Europe's VCs Seek Glimmers of Growth Amid the Gloom
Welcome to Tech In Depth, our daily newsletter with reporting and analysis about the business of tech from Bloomberg's journalists around the world. Today, Mark Bergen sends his dispatch from SuperVenture, the Berlin gathering for Europe's return-hungry venture capitalists.
Help us improve Bloomberg's newsletters: Take a quick survey to share your thoughts on your signup experience and what you'd like to see in the future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get?
We've seen the headlines that reveal how rich the world's top billionaires are — but it's hard to comprehend just how rich they are. Consider this: Let's say you had $1 billion in your bank account and had to spend $100,000 every day, for an entire year. After 365 days, you would still have $963,500,000 (nine hundred sixty-three million five hundred thousand). Discover More: Find Out: Over the last two decades, billionaires have ballooned their wealth to unparalleled levels. In 2005, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates ranked as the world's richest person, with a net worth of $46.5 billion, as reported by CNN. Today, that title belongs to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose net worth stands at $368 billion as of June 5, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Even when adjusted for inflation, Gates' former net worth would be equivalent to roughly $76 billion in today's dollars. It is worth noting that other billionaires have also increased their wealth during the same time. For instance, tech billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are worth $229 billion and $227 billion, ranking second and third globally. For many Americans, this trend is not sitting well. The sky-high cost of living has catalyzed support for redistributive tax policies, especially among younger voters and the progressive base of the Democratic Party. While higher taxation may or may not happen in the years to come, here's hypothetically how much you'd get if the world's richest man gives a check to every American. The United States Census Bureau estimates the current population to be around 341 million people, ranking only behind India and China. If Musk's enormous $390 billion were equally divided in the U.S., each person would receive $1,144 (rounded to the nearest dollar). A couple would receive $2,288, while a family of four would get $4,576. Despite the enormous wealth of billionaires, much of their fortune is tied up in stocks, real estate, and other holdings. Only a small percentage of their assets is held in cash. Based on data from Forbes, Musk has a 12% ownership stake in Tesla and to date, he remains the largest shareholder in the $1.15 trillion electric vehicle company. This is in addition to a 42% slice in SpaceX and a 54% interest in xAI, among many other businesses. Interestingly, Bloomberg reported that Musk's financial holdings appreciated by 77% after joining the campaign trail with President Donald Trump late last year, as reported by Bloomberg. Investors became bullish on Tesla and Musk became the first person to ever reach a net worth exceeding $400 billion. Since then, Tesla's market value has fluctuated as a result of volatile market conditions, macroeconomic factors and the threat of a global trade war. More From GOBankingRates 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years This article originally appeared on If Elon Musk's Wealth Was Evenly Distributed Across America, How Much Money Would Every Person Get? Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
H&M Billionaire Quietly Moves Brand Toward Private Ownership
(Bloomberg) -- Hennes & Mauritz AB, the fast-fashion retailer that's been listed on the Swedish stock market since 1974, is steadily moving back toward private ownership. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The founding family has stepped up purchases of H&M shares, spending more than 63 billion kronor ($6.6 billion) since 2016 to amass nearly two-thirds control and fueling speculation it could take the Stockholm-based company back into private hands — despite denials from family members. The Perssons, one of Sweden's wealthiest families, have built up a growing stake through holding company Ramsbury Invest, saying little about their intentions other than that they 'believe' in H&M, which was founded in 1947 by Erling Persson. The media-shy clan is now getting within striking distance of full control of the retailer, which in recent years has been losing ground among shoppers to its main rival Zara and 'ultra-fast fashion' upstarts like Shein. 'This is something we've been talking about for years, and few would doubt that's the direction things are headed,' said Sverre Linton, chief legal officer and spokesperson for the Swedish Shareholders' Association, which represents small stock investors. If the family doesn't plan to take H&M private, it should communicate that more clearly and stop buying shares, he added. The family has ramped up insider buying by reinvesting dividends, boosting its H&M stake to almost 64% from 35.5% over the past nine years via Ramsbury, a vehicle named after billionaire Stefan Persson's sprawling estate, one of the largest private landholdings in southern England. Including extended family holdings, the Perssons now control roughly 70% of the capital and some 85% of voting rights, according to H&M's website. In an interview last year with Bloomberg, H&M Chairman Karl-Johan Persson — grandson of the founder — dismissed talk that the family intended to take the company private. 'There are no plans,' he said. 'We just buy because we believe in the company.' Representatives at Ramsbury Invest and H&M declined to comment. Analysts including Niklas Ekman at DNB Carnegie say the regular purchases could be more than a show of confidence in the retailer. In a note to clients last month, he estimated that if the family keeps acquiring shares at the same pace a buyout could come as early as two years from now. If the family's holding reached 90%, it could request a de-listing of the shares. A take-private would be 'based on emotional rather than financial motives,' Ekman wrote, given that the family already has a controlling stake and has long managed the company with little regard for minority shareholders. He attributed the push to patriarch Stefan Persson, 77, who built H&M into one of the world's largest fast-fashion retailers during his 16 years as chief executive officer and more than two decades as chairman. He remains deeply invested in the company's future. Stefan's fortune amounts to $18.6 billion, mostly in H&M stock, making him the richest person in Sweden, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He bought the 3,000-acre Ramsbury estate in 1997 and has since expanded it to 19,000 acres, building a brewery, distillery and oil press on the property. His son Karl-Johan, who took over as H&M chairman in 2020 after serving as CEO, also holds an active role at Ramsbury Invest. He has voiced frustration in interviews with the stock market's short-term focus on maximizing profits. 'They've never, at least in modern times, expressed a strong desire to remain public,' said Daniel Schmidt, an analyst at Danske Bank. 'I would say that transparency has always been a part of it.' H&M's shares reached an all-time high about a decade ago, and have since fallen by around 60%, valuing the group at 220 billion kronor. Zara owner Inditex SA, by contrast, has climbed about 60% over that period. For the Perssons, the sagging stock price is no doubt a frustration, but also presents an opportunity by making full control more attainable. At the current price it would cost the family at least 70 billion kronor to buy the remaining outstanding shares, according to Ekman. That would likely require them to take on debt. A delisting would probably also require a premium, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Charles Allen. 'If the bid were financed by debt then it may reduce the company's operating flexibility,' Allen said. 'It wouldn't really matter if the debt was in the company or the family as either way cash flow would have to be diverted from investment to pay interest and then repay.' Operationally, the fast-fashion retailer appears stuck in the slow lane, facing tepid demand for its apparel, fierce competition and now US tariffs. The first-quarter results were weaker than analysts had expected and showed that efforts to claw back customers through higher marketing spending hadn't brought a rebound. CEO Daniel Erver, an H&M veteran who took the top job last January, was involved in setting the current strategy and has yet to reverse market share losses in countries including Germany, France and the UK. Attempts to reconnect with younger audiences through collaborations, such as with pop artist Charli XCX, haven't significantly boosted growth. 'With the share price as subdued as it is currently, offering a small premium today, could potentially be cheaper if the share price recovers at some point in the future,' said Mads Lindegaard Rosendal, a senior analyst at Danske Bank. He said the potential risk of a take private is one of the reasons why Danske Bank has an 'underweight' rating on H&M, which is a 'company that is also struggling somewhat with their ongoing operational turnaround.' As one of the most shorted stocks in Europe, a buyout could force short sellers to unwind their negative bets on H&M and send the shares soaring. Shares out on loan, an indication of short interest, were at 21% of H&M's free float as of June 4, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. H&M has been criticized for a lack of transparency over sudden management changes and being the only company in Stockholm's benchmark index not to disclose the shareholdings of its top executive team. 'Obviously, being a listed company puts management under more scrutiny than if they were private, but it also presumably offers some incentives to management and other employees that would not be available if it were private,' BI's Allen said. Anders Oscarsson, the head of equities at AMF, one of Sweden's biggest pension managers and the largest non-family shareholder, said he hasn't heard the family say anything about taking H&M private, and that such a move would be a big loss for investors. 'It would be sad if the company disappears from the stock exchange,' he said. 'If we're to generate returns from the stock market, we need strong companies listed.' Yet if the family's purchases lead to a marked deterioration in the stock's liquidity, that wouldn't be a good outcome either. 'It might become a bit like Hotel California — where you can neither check in nor check out.' --With assistance from Blaise Robinson. (Updates with more details on stake ownership, analyst comments and details on shorted stock.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Trump-Musk split could leave Tesla politically homeless
The spectacular breakup between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump threatens to leave Tesla with few political friends. Musk has spent the past few months alienating the electric automaker's base of climate-minded car buyers by moonlighting as Trump's government-slasher-in-chief. Now, the billionaire's fixation on the GOP megabill has opened a dangerous rift with the president, who threatened Thursday to end all subsidies to Musk's companies. Tesla's stock had its largest one-day drop in history Thursday as Musk and Trump sniped at each other from their respective social media platforms. The share price fell more than 14 percent, lopping off more than $150 billion from Tesla's market value — and, according to Bloomberg, tanking Musk's personal net worth by $34 billion. Advertisement The core of the argument between the two men — whether the Republican spending package is a 'big, beautiful bill' or a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK' — is a side concern for people whose main priority is Tesla. 'The CEO of that company needs to spend his time focused on the company's success,' said Nick Nigro, the head of Atlas Public Policy, which analyzes the electric vehicle market. 'Whether his interest in federal policy comes from a good place, it's a distraction from what Tesla shareholders and drivers need, which is his full attention.' Seth Abramson, a vociferous Musk critic who is writing a book about the entrepreneur, wrote on X that 'Musk will go the rest of his life without a political home or patron, shunned by politicians of both parties and therefore unable to effectively operate as a CEO of any company.' The breakup between the world's richest man and one of its most powerful could have far-reaching impacts for Musk's companies. Investor optimism about Tesla has been based on the assumption that Musk's proximity to power would lead to a national policy on autonomous vehicles that would ease the arrival of Tesla's robotaxi, which is supposed to hit the roads of Austin, Texas, this month. Musk could also lose leverage on other issues important to Tesla, such as Trump's tariffs on China's critical minerals. Meanwhile, his space company SpaceX has billions of dollars of federal defense and space contracts — now at risk — while its satellite subsidiary Starlink is angling for billions more in federal broadband subsidies. 'Attack mode' Tesla is still the country's largest electric automaker. But the Trump-Musk split comes at a vulnerable moment for both Tesla and electric vehicles writ large. The company is facing declining sales around the world, as its vehicle lineup has grown stale and Musk's political activities have turned off many EV buyers in Europe and North America. Meanwhile, federal support for EVs is hanging by a thread. The House's version of the megabill would drastically scale back Biden-era tax incentives meant to stimulate EV manufacturing and sales. The fight between Trump and Musk escalated on Thursday after Trump told reporters that Musk was 'upset' about the House-passed bill's proposal to remove EV tax credits and other incentives. Musk took to X to deny that narrative, writing: 'Keep the EV/solar incentives cuts in the bill, also cut all the crazy spending increases in the Big Ugly Bill so that America doesn't go bankrupt!' The president's repeated attacks on EVs and vows to repeal the Biden administration's subsidies certainly didn't seem to trouble Musk much during last year's campaign, when the megabillionaire spent more than $270 million and countless hours to help put Trump back into the White House. (Trump did concede at the time that Tesla made a 'great product.') Musk's apparent willingness to sacrifice federal incentives was unwelcome news to clean energy and EV advocates who hope Republican senators will save some of the tax credits from the Democrats' 2022 climate law. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate, and some GOP senators have indicated they think the bill's rollbacks go too far. The war of words between Trump and Musk ended any hopes that the Tesla CEO would have the leverage with the White House to tip the scales. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social. That statement was a far cry from three months ago, when Trump made a show of buying a Tesla in front of the White House. That gesture raised hopes among some Tesla shareholders that Republicans would embrace Tesla and compensate for its diminished popularity among Democrats, many of whom had taken to staging protests outside its showrooms. 'I'm going to buy because No. 1, it's a great product, as good as it gets. And No. 2, because this man has devoted his energy and his life to doing this, I think he's been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people,' Trump said at the time about Musk. Now, that's all changed. 'Trump no longer has to say nice things about Tesla and EVs,' said Loren McDonald, an EV analyst at Paren, an EV data shop. 'He and the admin can go back to EVs are evil attack mode.' Critical minerals and beyond The fizzled bromance could also have far-reaching ripple effects on myriad, complex relationships that Tesla has across the globe, as well as its business before the federal government. Musk, for example, will presumably hold no sway over the administration's intended move to impose steep tariffs on imports of Chinese graphite used to make EV batteries. The Commerce Department concluded last month that imported Chinese graphite is receiving unfair subsidizes. The agency laid out a plan to impose tariffs of up to 721 percent on some natural and artificial graphite active anode material from China that's used in batteries. Tesla has fought against the tariffs, with one of the company's attorneys pointing out that U.S. manufacturers don't yet produce anode material that meets carmakers' standards. The fallout could also put a bulls-eye on Musk's financial ties to Beijing, something Democrats have repeatedly railed against. The Trump administration and lawmakers from both parties are pushing to ease China's grip on supply chains, from the production of critical minerals to processing and manufacturing of EV batteries. Yet Tesla has many ties to China, including reliance on graphite imports, a gigafactory located in Shanghai, and ongoing work with Contemporary Amperex Technology. CATL, the world's largest battery-maker, is on a U.S. government list of companies that work with the Chinese military. In short, nothing on Thursday boded well for America's leading electric automaker. 'It's another Twilight Zone moment in this Musk/Trump relationship which now is quickly moving downhill,' wrote Dan Ives, an analyst at investment shop Wedbush Securities who tracks Tesla. But Ives nonetheless remained hopeful. The subject line of his email: 'Friends Again Soon?' Hannah Northey contributed to this report. This story also appears in Climatewire.
