Markets ask how soon Nippon Steel will benefit from $15 billion bid for U.S. Steel
Such a merger would create the world's third-largest steel producer by volume, after China's Baowu Steel Group and Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal (MT.LU), opens new tab, data from the World Steel Association (WorldSteel) shows.
The "planned partnership" would create at least 70,000 jobs and add $14 billion to the U.S. economy via Nippon Steel's additional investments, Trump said last week.
While full details of the deal remain unclear, U.S. Steel shares surged 21% on the news and Nippon Steel gained 7%.
Nippon Steel did not exclude issuing new shares to fund the takeover, Vice Chairman Takahiro Mori said in December, after having already raised some funds through hybrid financing and asset sales.
"If the new equity is issued, investors will rightly be asking: is this the best possible use of capital at this moment?" said Fiona Deutsch, lead analyst with Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR).
The company had pledged an investment of up to $4 billion in a new coal-dependent blast furnace, said Deutsch, whose climate activist group holds less than 1% of Nippon Steel's shares.
That plan, part of a wider investment commitment of $14 billion, comes "at a time when the global steel sector is shifting towards low-carbon alternatives", she added.
Nippon Steel shares were up 1% by 0405 GMT, outperforming the overall Nikkei index (.N225), opens new tab which was up 1.6%.
Unveiling the deal in late 2023, Nippon Steel offered $55 for each share of U.S. Steel, for a premium of 40% at the time. U.S. Steel shares closed at $53.3 on Wednesday.
"There's a lot of immediate negative effects, even though the long-term effect may be positive," said an adviser to institutional investors on strategies for Nippon Steel.
He cited the dilution as a further deterrent, besides the high offer price and additional investment commitments.
Nippon Steel did not reply to a Reuters request for a comment.
"In the short term, there are concerns about financing," said Shinichiro Ozaki, a senior analyst at Daiwa Securities.
"Given that U.S. Steel reported a net loss for the January-March period, the stock market may worry about the limited likelihood of a short-term return on the investment."
Projections that domestic demand will stay weak have pushed Nippon Steel, which is Japan's largest steelmaker, and others to look to overseas expansion, while they consider shutting some blast furnaces at home.
U.S. Steel is key to Nippon Steel's goal to raise its global output capacity to more than 100 million metric tons a year from 63 million tons now, as it aims to benefit from demand in India and the United States.
Both markets are relatively protected from vast steel exports from China, the world's top producer, thanks to protectionist measures they have adopted, such as tariffs.
In March, Nippon Steel President Tadashi Imai, who also chairs the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, warned that U.S. auto and steel tariffs could cut several million tons from Japan's annual steel output to below 80 million tons.
Ownership of U.S. Steel could provide a shield for Nippon Steel from the impact of tariffs on non-U.S. operations, said Alistair Ramsay, vice president of Rystad Energy.
"Should underlying demand in the United States begin and continue to recover, then we would expect the investment to pay off in good time, regardless of the duration of tariffs," he said.
"But that's a big if, given how far the U.S. market has shrunk over the past few years, never mind this century."
U.S. steel consumption is expected to rise by 2% this year after a drop of 1.5% in 2024, according to WorldSteel.
This month, Nippon Steel said it would cut its dividend for the current fiscal year to 120 yen a share, off last year's 160 yen, and its lowest since 2021, amid a projected fall in profits, but the overall payout ratio would stay at 30%.
"For the investor who cares about the share price today, you wouldn't be looking at factoring in synergies based on what you think might happen in two to three years," said the adviser, who sought anonymity as the matter is a sensitive one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's latest attempt to release secret Epstein files rebuffed as 'diversion' by Clinton-appointed judge
Donald Trump was handed another blow on Wednesday when a federal judge denied his administration's attempts to release grand jury testimony from the Jeffrey Epstein case. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman deemed Trump's Justice Department did not provide adequate reasoning to unseal the highly-protected materials. He also said that the grand jury motion was likely a 'diversion' coming from the Trump administration. '[T]he court denies the government's motion to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts and exhibits,' the Clinton-appointed judge wrote in his Wednesday decision. It comes after Attorney General Pam Bondi moved at the direct of the president this summer to request the documents be unsealed in attempts to satisfy Americans who were enraged over the lackluster review of the Epstein files. This story is breaking and will be updated.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
To Americans, Britain is no longer the free country we thought it was
Every year, the US Department of State releases a report on human rights practices in other countries (CRHRP). One of my first assignments as a political officer at the US embassy was to coordinate and edit one country report. Not surprisingly, certain governments sometimes take issue with how their policies are characterised in the CRHRP. For example, South Africa claimed a recent CRHRP was 'inaccurate and deeply flawed' in criticising them for failing to 'investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses … or violence against racial minorities'. President Cyril Ramaphosa seemed bewildered in May when President Trump took him to task for the murders of white farmers. His government's defence seems to be that South Africa's horrific levels of crime afflict everyone, not just white people, and that the motives are not racist but merely criminal. That is unlikely to mollify a country impoverished under an incompetent succession of ANC leaders, nor will Ramaphosa's explanation that they haven't actually used their sweeping new Land Expropriation Act inspire commercial farmers who feed the country to invest in their farms. But I digress. China doesn't just reject US criticism, they've cheekily published their own report criticising the US for 'the chronic disease of racism,' and 'basic rights and freedoms being disregarded'. Usually, the governments taking the most criticism in the CRHRP are repressive or feckless regimes, from China to Zimbabwe, that suppress free speech, stifle religious expression, or oppress women, minority groups, and political dissidents. That doesn't sound like the England in which I was born over half a century ago. But this year, the Country Report on the UK flags Britain as a risky place to speak your mind. The CRHRP claims that 'the human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year,' citing 'credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by anti-Semitism'. The report notes restrictions on speech – even silent meditation – near abortion clinics, and the Online Safety Act's curtailment of internet speech, policed by Ofcom. It calls out government censorship of speech deemed misinformation or 'hate speech', including in relation to migrants and crimes committed by foreign nationals. It could have gone even further. In its section on Worker Rights, the CRHRP doesn't discuss the people who have been sacked or disciplined for refusing to accept the forced speech codes of gender ideology, like prison officer David Toshack or nurse Jennifer Melle; or for social media posters who have criticised government action, like teacher Simon Pearson. Like the proverbial frog in slowly heating water, perhaps Brits can't see what is happening to their freedoms. But looking from the outside, we can, and the State Department has called it out. In reaction, I expect the British Left to be as indignant and in denial as the establishment in Washington DC is about crime. Now Donald Trump has temporarily taken over local law enforcement in the city, the Leftist establishment and the national media are claiming that violent crime is lower than in recent years. This ignores some inconvenient realities. First, unreliable numbers. The city has reportedly just settled a lawsuit from a whistleblowing police officer who had alleged that her supervisors were re-classifying serious crimes as lesser offences, to flatter the city's crime statistics. Second, even the supposedly lower murder rate puts Washington among the most dangerous cities in the nation. Like the DC establishment, the British government and much of the media are happy to ignore Lucy Connolly, who is still in prison after she made an unwise online post (and then deleted it); Hamit Coskun, who was prosecuted after he burnt a book; and the thousands of ordinary Brits who have been accused of 'Non-Crime Hate Incidents,' which is at the very least an astonishing waste of police time. The Left likes to pretend that the real villains in the fight for free speech are people like Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, and JK Rowling, who courageously state objective truth, rather than the gender ideologues trying to force women to accept men in their changing rooms, prisons, and shelters. George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, and other writers of the early 20th century predicted a future where the populace was dumbed down, repressed, and fed information by an authoritarian state. In the dystopian futures they imagined in 1984 and Brave New World, independent, critical thinking was banned and speech violators were punished. That sounds like the logical destiny of Britain if it maintains its present course. There is already a semi-official dogma on gender ideology, immigration, and crime which it is costly to challenge. Censorship and group-think get worse if not disrupted. Instead of rejecting America's criticism in high dudgeon, I hope Britain will heed the warning of its Atlantic cousins and return to the people their right to speak their minds. For the land of Magna Carta to slowly sink into repression and state control would be a great injustice to Britain's present inhabitants, and an insult to our ancestors' work of centuries. 'The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey)' from Academica Books.
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
US court skeptical of ruling that reinstated thousands of federal workers
Aug 19 (Reuters) - Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Tuesday said a lower court judge who ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to reinstate 17,000 fired federal workers likely lacked the ability to hear the case at all. A three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a ruling that said the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in February wrongly ordered six agencies to fire probationary employees en masse. Probationary workers typically have less than one year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees in new roles, and they have fewer job protections than other government workers. The administration fired roughly 25,000 probationary employees, an early step in Trump's efforts to dramatically downsize the federal bureaucracy. Two Trump appointees on the 9th Circuit panel said it seemed that the unions that sued over the firings were instead required to take their claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which hears federal workers' appeals when they are fired or disciplined. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said it was "crazy" and "weird" that the American Federation of Government Employees and other unions opted to sue OPM instead of challenging the individual firings at the merit board. 'There's a problem here,' he said. 'It seems to be circumventing an agency process and it's doing it by grabbing hold of an agency that never fired anybody." The three-member merit board currently lacks a quorum to decide cases after Trump in January fired a Democratic member, Cathy Harris, in an unprecedented move. The U.S. Supreme Court in May allowed Harris to be removed while her lawsuit challenging her termination plays out. More than 13,000 appeals have been filed with the board since Trump took office in January. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in March had said that OPM improperly directed the firings by telling agencies they should terminate all but the most critical probationary workers. The Supreme Court in April stayed the ruling, which applied to the U.S. Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury, pending the appeal. The employees had been reinstated before the Supreme Court's decision, though many were placed on administrative leave and did not return to work. The practical impact of a ruling reversing Alsup is unclear, as many probationary workers have lost or could soon lose their jobs as part of broader federal layoffs. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress on Tuesday said that if the firings were illegal, the unions should have gone after the individual agencies in seeking to have workers reinstated. 'You don't need OPM to be a defendant or a party in that process in order to be able to achieve that result,' Bress said to Danielle Leonard, who argued for the unions. Leonard countered that the core claim in the lawsuit is that OPM unlawfully created a rule redefining when probationary workers can be fired without going through the administrative process required by federal law. The merit board cannot resolve that claim, she said. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen broke with her colleagues, saying that in merit board cases the defendants are the employing agencies. The unions 'are not asserting that. They're asserting that OPM acted outside its authority," said Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. A federal judge in Maryland had separately ruled in March that the firings of probationary workers were unlawful because agencies failed to give states advance notice as required by federal law. The Virginia-based 4th Circuit paused that decision and is expected to rule soon on the administration's appeal. The case is AFGE v. OPM, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1677. For the unions: Danielle Leonard of Altshuler Berzon For the government: Emily Hall of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court halts reinstatement of fired federal employees US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies Trump administration ordered to retract 'sham' rationale for firing workers Trump moves to ease firing of recently-hired federal workers US appeals court sides with Trump, clears way to fire thousands of federal workers
