CKI Nears Deal for National Grid's £2 Billion LNG Terminal
The Hong Kong-based company is negotiating final terms of a deal for National Grid Plc 's Grain LNG facility and could reach an agreement as soon as the coming days, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. CKI was competing with a consortium led by Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Drugs Made In America Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:DMAA) is definitely on the radar of institutional investors who own 38% of the company
Explore Drugs Made In America Acquisition's Fair Values from the Community and select yours Key Insights Significantly high institutional ownership implies Drugs Made In America Acquisition's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions 51% of the business is held by the top 9 shareholders Ownership research, combined with past performance data can help provide a good understanding of opportunities in a stock We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. Every investor in Drugs Made In America Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:DMAA) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. The group holding the most number of shares in the company, around 38% to be precise, is institutions. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). Since institutional have access to huge amounts of capital, their market moves tend to receive a lot of scrutiny by retail or individual investors. Therefore, a good portion of institutional money invested in the company is usually a huge vote of confidence on its future. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Drugs Made In America Acquisition, beginning with the chart below. Check out our latest analysis for Drugs Made In America Acquisition What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Drugs Made In America Acquisition? Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Drugs Made In America Acquisition. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Drugs Made In America Acquisition's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. It would appear that 16% of Drugs Made In America Acquisition shares are controlled by hedge funds. That's interesting, because hedge funds can be quite active and activist. Many look for medium term catalysts that will drive the share price higher. The company's largest shareholder is Drugs Made In America Acquisition LLC, with ownership of 12%. Karpus Management Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 6.9% of common stock, and First Trust Capital Management L.P. holds about 6.2% of the company stock. We also observed that the top 9 shareholders account for more than half of the share register, with a few smaller shareholders to balance the interests of the larger ones to a certain extent. While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. We're not picking up on any analyst coverage of the stock at the moment, so the company is unlikely to be widely held. Insider Ownership Of Drugs Made In America Acquisition The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. We can see that insiders own shares in Drugs Made In America Acquisition Corp.. As individuals, the insiders collectively own US$4.1m worth of the US$345m company. It is good to see some investment by insiders, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. General Public Ownership The general public-- including retail investors -- own 32% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. Private Company Ownership We can see that Private Companies own 12%, of the shares on issue. It's hard to draw any conclusions from this fact alone, so its worth looking into who owns those private companies. Sometimes insiders or other related parties have an interest in shares in a public company through a separate private company. Next Steps: I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Be aware that Drugs Made In America Acquisition is showing 4 warning signs in our investment analysis , and 2 of those make us uncomfortable... If you would prefer check out another company -- one with potentially superior financials -- then do not miss this free list of interesting companies, backed by strong financial data. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why The ‘Buy Europe' Trade Is About To Slam Into A Wall
Remember a few months ago, when the 'buy Europe' trade was red hot? Well, if you're like me, you're wondering where all the hype went! Now 'buy America' is back on, but European markets are still sky-high—well ahead of their American cousins. That spells trouble for anyone with a portfolio that's still tilted too much toward Europe. So today we're going to look into where things are headed (hint: back to the US in a big way!). We'll also delve into three funds with European exposure (two of which are closed-end funds sporting double-digit dividends) that I urge you to hold off on now. Headlines Drove 'Buy Europe,' But Corporate Profits Failed to Materialize The Financial Times was one of many outlets cheerleading a shift to Europe from America back in the spring. At the time, this sentiment was driven by tariffs, seemingly overextended US tech stocks and surging US markets. 'There's all sorts of reasons to like Europe, all sorts of reasons to hate the US,' contributor Katie Martin said in an April 25 FT podcast. The buy Europe trade was working well as recently as June, when the FT again reported that 'European small-caps outshine US rivals as investors bet on growth revival.' Note the phrase growth revival here: The idea was that European stocks were overlooked and would gain attention when their earnings grew. Except that didn't happen, with European firms posting disappointing earnings, as shown in the table below (more on this in a moment). Meanwhile in the US, companies saw 9% year-over-year earnings gains in Q2, meaning their average profit growth was much higher than the best sector in Europe (financials). And if you compare the best sector in the US—communication services (see chart below), which includes firms like Alphabet (GOOGL), Meta Platforms (META) and Netflix (NFLX)—to its cousins in Europe, the difference is staggering. As you can see at left above, the US sector's 40.7% earnings growth is many times greater than the best European companies can produce. Meantime, Europe's tech and telecom companies combined can't even muster more than 1% average growth between them. Where does that leave the European markets? Well, they're simply not reflecting this reality. With S&P 500 benchmark SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY)—in purple above—far behind the Vanguard European Stock Index Fund (VGK), in orange, as of this writing, it's clear, based on our look at earnings, that European stocks are overbought. This makes VGK a fund to avoid. But ETFs aren't our main focus at CEF Insider. So let's turn to two CEFs that could face similar pressure. That, by the way, doesn't mean these are bad funds—quite the contrary. But now is not the time to buy them, as they do have significant European holdings likely to weigh on them in the coming months. The first one is a good example of a fund I've liked in the past and will surely like again at some point: the abrdn Global Infrastructure Income Fund (ASGI). This fund yields a rich 11.8%, and its payout has been steady—it's even moved up recently (though the dividend varies based on management's assessment of the market and other factors). Moreover, the fund isn't inherently European—in fact, it has 55% of its portfolio in US stocks, including cornerstone infrastructure players like Norfolk Southern Corp. (NSC) and NextEra Energy (NEE). Still, it has 22% of its holdings in continental European stocks, plus another 2.6% in the UK. That's enough to put a drag on the fund's portfolio when European stocks snap back to reality. Plus there's ASGI's rich valuation. ASGI has been riding the enthusiasm about foreign assets, causing its discount to net asset value (NAV, or the value of its underlying portfolio), which was averaging around 12% going into 2025, to evaporate. When European stocks correct, this fund will likely see a discount—and a consequent drop in its share price. Our second, and final, CEF to be wary of now is the PIMCO Income Strategy II Fund (PFN). This corporate-bond fund yields 11.5% and has held its payout steady since the pandemic days of 2021. However, as I write this, PFN trades at a 5.6% premium to NAV. And while it does have about 77% of its portfolio in the US, its largest allocations by country include European nations—France (3.2%), Spain (3%) and Germany (2.4%), to be precise—and Brazil (2.5%), which faces particularly steep tariffs from the US. To be sure, these are conservative allocations, but throw in PFN's premium and you get a real risk of a pullback, in both the fund's NAV and its market price, on any significant European selloff. And lower returns, especially in the fund's NAV, could put pressure on PFN's payout. The bottom line on all three of these funds? While geographic diversification is key for any portfolio, it's only a matter of time until European stocks drop to reflect their meager earnings growth. Until European firms start booking bigger profits, we're best to look elsewhere for growth. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 10% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Africa's nuclear capacity could expand tenfold by 2050 — report
For now, South Africa remains the only African country generating nuclear power. But Africa's nuclear sector is poised for significant growth, with a new International Atomic Energy Agency report projecting generating capacity could increase tenfold by 2050. Despite having just one operational nuclear plant today, a new report projects that Africa's generating capacity could increase tenfold by 2050. The report, Outlook for Nuclear Energy in Africa by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was launched at the G20 Energy Transitions meeting in South Africa held between July 30 to August 1, 2025, at the Sun City resort in the North West. The report examines how nuclear power could help address the continent's electricity shortages, diversify its energy mix away from fossil fuels, and drive industrial growth. According to MaryAnne Osike from the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA), 'Nuclear is not here to replace wind, solar, or hydro, it's here to strengthen them.' 'Its ability to provide constant, reliable baseload power means renewables can operate more effectively without being limited by weather or seasonal variations,' she shared in a call. 'When integrated into a diversified energy mix, nuclear offers long-term price stability, strengthens grid resilience, and reduces dependence on imported fuels. It's part of the same clean energy toolbox that Africa needs to achieve both climate goals and industrial growth,' she added. The IAEA outlook report also highlights the role of emerging technologies such as small modular reactors, outlines national programmes already underway, and stresses the need for supportive policies, regional cooperation, and innovative financing. According to Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA director-general, 'Access to reliable and low-carbon energy sources such as nuclear can enable Africa to further explore and add value to its vast natural resources.' The shift comes as African governments face the dual challenge of powering economies where more than 500 million people still lack electricity and replacing fossil fuels, which currently provide more than 70% of the continent's power. In the IAEA's high-growth scenario, nuclear capacity in Africa could more than triple by 2030 and expand tenfold by 2050, requiring more than US$100 billion in investment. Even in the low-growth case, output would double by 2030 and increase fivefold by mid-century. For now, South Africa remains the only African country generating nuclear power. Its two-unit Koeberg nuclear power station supplies nearly two gigawatts to the grid, and in 2024, Unit 1 received a 20-year life extension. But several other countries are moving from planning to implementation. Egypt is building the 4.8-gigawatt El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, with its first unit expected online by 2028. Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya, Namibia and Nigeria have made firm decisions to adopt nuclear technology and are working with the IAEA to prepare infrastructure, establish regulatory bodies, and develop human capital. Kenya set up its Nuclear Energy Programme Implementing Organisation in 2012, has since established an independent regulator, and is targeting 2038 for its first reactor, with SMRs under review to match demand patterns. Ghana's Nuclear Power Ghana is in vendor talks for both a large nuclear plant and SMRs, while Nigeria has opened bids for a 4,000-megawatt facility and signed agreements with multiple suppliers. A large part of this momentum is driven by growing interest in small modular reactors (SMRs), which offer flexible power generation in smaller increments than traditional gigawatt-scale plants. 'Global interest in SMRs is increasing due to their ability to meet the need for flexible power generation for a wider range of users and applications,' according to Zizamele Mbambo, South Africa's deputy director-general for nuclear energy. SMRs are well suited to Africa's small or fragmented grids, require less upfront capital, and can be deployed more quickly. They also offer off-grid potential for industrial projects such as mining and desalination. The IAEA outlook notes that SMRs could even be integrated into existing coal power sites, reusing infrastructure while cutting emissions, a theme it plans to explore in a forthcoming coal-to-nuclear transition report for the G20. Africa already holds a significant advantage, being home to 14% of the world's uranium production. Namibia ranks as the world's third-largest producer, while Niger and South Africa are also in the top ten. In Namibia, the previously idled Langer Heinrich mine has been reopened, with production expected to resume in 2026, and new projects are due by 2028. Tanzania has confirmed large reserves, such as the US$1.2-billion Mkuju River plant in jointly with Russia, is on course for pilot production. This resource base could bolster both export earnings and domestic energy security if countries invest in fuel cycle capabilities to convert raw uranium into reactor-ready fuel. However, according to experts like Osike, the pace at which Africa's nuclear ambitions materialise will hinge on financing, given the sector's high upfront costs and decades-long project lifecycles. 'Nuclear projects demand substantial upfront investment and a commitment that spans decades… Without innovative financing models and strong partnerships, many African countries will struggle to move from ambition to reality.' In June 2025, the IAEA and the World Bank signed an agreement, the Bank's first formal engagement with nuclear energy in decades. This opens the door for World Bank support in extending reactor lifespans, upgrading grids, and accelerating SMR deployment, while signalling to other multilateral lenders, including the African Development Bank, that nuclear is part of the clean energy transition toolkit. Vendor financing is also in play. Egypt's El Dabaa project, for example, is backed by large concessional loans from Russia with low interest rates and extended repayment terms. However, many African nations face low credit ratings and high debt-to-GDP ratios, so new financing models, from regional SMR purchase agreements to blended public-private investment, will be key. 'Developing a nuclear programme requires a century-long commitment, from construction through decommissioning and waste management,' Osike shared. 'Stable national policy, public support, and regulatory readiness are therefore essential,' she added. The IAEA's Milestones Approach identifies 19 infrastructure issues that must be addressed before construction begins. Continental and regional integration could further accelerate nuclear rollout. The Africa Single Electricity Market, launched by the African Union, aims to link national grids into the world's largest single electricity market. This could allow countries to share nuclear output, stabilise grids, and make large-scale investments viable. Shared infrastructure, training, and regulatory capacity could mirror the cooperative models already used in hydropower projects. *
