Israel's Cyera valued at $6 billion in funding round, Bloomberg News reports
May 18 (Reuters) - Israel's data security firm Cyera is set to be valued at $6 billion after it raised $500 million in a new investment round, Bloomberg News reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
Israeli news website Calcalist earlier reported some of the details of the investment, the report added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
Middle Eastern stocks lower on geopolitics
June 12 (Reuters) - Stock markets in the Middle East ended lower on Thursday with uncertainty looming after the U.S. decided to relocate personnel from the region ahead of nuclear talks with Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday U.S. personnel were being moved out of the Middle East because "it could be a dangerous place", adding that the United States would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia's benchmark index (.TASI), opens new tab declined 1.5%, dragged down by a 1.2% fall in Al Rajhi Bank ( opens new tab and a 3.3% decrease in Saudi Arabian Mining Company ( opens new tab. The Saudi bourse retreated, erasing all recent recovery gains and pushing the index back towards early June levels. All sectors posted negative performances, indicating a pervasive risk-off sentiment during today's session, said Milad Azar, market analyst at XTB MENA. "While solid fundamentals offer a hopeful outlook, the market's reaction was more heavily influenced by geopolitical tensions," Azar said. "However, this impact may be temporary, and the market could reverse course." Dubai's main share index (.DFGMGI), opens new tab slid 2.3%, its biggest intraday fall in two months, with blue-chip developer Emaar Properties ( opens new tab dropping 3.4%. In Abu Dhabi, the index (.FTFADGI), opens new tab finished 1.1% higher. The decision by the U.S. to evacuate personnel comes at a volatile moment in the region. Trump's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran appear to be deadlocked and U.S. intelligence indicates that Israel has been making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said on Wednesday that if Iran was subjected to strikes it would retaliate by hitting U.S. bases in the region. The Qatari index (.QSI), opens new tab lost 0.8%, as almost all its constituents were in negative territory including petrochemical maker Industries Qatar ( opens new tab, which was down 1.4%. Outside the Gulf, Egypt's blue-chip index (.EGX30), opens new tab was down 1.3%.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
How to survive and thrive when markets are on a roller-coaster ride
Stock markets on both sides of the Atlantic have been on a roller-coaster. From a high of just over 6,100 in February, the S&P 500 index dipped briefly below 5,000 in early April on the back of Donald Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs. Two months on, it has regained almost all of its losses to sit just above 6,000 again. Same story over here. The FTSE 100 peaked in early March at nearly 8,900, fell below 7,700 after the April 2 tariffs announcement and, as in America, has regained all its losses in short order. The UK benchmark narrowly failed to close at a new all-time high on Wednesday. The swings in sentiment on either side of the pond have been dramatic, if at times puzzling. The alacrity with which investors have regained their mojo in the past couple of months seems curious set alongside tariffs, which remain far worse than at the start of the year. The 'buy the dip' optimism is also at odds with a big, but, I would say, far from 'beautiful', bill that promises a spiralling US deficit and undermines long-standing fiscal accords between the US and the rest of the world. The volatility of global stock markets so far this year suggests I'm not the only investor to be confused. But my interest in the gyrations on Wall Street and here in London is, for the purposes of this column, more practical. It has got me thinking about the pros and cons of cutting investment losses and running profits – because the wisdom of both approaches has been given a stiff road-test in recent weeks. The strategy of cutting losses quickly and allowing stock market profits to run is a common rule of thumb. The theory is that systematically cutting losses early prevents them from becoming potentially more damaging falls. Doing so limits losses, leaving more of your capital intact to gain from better investment decisions. Meanwhile, running profits allows you to capture the full potential of profitable trades. Both are good from a psychological perspective, helping investors avoid emotional, and therefore sub-optimal, decisions. But the jury is out on whether the strategies really work in practice. Cutting losses runs the risk of prematurely closing out a trade that might have gone on to make significant gains. Selling at the market low in early April would have been an extremely expensive mistake, in the short term at least. It is hard to implement, too, requiring us to accept that we have got it wrong and to write off not just money but also emotional investment. Running profits is easier than cutting losses but it can be stressful if you are scared that the gains you have so patiently built up might evaporate because you failed to crystallise them in time. So much, so theoretical. How does it work out in practice? One of the advantages of having made annual fund recommendations to our personal investors over the past 10 years is that I can test these trading rules of thumb against lived experience. Here are some of the things I've learnt from the performance of my picks since 2016. That first year provided an important lesson – the danger of overreacting to an early disappointment. The first six weeks of 2016 were tough for investors. The MSCI World index fell by 11pc by the middle of February and my picks for the year – Rathbone Global Opportunities, Schroder Tokyo and Fidelity Moneybuilder Dividend – followed the market down. Had I implemented a stop loss at, say, 10pc, I would have crystallised a fall in value that went on to be more than reversed by the end of the year. The three funds were up by between 6pc and 16pc 12 months on, all three outpacing the global index over the year. More importantly, bailing out early would have meant missing out on further modest gains by the Schroder and Fidelity funds, in the years since 2016, and a spectacular one by the Rathbone portfolio. A £100 investment in the Rathbone fund 10 years ago is worth just over £300 today. In 2019 and 2020 we learnt another important lesson; the importance of distinguishing between your personal investment choices and broad-based market movements over which you have no control. At the start of 2019, I recommended four funds: the Baillie Gifford Japanese, Lindsell Train UK Equity, Fidelity Global Dividend and Fidelity Select 50 Balanced funds. By the end of that year, all four were usefully ahead. However, three months later, after the outbreak of Covid, all of them had given up their 2019 gains. A rolling stop loss would have kicked in at the low point. Again, this would have been a mistake. The Fidelity Global Dividend Fund has since doubled. Perhaps the most interesting lesson was provided by 2021's recommendations. That year's picks have delivered a wide range of outcomes. The best has turned £100 into more than £160 over four and a half years. The worst is still more than 20pc down and has gone sideways for the past two years. Foresight UK Infrastructure is showing no sign of getting back above water. So one strategy for a diversified portfolio might be to systematically recycle persistent under-performers into the investments that are making you money. Some would think that not doing this is wilful stubbornness. As Warren Buffett said: 'Selling your winners and holding your losers is like cutting your flowers and watering your weeds.' Had I done that two years ago, when the Foresight fund first hit a 20pc loss trigger, I would have diverted the £80 I had left from an initial £100 investment into Fidelity Special Situations (the year's best performing recommendation). I would be £7 above break-even today with that slice of my portfolio, despite the poor start. Of course, this analysis benefits from hindsight, which I didn't have at the time. But, exercised with discipline, there's a case for accepting defeat after a 20pc fall and putting the proceeds back to work where momentum is on your side. In investment, as in life, it's sometimes better to move on.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Wait a minute before you sack your fund manager
I f the football world were to follow in the footsteps of investment funds, you would no longer see suited and booted managers on the sidelines of many pitches. Instead, there would be a machine standing in the technical area, gesturing frantically to the players and swearing at the referee. Active fund managers (human stockpickers who run an investment fund) have fallen out of favour. Many investors now prefer tracker funds, cheaper alternatives that track an index without a person at the helm. Personally, I like a mix of the two. The bulk — about 80 per cent — of my portfolio is in a low-cost global tracker fund, and the rest is split between two individual companies (which are free to invest in), one active fund and one investment trust (which is actively managed).
