Mubadala expands private credit push
The Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund has increased its exposure to private credit, a form of non-bank lending, as traditional institutions shy away from the riskier, higher-cost financing.
Private credit was Mubadala's top-performing asset class for the third consecutive year in 2024, according to its annual report. The fund's allocation reached about $20 billion last year through partnerships with Apollo, Ares, Carlyle, Goldman Sachs, and KKR. The Hayfin deal adds exposure to one of Europe's most active direct lenders, which has €33 billion ($38.7 billion) in assets under management.
— Mohammed Sergie
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pharma CEOs downplay impact of tariffs amid rising cost concerns
Despite analyst warnings of heightened financial risk, pharma CEOs across the US and Europe remain confident that the latest US-EU trade deal and associated tariffs will have limited impact. As per a new deal between the two global economic powerhouses, the EU will pay the US a tariff rate of 15% for pharmaceuticals. Medicines are the largest European exports to the US by value, and the EU accounts for approximately 60% of all pharmaceutical imports to the US. Top-selling drugs such as AbbVie's Humira (adalimumab), MSD's Keytruda (pembrolizumab), and Novo Nordisk's Ozempic (semaglutide), for example, are manufactured in Europe and sent to the US, representing billion-dollar markets. Analysts from GlobalData's Pharma Strategic Intelligence team say that: 'Companies manufacturing pharmaceutical products in Europe will need to anticipate financial exposure when planning launches in the US due to the unfavourable gross to net dynamics, weakened pricing leverage with US payers, and slower commercial uptake as insurers reassess cost effectiveness due to the tariffs.' US President Donald Trump has had a sharp focus on the pharma industry since assuming office. Analysts predict that adding duties to incoming goods will likely elevate costs across the pharmaceutical value chain, ultimately raising drug prices for patients. The policies make for interesting analysis when combined with his desire to cut prescription prices in the country. Diederik Stadig, sector economist for TMT & healthcare at ING, wrote in a July note: 'A tariff would hurt consumers most of all, as they would feel the inflationary effect of tariffs directly when paying for prescriptions.' The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), for example, has maintained that tariffs on medicines are ineffective. The group says such policies only hinder patient access to medicines. GlobalData also forecasts disruptions to launch planning, particularly late-stage assets with EU-based manufacturing and production planned for entry into the US. R&D budgets of pharmaceutical companies are already under pressure and the firefighting of tariffs could place additional strain on resources. CEOs signal resilience CEOs of big pharma companies, however, are maintaining a brave face despite the projected headwinds. The UK-EU trade deal announcement arrived in the middle of the pharma industry's Q2 reporting period, where execs were pressed on financial outlooks. In a Q2 earnings call, AbbVie's CEO Rob Michael said the US company is 'fairly insulated' from any tariff-related impacts in 2025, though caveated that the company would not speculate on the longer-term consequences. AstraZeneca shared the same sentiment. CEO Pascal Soriot said the British-Swedish drugmaker is 'almost self-sufficient in terms of supply,' adding that 'tariffs is not an issue that is really affecting us very much.' However, AstraZeneca is on a long list of pharma companies transferring manufacturing to the US. This includes a $4bn investment to build a new manufacturing plant in Virginia. Sanofi has outlaid $20bn to bolster US manufacturing through 2030 and Roche unveiled a similar $50bn investment strategy, to name just a couple. The team at GlobalData added: 'Ultimately, the recent US-EU trade deal has increased the level of uncertainty within the pharmaceutical industry, raising concerns on the potential of tariffs increasing past 15% in the future. 'While the full impact will take time to unfold, it will be interesting to see the adoption of different strategies on how the pharmaceutical industry looks to balance innovation, and ensuring patient access, while managing the pressures of tariffs as they unfold into a certain reality.' A critical part of the industry's future also relies on the outcome of the US government's Section 232 investigation into the drug sector. The probe, which Trump initiated to evaluate the role of medicine imports on national security, could result in further tariffs being imposed. MSD CEO Rob Davis said in the company's Q2 earnings call: 'We need to see more clarity both from the administration and just overall as to how exactly [the 15% tariff] is going to play out. It's still not clear exactly how this relates relative to the February investigation and the timing of whether these apply now or will be phased in until there's further guidance.' AbbVie's Michael said: 'We're having constructive discussions with the administration on sectoral tariffs. Clearly, the best way to motivate that is through tax incentives as well as a trade agenda that prioritises innovation. We're well positioned as a company, but we're not going to be able to really give you any details until we understand the outcome of the 232 investigation.' Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis. Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence . "Pharma CEOs downplay impact of tariffs amid rising cost concerns" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Ukraine is now Trump's war
Donald Trump Russia War in UkraineFacebookTweetLink Follow Vladimir Putin started it. Joe Biden didn't stop it. But, no matter his efforts to the contrary, this is the week in which Russia's invasion of Ukraine becomes US President Donald Trump's war. The most powerful office in the world doesn't always invite choices. Trump is mandated to address the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II because the United States was involved, under his predecessor, as Ukraine's key ally and sponsor. Trump could have dropped the war entirely. But instead, he chose to impose the force of his personality, initially through the idea he could end it in 24 hours, or a revised deadline of 100 days. Then he tried to navigate its personalities, cozying up to the Russian president initially, echoing his narratives and then berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly in the Oval Office. He hit his NATO allies hard, demanding they pay more for Europe's defense, which they did. And then the hard slog of diplomacy sputtered into gear, ultimately yielding very little. But it is in the last fortnight that Trump's decisions – and realizations – have turned this into a problem he now owns. He has seen Putin does not want peace. He has seen Ukraine urgently needs arms, and he tried to help, albeit in a lackluster way. He made the remarkable choice of responding to the usually dismissed nuclear saber-rattling of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, with harder nuclear threats about positioning US nuclear submarines closer to Russia. The US went from pausing military aid to Ukraine to threatening nuclear force against Russia in less than a month. As this week ends, with Trump's shortened deadline for a peace deal coming into view, he must make perhaps the most consequential decision of the conflict yet. Does he impose penalties – secondary tariffs against Russia's energy customers – that really hurt? Does he accept the US and its allies might need to endure a little pain economically, to inflict pain? Imposing serious secondary sanctions on India and China could roil the global energy market. Trump posted Monday he would be increasing tariffs on India because it was selling Russian crude on at a profit, and he didn't 'care how many people are being killed by the Russian War Machine,' although he did not provide details as to the new measures. India has not made it publicly clear if it intends to stop buying Russian energy products. China is utterly dependent on Russian oil and gas and simply cannot afford to stop buying it. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh describes the riveting escape plan hatched by Ukrainian forces to save the life of an injured soldier pinned down by Russian attacks. To avoid another a 'TACO' moment – short for Trump Always Chickens Out – Trump will have to cause some discomfort and will likely feel some back. Or he can look for an off-ramp, if one is offered to his special envoy Steve Witkoff in an expected Moscow visit this week. Trump could perhaps accept a bilateral meeting with Putin as a sign of progress toward peace. But even this backing down would still mean he has left his indelible imprint on the war – that, in the words of former US Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding Iraq, if the United States breaks it, they own it. Trump cannot have it both ways. It is in his nature to seek to be the fulcrum of all decisions, and the lightning rod of attention, on any given issue. Every turning point so far has been based around his personal choice and fancy. And with this comes a key lesson of the American presidency. Trump does not get to choose which problems are his, and which he can ignore. MAGA's America First platform may be about reducing Washington's global footprint, but it doesn't permit Trump to own solely his successes – and not his failures. Unless Trump reduces the footprint of American power globally to zero – incompatible with a presidential personality compelled to 'do' and agitate – there will always be some problems that are America's. He says he wants wars to stop. But that is not enough in itself. The wars have not all complied. Former US President Barack Obama inherited wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He ducked fast out of the former, and doubled down with a surge in the latter, which did not work. Afghanistan became Obama's war, even though it was a mess he had inherited. Trump in turn was passed that mess, and he handed his quick fix to Biden to execute, in the chaotic collapse of August 2021, widely paraded by Republicans as a Democrat failing. Trump faces the same problem of inheriting a crisis. He cannot wish or cajole the conflict to an end. The very battlefield deaths he mourns have sewn damage and grief afar, turning this into an existential war of survival for the Kremlin, and for the soul of Ukrainian society. Ukrainians want to live in peace, without nightly air raid sirens. Putin does not want peace, and instead his most recent maximalist demands amount to something tantamount to Ukrainian surrender. Ultimately, it is reflection of a harsh reality that this should be seen as Trump's war. It is the defining conflict of his presidency and of the post-9/11 era. Its outcome defines European security and Chinese belligerence over the next decade. China understands that and needs Russia to win. Europe understands that, and is arming itself so Russia does not see opportunity in the bloc's weakness. Whether Trump understands this and accepts discomforting, strident decisions with the consequences that follow, we will learn in the week ahead.
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Spanish Utility Naturgy to Sell 5.5% Stake to Boost Stock Liquidity
Naturgy Energy Group SA is looking to sell a combined 5.5% stake through two deals, in an effort to boost liquidity in the stock. The Spanish utility is offering about 19.3 million treasury shares to investors at at least €25.90 per share, according to terms seen by Bloomberg. The offering is set to raise at least €500 million ($578 million), with proceeds earmarked for general corporate purposes.
