Owens & Minor spikes $1.36B Rotech buyout over regulatory barriers
This story was originally published on MedTech Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily MedTech Dive newsletter.
Owens & Minor said Thursday it has terminated the planned $1.36 billion acquisition of home medical equipment company Rotech Healthcare Holdings.
The companies mutually agreed to terminate the deal after getting regulatory clearance 'proved unviable in terms of time, expense and opportunity,' Owens & Minor CEO Edward Pesicka said in a statement.
Owens & Minor originally aimed to close the takeover by the end of last year. However, the deal was held up by the Federal Trade Commission's review.
Owens & Minor and Rotech announced the acquisition in July 2024. Having set the goal of almost doubling patient direct sales by 2028, Owens & Minor moved to boost its position in areas including respiratory and sleep apnea products by acquiring Rotech. Privately owned Rotech reported $750 million in net revenue in 2023.
The closing date was delayed by an FTC investigation. Owens & Minor and Rotech entered into a timing agreement with the FTC that gave the federal agency until June 10 to complete its review of the deal. Days from the deadline, Owens & Minor and Rotech terminated the takeover agreement.
Pesicka said the merger would have provided 'ample benefits to patients, payors, and providers.' Yet, the 'path to obtain regulatory clearance' proved unviable, the CEO said, driving the companies to drop the merger.
Owens & Minor paid Rotech $80 million in conjunction with the termination. The company previously said the deal included a $70 million termination fee. The $80 million termination payment brings Owens & Minor's spending on the deal above $100 million. Acquisition-related costs totaled $22 million in 2024 and $16 million in the first quarter of 2025.
The termination closed off an avenue to Owens & Minor's 2028 patient direct sales target but investors reacted positively to the news. Shares in Owens & Minor jumped 14% to close at $7.61 on Thursday.
Rotech's revenue fell almost 4% to $725.8 million last year. Asked about the results on an earnings call with analysts last month, Owens & Minor CFO Jonathan Leon said the declines 'were largely anticipated and largely resulted from a lot of COVID-era benefit that the industry got to realize that fell off in early 2024.'
Recommended Reading
Owens & Minor inks $1.36B takeover of Rotech
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods
While tariffs are a headache for retail, that doesn't necessarily mean the space should be avoided entirely. Dick's Sporting Goods has enjoyed a few years of growth in a turnaround from what was a stagnant business. Macy's, on the other hand, is struggling with weak annual top-line growth and it is shuttering stores. 10 stocks we like better than Dick's Sporting Goods › Retail is a confusing segment right now, with the price of goods impacted via increases in tariffs causing a tougher situation for not only consumers, but also sellers and producers. Let's take a look at two major retailers, Macy's (NYSE: M) and Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS). In all, I think one of these two retail titans is showing more signs of life, whereas the other is being forced to shrink to improve its bottom line. Macy's saw an uptick in the few years following the COVID-19 outbreak but has since been in slow stagnation, with revenue declining over the last two years. Looking into 2025, the retailer's first quarter beat estimates, but the overall outlook underwhelmed. The company reported adjusted earnings of $0.16 per share versus estimates of $0.14 per share, while total revenue came in at $4.60 billion compared to expectations of $4.50 billion. From another perspective, things didn't look that great. While revenue came in above expectations, it trailed last year's total sales of roughly $4.85 billion. Operating income fell 24.8% year over year to $94 million, and net income declined 38.7% to $38 million. Diluted earnings per share declined from $0.22 in the first quarter of 2024 to $0.13 per diluted share this year. These year-over-year declines are something that is haunting Macy's and putting downward pressure on the stock. For this year, the company reiterated net sales guidance in the range of $21 billion to $21.4 billion. In comparison, it reported sales of $22.29 billion in 2024. All in all, Macy's cut its profit outlook for the year and expects to raise prices on products to offset the impact of tariffs on its goods. In contrast, Dick's Sporting Goods has done surprisingly OK. First-quarter results included a 5.2% year-over-year increase in sales revenue, to roughly $3.18 billion, while non-GAAP income was flat at $275 million. The company has been building sales annually and provided good guidance for 2025, reiterating its previous expectations of $13.80 to $14.40 in earnings per share. The high end of that range would beat out 2024, which finished with diluted earnings per share of $14.05. Net sales are expected to be in the range of $13.6 billion to $13.9 billion, which would outperform last year's revenue of $13.45 billion. Dick's is also looking to expand through its announced acquisition of Foot Locker for $2.5 billion. This drastically increases the company's position within shoes and sets up Dick's for future growth, as Foot Locker had been in the midst of a turnaround itself. This story is a comparison of a company that is shuttering stores in an attempt to become a leaner machine, relative to a company that seemingly is looking to grow. Though improvement is slow, Dick's has been reporting better year-over-year sales figures than Macy's, with plans to open new stores and even make an acquisition, whereas Macy's plans to close over 100 locations and raise prices. While the potential for tariffs to cause headaches for both of these companies is something to be mindful of, I think you have to go with Dick's Sporting Goods here. Its diversified offerings give it a broader consumer base, while Macy's is more heavily concentrated in clothing, perfumes, etc. Unlike a lot of tech, there's still some value in retail, with Dick's trading at a little over 12 times earnings and offering a 2.73% dividend yield. While the short term might be a bit choppy due to tariffs, long-term this company seems to be making the right moves. Before you buy stock in Dick's Sporting Goods, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Dick's Sporting Goods wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Butler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound
With a high yield and monthly dividend payout, AGNC often draws the attention of income-oriented investors. However, AGNC has struggled in recent years due to rising mortgage rates and an inverted yield curve. The setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. 10 stocks we like better than AGNC Investment Corp. › AGNC Investment (NASDAQ: AGNC) has one of the highest dividend yields in the market, sitting at about 16%. But with a stock price that's steadily declined the past few years, investors are right to ask: Is the payout sustainable, and more importantly, is the stock a buy today? For those unfamiliar, AGNC is a mortgage real estate investment trust (mREIT) that owns agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), primarily guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these securities are backed by government agencies, they carry virtually no credit risk. But AGNC's business is far from risk-free, and here's where the story gets complicated. The biggest issue facing AGNC the past few years has been higher mortgage interest rates. There have been two main issues that have pushed up rates. One is that the Federal Reserve aggressively raised benchmark interest rates a couple of years ago to combat inflation. This resulted in mortgage rates also climbing. However, that was not the only reason mortgage rates shot up. Spreads between MBS yields and Treasury yields also began to significantly widen. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed was a huge buyer of MBSs, driving down yields and narrowing the yield spread between MBS and Treasuries. However, after the pandemic, it stopped purchasing MBSs and began letting them roll off its balance sheet as they matured. About the same time, banks also began to back off buying MBS as bond prices fell, and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which was heavily concentrated in long-duration MBSs, only pushed banks further away from the MBS market. During this period, the value of AGNC's MBS portfolio, as measured by its tangible book value (TBV), plunged. From the end of 2021 through the end of 2023, AGNC's tangible book dropped 45% from $15.75 to $8.70 per share. It has slipped a bit further since, and stood at $8.25 at the end of Q1 2025. Ultimately, where AGNC's TBV goes, its stock is sure to follow. Despite the rough stretch that AGNC has seen, the setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has signaled that more rate cuts could be on the table, and the Fed's own projections point to lower rates in the years ahead. That should be a much better environment for AGNC. Fed rate cuts could benefit AGNC in two main ways. First, it would likely reduce its short-term funding costs; AGNC tries to borrow money to invest in MBSs with longer maturities and higher yields. Second, lower rates could help increase its TBV by boosting MBS valuations. The past few years, the Treasury yield curve was inverted, which means that shorter-term Treasuries, like the two-year, had a higher yield than long-term Treasuries, like the 10-year. Not surprisingly, this is not a good environment for a company that generates its income from the spread between short- and long-term rates. Now, AGNC actively hedges out its funding costs to better align them with the duration of its MBS assets. However, it's not able to fully offset the pressure from an inverted curve over an extended period of time. With the yield curve flipping from inverted to positive (long-term yields being higher than short-term yields) late last year, though, AGNC stands to benefit from wider spreads. AGNC's portfolio is also well-positioned if MBS yields begin to fall. More than 80% of its holdings carry coupons of 6% or lower, which helps limit prepayment risk. Prepayment risk is highest when homeowners begin to refinance into lower-rate mortgages, forcing mortgage REITs to reinvest in lower-yielding MBS. While high dividend yields are attractive, they can also be a warning sign. However, AGNC has maintained the payout through a very difficult environment, albeit sometimes at the expense of a lower tangible book value. It's not fair to say the dividend is completely safe, but if the yield curve continues to steepen, the dividend should become more sustainable. If MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads narrow from historically wide levels as banks or other institutions reenter the MBS market, AGNC could see a meaningful recovery in both its book value and share price. That's the best-case scenario. However, even if that doesn't play out, AGNC still has room to deliver solid total returns. The company pays a monthly dividend of $0.12 per share, which equates to a yield of about 16% based on recent prices for the stock. That dividend income alone puts it in a strong position to outperform in a market that seems to have stalled. With even a modest portfolio value recovery, AGNC could deliver annual 20% to 25% total returns during the next few years. Overall, I'd consider AGNC a high-risk, high-reward income play. However, the stock has already taken the brunt of the blow from higher interest rates and wide MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads, and the current environment may finally be turning in its favor. The wild card is whether historically wide MBS-to-Treasury spreads begin to narrow, because if they do, the upside could be significant. For investors who understand and are comfortable with the risks, AGNC offers a very high yield with strong potential upside. It's not a set-it-and-forget-it stock, but at current prices, it could be a smart investment for income-focused investors during the next few years. Before you buy stock in AGNC Investment Corp., consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and AGNC Investment Corp. wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound was originally published by The Motley Fool
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
A bond market meltdown might be inevitable
The recent surge in yields on long-dated U.S. Treasurys has generated concern in some circles. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently warned that the bond market is likely to crack as a result of spiraling government debt levels. 'I just don't know if it's going to be a crisis in six months or six years, and I'm hoping that we change both the trajectory of the debt and the ability of market makers to make markets,' he said. Others remain more sanguine and observe that interest rates have in fact normalized close to their pre-2008 global financial crisis levels. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, both real and nominal rates were stuck at unusually low levels for about a dozen years. But, since 2022, we have seen both policy and market rates edge toward their pre-crisis levels. With interest rates reverting back to their historical norms, is the current wariness surrounding the long end of the yield curve among key investors warranted? To evaluate the validity of such fears, it is worth reviewing recent U.S. fiscal history. During the past 45 years, the U.S. has had to deal periodically with the 'twin deficits' problem — the near-synchronous widening of the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit. In the past, bipartisan policy compromises pushed through by enlightened political leadership have helped America avoid a debt/currency crisis. In the early 1980s, the Reagan-era tax cuts contributed to a decline in U.S. government revenue that was not offset by cuts on the spending side and this led to a widening of the budget deficit. Meanwhile, the high interest rates associated with the Paul Volcker disinflation episode led to a sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar and contributed to a deterioration of the trade and current account balances. This simultaneous deterioration of budget and current account balances gave rise to the twin-deficit hypothesis and highlighted the potential interconnectedness between fiscal deficits and trade deficits. Emergence of 'twin deficits' during the early 1980s generated significant concern in policymaking circles and led to concrete measures on both the fiscal front (in the form of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) and on the exchange rate stabilization front (in the form of multilateral agreements such as the 1985 Plaza Accord and the 1987 Louvre Accord). In the Clinton era, further steps (such as the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the reduction in military spending associated with the post-Cold War peace dividend and the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) were undertaken to improve the U.S. fiscal outlook. During the fiscal 1998 through fiscal 2001 period, the federal government even ran budget surpluses. Concerns regarding the 'twin deficits' reemerged during the George W. Bush era as fiscal and current account imbalances worsened. Prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, economists worried that the spike in budget and trade deficits was serious enough to threaten a dollar crisis. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, however, there was a dollar shortage abroad and the U.S. currency actually strengthened. Furthermore, as household consumption collapsed and personal saving rate rose, the U.S. current account markedly improved in the post- global financial crisis era. During the Obama era, the 2011 Budget Control Act and the artificially suppressed borrowing costs (via Fed's quantitative easing and near-zero interest rate policies) helped ease the fiscal burden. Over the past five years, both the budget and trade deficits have deteriorated sharply. Budget deficits have exceeded 5 percent of GDP since 2020 and projections indicate deficits will remain elevated, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability. Critically, government borrowing costs have risen sharply since 2022. Historian Niall Ferguson has suggested that America's superpower status may be threatened as the U.S. government now spends more on interest payments than on defense. Unlike prior episodes, the current cycle of deteriorating external and fiscal imbalances is significantly more worrisome as the country appears to be beset by institutional decay and political ineptitude. Domestic and foreign investors in U.S. Treasurys are starting to fret about the absence of fiscal rectitude even as government debt-to-GDP ratios reach levels last observed in 1946. Additionally, illogical and inconsistent policies on the trade and foreign policy front raise the prospect of a so-called 'moron premium' being applied to U.S. assets. Legislative threats to tax foreign capital is raising alarm and will likely push up the cost of borrowing even further. Such actions are also fueling concerns about the pre-eminent reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Any diminishment of dollar's exorbitant privilege will affect U.S. fiscal sustainability. Unlike the 1990s, there is currently no political consensus on reining in fiscal profligacy and restoring fiscal sanity. Harvard's Ken Rogoff recently noted: 'To be sure, this isn't just about Trump. Interest rates were already rising sharply during Biden's term. Had Democrats won the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2024, America's fiscal outlook would probably have been just as bleak. Until a crisis hits, there is little political will to act, and any leader who attempts to pursue fiscal consolidation runs the risk of being voted out of office.' The late great MIT economist Rudiger Dornbusch once quipped: 'In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.' Recent spikes in bond market volatility and long-dated Treasury yields suggest that the moment of fiscal reckoning may finally be approaching. Vivekanand Jayakumar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at the University of Tampa.
