistics, sand, water, the stuff of fracking, and helping lock-in low cost of supply. The easy stuff put in place, XOM engineers are free to work their magic wringing maximum barrels out of each foot of completed interval. That's all great for the company, but does this add to the value of the company in a way that benefits shareholders? Something real, and tangible that they can spend. Today. Like the stock price going up. Or special dividends. It seems like it should, and that's where we will look next for any sign the company is about to embark on an enhanced shareholder rewards package. Capitalization is one metric by which we might judge the impact of a transaction. Suppose company A, worth X, buys company Z, worth Y. In that case, logic suggests that company AZ should match the value of the two merger partners, or X + Y. Referring back to our ExxonMobil example, on May 2nd, the day before the merger closed the share price of XOM was $116.21 per share. With 3,998,000,000 shares outstanding that works out to a capitalization of $462 bn. At the agreed price of $253 per share for Pioneer their capitalization was $59.5 bn. The two together should have created an entity worth $521 bn, a point from which the merger driven success of the company should have been a value accretion launching pad. By the end of 2024 XOM stock was trading at $107.27. With 4,424 bn shares outstanding the company's capitalization stood at $474 bn. In about six months, some $47 bn in capitalization had vanished into thin air. Investors were promised the transaction would be immediately accretive to earnings per share. In June, 2024 reporting for the second quarter showed EPS to be $2.14 per share. For the fourth quarter EPS was $1.67 per share. So no immediate accretion. Perhaps patience will pay off. For the first quarter of 2025 EPS was $1.76 per share and the forecast for Q-2 is $1.55 share. One step forward and another back. What matters is that, thus far the combined company has not equaled its standalone performance. This is a sobering thought in light of the dilution visited upon shareholders, and the expense the company is going to repurchase shares.I may be piling on a bit here as the time elapsed since the merger is minimal. ROCE or Return on Capital Employed, shows little sign of being moved significantly higher in the merger. For a Twelve-Trailing Month-TTM period, Exxon's ROCE was 0.10882, a slight improvement from Full Year-2024's 0.1082. Moving in the right direction, but after spending $64.5 bn in stock dilution, one might hope for a teensy bit more. Like I said, perhaps not enough time has gone by to attach much weight to the change in ROCE. Summing up So, where does that leave us as we eagerly anticipate another mega merger? I refer, of course, to the one that now hangs in the balance for Chevron (NYSE:CVX) and Hess (NYSE:HES), with an arbitrator set to rule on XOM's claim of primacy in the pre-emptive right to buy HESS' share in the Stabroek field, offshore Guyana. If we buy into CVX today it will cost us $150 per share. If the arbitrator rules in their favor and the assets of Hess are merged into CVX, will the price of CVX then become X+Y-dilution? Or the CVX price plus the Hess price of $171 per share, less the amount of stock CVX will print~$351 mm shares to meet the deal price of $60 bn? Will the combined company have a capitalization of $327 bn? If history is any guide this outcome is unlikely. It is certainly food for thought as another serial acquirer comes to mind. I refer here to Occidental Petroleum, (NYSE: OXY), which after the Anadarko deal of 2019 for $57 bn, and then the CrownRock deal of 2024 for $12 bn- a combined cash and stock outlay of $69 bn for a company with a present day capitalization of $42 bn. Warren Buffett with a 26.92% stake in OXY, for which he's paid an average of $51.92 per share, is down 21% on his investment. I wonder what his response would be today if the OXY plane landed in Omaha with a deal in management's pocket. I have a pretty good idea actually. I will reiterate-the Industrial logic of upstream M&A is abundantly clear. As an industry matures size and scale matter, and perhaps (likely) this is where value shows up for shareholders who remain long for an extended period. The company can continue to develop oil and gas deposits long after the standalone company would have drilled itself out of existence. But over the short run, it looks like a shell game to me. By David Messler for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
