GIP to open Qatar office in latest Middle East investment push by private equity
DUBAI: U.S.-based Investment firm Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) said on Monday it would open an office in Qatar to serve as the hub for its operations in the Middle East and North Africa.
"We are excited by the prospects for the Middle East region, driven by strong economic growth, the expansion of the capital markets and the emergence of transparent regulatory frameworks," Chairman and CEO Bayo Ogunlesi said in a statement.
GIP, which specializes in infrastructure and manages more than $100 billion in assets, did not say when the office in Doha would open.
BlackRock-owned GIP is the latest private equity group to set up base in the Gulf as firms look to build teams on the ground and invest in local businesses in a region that had previously been where buyout groups went to raise money to invest in other markets.
Permira said last month it would open an office in Dubai, while New York-based General Atlantic opened an office in Abu Dhabi last year.
One of the world's largest LNG exporters, Qatar is one of several Gulf countries trying to diversify away from energy while attracting foreign investment, making the region increasingly attractive for Western firms.
Founded in 2006, GIP has a portfolio including Britain's Gatwick airport, the Port of Melbourne and major offshore wind projects.
BlackRock purchased GIP last year for $12.5 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Institutional Influx Redefines Bitcoin Supply with IBIT's Record Surge
BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust surpassed $70 billion in assets under management on 6 June, achieving the fastest accumulation ever seen for a spot ETF—reaching the milestone in just 341 trading days. That pace outstrips the previous record held by SPDR Gold Shares, which took 1,691 days, marking a fivefold acceleration. IBIT now holds approximately 662,707 BTC, nearly 20 per cent of the total 3.4 million bitcoins held by public and private entities, government bodies, exchanges, and decentralised finance protocols. Such concentration under BlackRock's control is reshaping the distribution of Bitcoin supply across institutional players. Secondary spot Bitcoin ETFs—led by Fidelity's Wise Origin with roughly $21.3 billion AUM, and Grayscale's GBTC at $19.3 billion—lag far behind IBIT in scale. Ark 21Shares and Bitwise report assets under $5 billion. Analysts note that IBIT's dominance reflects not only investor appetite for regulated exposure to Bitcoin but also confidence in BlackRock's operational strength and trust in its custody and compliance framework. ADVERTISEMENT The ETF's structural advantages lie in its cost-effective fee, integration with Coinbase Prime custody, and BlackRock's institutional-grade infrastructure. It provides market participants with direct Bitcoin exposure without requiring them to navigate private key management or self-custody complexities. Bitcoin's value hierarchy has been boosted by IBIT's growth. With total holdings just shy of 663,000 BTC, the trust exceeds erstwhile leader MicroStrategy, which held 582,000 BTC. A rising number of publicly traded companies are preparing to expand their Bitcoin treasuries. Corporate treasurers are watching IBIT's capital inflows closely, signalling a shift in institutional allocation strategies from traditional assets into digital scarcity. The influence of corporate buyers extends beyond small-scale investments. Michael Saylor's MicroStrategy remains a strong presence, but other blue‑chip corporates are signalling potential acquisitions. Arkham Intelligence data indicates that incremental corporate accumulation may further redistribute Bitcoin supply, previously more diversified across governments, miners and individual holders. IBIT's momentum accelerated in May, posting its largest monthly inflow yet. Bloomberg reports this surge synchronised with Bitcoin trading above $108,000, hinting at institutional investors strategically buying ahead of broader market highs. Secondary market activity reinforces the appetite for IBIT shares. In April, the ETF recorded a single‑day trading volume of $4.2 billion—with Bitcoin hovering around $91,000—underscoring its liquidity and the appetite among both retail and institutional investors. ADVERTISEMENT Industry experts suggest this liquidity is a key attractor. IBIT's trading activity consistently outpaces competitors, offering tighter spreads and reduced transaction costs, which in turn fuels further inflows. Regulatory clarity remains pivotal. The official IBIT prospectus confirms the trust is governed by Delaware law, uses Coinbase as custodian and prime broker, and implements safeguards to align on‑chain Bitcoin with the ETF shares. This structure mitigates risks of mispricing or premium/discount discrepancies, giving institutional investors assurance. It also reveals that IBIT is not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, though it complies with major U.S. securities and exchange rules. Meanwhile, BlackRock hints at international ambitions. A European equivalent to IBIT is under regulatory consideration, targeting Swiss registration under evolving EU cryptocurrency taxonomy. The success of the U.S. product strengthens its case for cross‑jurisdiction expansion. Market analysts emphasise that the dilution of available Bitcoin supply via institutional custody may tighten free float and reduce volatility. With one entity holding a fifth of the publicly held Bitcoin, even modest inflows from public companies or IBIT could exert noticeable price effects. A shift in supply concentration also raises systemic questions. As BlackRock and corporate treasuries secure larger holdings, the dynamics of price discovery may move away from retail and miner-driven liquidity pools. On‑chain analytics firms suggest emerging demand imbalance between supply locked in long‑term institutional wallets and tradable supply available to speculative or transactional buyers. Critics argue that increasing centralisation challenges the decentralised ethos of Bitcoin. The risk is that a few large custodians could accrue disproportionate influence over market flows and network sentiment. Proponents counter that regulated trust models and robust custody reduce systemic risk and enhance asset legitimacy among institutional participants. IBIT's fee structure is also under scrutiny in comparison to competing ETFs. At 0.25 per cent, it positions itself competitively against alternatives, though slightly higher than passive gold or broad‑market ETFs. Nevertheless, institutional investors appear willing to pay a premium for regulatory certainty and deep liquidity. Speculation is mounting around BlackRock's next moves. The firm is reportedly exploring tokenised treasury products across other asset classes, including corporate bonds and money‑market instruments. Observers suggest that if IBIT's performance continues, similar frameworks could be deployed for Ethereum or thematic digital‑asset baskets. As rivals respond, competition intensifies. Fidelity's FBTC and Grayscale's GBTC have begun marketing enhancements and lower fees. Field analysts expect them to intensify efforts, particularly as Bitcoin continues to test and potentially surpass all‑time high prices near $112,000.
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Morgan Stanley markets $5bln for Elon Musk-owned xAI in loans, bonds, sources say
NEW YORK - Morgan Stanley is marketing a $5 billion package of bonds and two loans on behalf of billionaire Elon Musk-owned xAI, at the same time as a falling out between the world's richest man and the U.S. president plays out in public, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. As of last week, the bank started discussing a floating-rate term loan B at 97 cents on the dollar with a variable interest rate of 700 basis points (bps) over the SOFR benchmark rate, one person familiar with the matter said. It is offering a second option, loan and bonds at a fixed rate of 12%, the person familiar added. The terms are preliminary and will depend on investor demand, according to the source. Morgan Stanley held a meeting with investors last week in which some financials of the company were shared. Morgan Stanley is taking a different approach in marketing the $5 billion debt for Musk's xAi from previous transactions, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Morgan Stanley will not guarantee the issue volume or commit its own capital to the deal, the sources said. The 'best efforts' transaction, which means the size of the debt will depend on investor interest, is not an uncommon practice but shows banks are probably being more prudent lending in an uncertain macro environment. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with investors are not public. Morgan Stanley declined to comment, while xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Banks were also likely choosing this approach to avoid putting themselves in a similar spot to when they committed to give $13 billion of debt to Musk to finance his $44 billion acquisition of X in 2022 and could not get out of that position for two years. The X financing is considered one of the boldest bets by seven banks led by Morgan Stanley who committed $13 billion in debt to the $44 billion acquisition by Elon Musk in October 2022. Soon after the deal to buy Twitter, as X was called at the time, the Federal Reserve began raising U.S. interest rates and Musk started restructuring the company. Banks typically sell such loans to investors soon after the deal is done, but in the case of X, they were stuck holding it for over two years. They could only dispose of that debt earlier this year capitalizing on X's improved operating performance over the previous two quarters as traffic on the platform rose before and after the U.S. presidential elections. Musk's role in U.S. President Donald Trump's return to office and public displays of his closeness to the most powerful position in the world also boosted interest for the debt from investors jockeying for some influential link to a new regime, as well as a surge in investor interest for exposure to artificial intelligence companies. Apart from selling debt, xAI has also been in talks to raise about $20 billion in equity funding, according to people familiar with the matter. Two of the people added the deal would value the company at more than $120 billion, while the other two people said figures as high as $200 billion had been discussed. Musk initially explored raising funds in parallel with a merger of xAI and social media platform X, but that plan did not move forward, two of the people said. What has changed in just the space of a few months is Musk's political sway over Trump after an acrimonious schism erupted between the two. That has cast a cloud over the future of the businesses owned by the world's richest man, which though private could be hurt if the federal government chooses to cancel contracts or grants to them. It has also heightened the risk of demand being reduced for any money that will be raised or investors asking for a higher risk premium on the new debt. (Reporting by Matt Tracy, Echo Wang and Tatiana Bautzer in New York, Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles Editing by Shri Navaratnam)
Arabian Post
10 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Afreximbank downgrade dispute raises questions on loan categorisation
African Union's African Peer Review Mechanism has challenged Fitch Ratings' downgrade of the African Export‑Import Bank, arguing the move rests on a misinterpretation of its sovereign loan portfolio. On 4 June, Fitch lowered Afreximbank's long‑term foreign‑currency issuer rating from BBB to BBB‑—a notch above junk—with a negative outlook. The agency attributed the downgrade to elevated credit risk, citing an estimated non‑performing loan ratio of 7.1 %, primarily due to sovereign exposures to Ghana, South Sudan and Zambia classified as NPLs. The APRM asserts that Fitch's classification is flawed and inconsistent with Afreximbank's own disclosure of an NPL ratio of 2.44 % as of end‑March. The AU‑established body emphasises the bank's status as a multilateral lender created under a 1993 treaty, which binds member governments—including Ghana and Zambia—as signatories, shareholders and founding members. APRM contends such loans are grounded in intergovernmental cooperation rather than standard commercial terms, so treating them as NPLs misrepresents their nature. Fitch defended its methodology, stating that its supranational rating decisions adhere to globally consistent and publicly available criteria, and highlighting that their analysis clearly identified rating drivers and sensitivities. The agency maintains sovereign exposures showing delayed repayments meet its threshold for classification as non‑performing, irrespective of legal structures or treaties. In that sense, the downgrade aligns with accepted analytical standards. ADVERTISEMENT APRM's critique zeroes in on that threshold. It argues that sovereign repayment negotiations are routine diplomatic engagements, not signs of default. It remains concerned that Fitch's decision conflates financial dialogue with credit impairment. The body has formally called on Fitch, Afreximbank and other African institutions to convene technical consultations and reassess the rating, emphasising the importance of contextually intelligent credit assessments. Beyond the immediate dispute, this episode resonates with a broader continental debate over the relevance and fairness of global credit‑rating frameworks applied to African multilaterals. Africa's longstanding concerns that Western rating methodologies fail to grasp local realities and may unfairly inflate borrowing costs have sparked momentum for alternative mechanisms. Among these, an Africa‑led credit‑rating agency is under development, envisaged to begin operations by September 2025, aimed at providing sovereign ratings that reflect regional economic and institutional contexts. Central to the debate is Afreximbank's evolving lending strategy. Under outgoing president Benedict Okey Oramah, the Cairo‑based lender has aggressively expanded its footprint, increasingly financing private sector projects across the continent and taking calculated sovereign exposure. Supporting growth in under‑served markets like Zimbabwe and Nigeria, the bank grew its asset base from around US$7 billion in 2015 to approximately US$40 billion in 2024, with deposits rising to US$37 billion. That growth has attracted scrutiny. Fitch has highlighted what it sees as elevated concentration of corporate and sovereign risk, pointing to an NPL ratio that exceeds its internal threshold. Observers note that up to 92 % of Afreximbank's lending is directed at commercial businesses, and certain sovereign loans carry interest rates as high as 6.875 % over benchmark rates—much higher than traditional development finance institutions. Proponents of the APRM's position, including lead credit‑ratings expert Misheck Mutize, argue that supplementary indicators such as capital adequacy, collateral density and profitability should carry mitigating weight. Mutize points to a strong equity ratio of 19 %, risk‑weighted capital at 21 %, internal capital generation through profits, and loan collateral cover for 84 % of the portfolio. These factors, he suggests, are downplayed in the rating downgrade despite being explicitly acknowledged in Fitch's own analytic framework. He warns that over‑reliance on contested NPL figures can breach the methodology's balance principles. ADVERTISEMENT Not everyone supports APRM's framing. Analysts note that countries like Zambia officially halted repayments to Afreximbank in 2021, and South Sudan failed to honour its obligations, prompting legal recourse in London. Zambia's treasury has openly stated its debt will be restructured. Against this backdrop, Fitch's interpretation that certain sovereign debt has become non‑performing appears defensible under global standards. This dispute underscores a tension: Afreximbank's assertive growth strategy has boosted its developmental reach and institutional clout, yet it must reconcile that dynamism with risk and transparency expectations imposed by global credit agencies. With Oramah set to step down later this month, the new president will face a pivotal choice: maintain aggressive expansion as the bank charts an independent path, or recalibrate operations to conform more closely with multilateral development bank norms—a course change that could preserve borrowing benefits but limit growth prerogatives. Beyond institutional implications, the outcome has broader financial consequences. A downgrade to BBB‑ tightens Afreximbank's borrowing costs, heightens the risk premium for countries swayed by its lending, and complicates its mission to finance intra‑continental trade. That may squeeze African exporters and traders relying on the bank's funding. Policy stakeholders are paying attention. The APRM's call for dialogue and transparency signals a pushback against the perceived hold of Western agencies over African financial destiny. Meanwhile, the African Development Bank is developing a Continental Financial Stability Mechanism that may borrow under a regional rating—another step towards financial sovereignty.
