Connect with us

Finance

7-Eleven’s parent company rejects takeover proposal, says offer ‘grossly undervalues’ company

Published

on

Customers exit a 7-Eleven convenience store, operated by Seven & i Holdings Co., in Kobe, Japan, on Friday, Aug. 30, 2024. Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. had made a preliminary non-binding proposal to buy Seven & i, which operates more than 85,000 stores across the globe, and the deal would be the biggest-ever foreign takeover of a Japanese company. Photographer: Soichiro Koriyama/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Seven & i Holdings has rejected the takeover offer from Canadian convenience store operator Alimentation Couche-Tard, saying the offer “is not in the best interest” of its shareholders and stakeholders.

In a filing with the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the owner of 7-Eleven revealed that Couche-Tard had offered to acquire all outstanding shares of Seven & i for $14.86 per share.

Stephen Dacus, chairman of the special committee that Seven & i had formed to evaluate Couche-Tard’s proposal, called the proposal “opportunistically timed and grossly undervalues our standalone path and the additional actionable avenues we see to realize and unlock shareholder value in the near- to medium-term.”

In April, Seven & i announced a restructuring plan for the company, aimed at growing 7-Eleven’s presence globally as well as divesting its underperforming supermarket business.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Dacus wrote that even if Couche-Tard increases its offer “very significantly,” the proposal does not consider the “multiple and significant challenges” the takeover would face from U.S. anticompetition agencies.

“Beyond your simple assertion that you do not believe that a combination would unfairly impact the competitive landscape and that you would ‘consider’ potential divestitures, you have provided no indication at all of your views as to the level of divestitures that would be required or how they would be effected,” he wrote in a letter that appeared to be addressed to ACT Chair Alain Bouchard that was published in the Tokyo Stock Exchange filing.

He also pointed out that the Couche-Tard proposal did not indicate any timeline for clearing regulatory hurdles or whether the company was “prepared to take all necessary action to obtain regulatory clearance, including by litigating with the government.”

Dacus said Seven & i is open to sincerely considering proposals that are in the best interests of the company’s stakeholders and shareholders, but warned it will also resist one that “deprives our shareholders of the company’s intrinsic value or that fails to specifically address very real regulatory concerns.”

Shareholder speaks out

Speaking to CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” shortly before the response was filed on Friday, Ben Herrick, associate portfolio manager at Artisan Partners, said the Couche-Tard offer “highlights the fact that this management team and the board have not done all of the things in their power to increase the corporate value of this organization.”

How 7-Eleven became the biggest convenience store in the world

Artisan Partners is a U.S. fund that holds a stake of just over 1% in Seven & i. In August, the firm had reportedly urged Seven & i Holdings to “seriously consider” the buyout offer and solicit offers for the company’s Japanese subsidiaries “as quickly as possible.”

Herrick explained Artisan asked Seven & i to consider the offer because the fund feels that capital allocation overseas has been overlooked.

He said Seven & i’s Japanese convenience store business does not need much change, but said there’s a “huge opportunity” in international licensees operating outside the United States.

“You have more than 50,000 stores, or about 50,000 stores that are generating about $100 million or just over $100 million of operating profit for for the company. So I think there’s a big mismatch there,” he said.

Herrick also thinks that Seven & i has been slow to adopt changes due to insufficient oversight and accounting.

“We really need the company to enact its plan at a faster pace here. So [Seven and i President Ryuichi] Isaka came out with his 100 day plan in 2016 to reform [general merchandise store] Ito-Yokado. And we’re approaching day 3,000 here. So I don’t think that speed has been a big part of this culture, and that needs to change,” he pointed out.

On Monday, Richard Kaye, portfolio manager at independent asset management group Comgest, disagreed in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia,” saying: “I don’t think there’s a case for a radical reform to be to be done by a foreign acquirer.”

The company is doing a “phenomenal job” in terms of logistics and product innovation and “I think it’s very hard to assume that that could be done an awful lot better,” he added.

Continue Reading

Finance

China’s EV race to the bottom leaves a few possible winners

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: WOOF, TSLA, CRCL, LULU

Published

on

Continue Reading

Finance

Swiss government proposes tough new capital rules in major blow to UBS

Published

on

A sign in German that reads “part of the UBS group” in Basel on May 5, 2025.

Fabrice Coffrini | AFP | Getty Images

The Swiss government on Friday proposed strict new capital rules that would require banking giant UBS to hold an additional $26 billion in core capital, following its 2023 takeover of stricken rival Credit Suisse.

The measures would also mean that UBS will need to fully capitalize its foreign units and carry out fewer share buybacks.

“The rise in the going-concern requirement needs to be met with up to USD 26 billion of CET1 capital, to allow the AT1 bond holdings to be reduced by around USD 8 billion,” the government said in a Friday statement, referring to UBS’ holding of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds.

The Swiss National Bank said it supported the measures from the government as they will “significantly strengthen” UBS’ resilience.

“As well as reducing the likelihood of a large systemically important bank such as UBS getting into financial distress, this measure also increases a bank’s room for manoeuvre to stabilise itself in a crisis through its own efforts. This makes it less likely that UBS has to be bailed out by the government in the event of a crisis,” SNB said in a Friday statement.

‘Too big to fail’

UBS has been battling the specter of tighter capital rules since acquiring the country’s second-largest bank at a cut-price following years of strategic errors, mismanagement and scandals at Credit Suisse.

The shock demise of the banking giant also brought Swiss financial regulator FINMA under fire for its perceived scarce supervision of the bank and the ultimate timing of its intervention.

Swiss regulators argue that UBS must have stronger capital requirements to safeguard the national economy and financial system, given the bank’s balance topped $1.7 trillion in 2023, roughly double the projected Swiss economic output of last year. UBS insists it is not “too big to fail” and that the additional capital requirements — set to drain its cash liquidity — will impact the bank’s competitiveness.

At the heart of the standoff are pressing concerns over UBS’ ability to buffer any prospective losses at its foreign units, where it has, until now, had the duty to back 60% of capital with capital at the parent bank.

Higher capital requirements can whittle down a bank’s balance sheet and credit supply by bolstering a lender’s funding costs and choking off their willingness to lend — as well as waning their appetite for risk. For shareholders, of note will be the potential impact on discretionary funds available for distribution, including dividends, share buybacks and bonus payments.

“While winding down Credit Suisse’s legacy businesses should free up capital and reduce costs for UBS, much of these gains could be absorbed by stricter regulatory demands,” Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, said in a note preceding the FINMA announcement. 

“Such measures may place UBS’s capital requirements well above those faced by rivals in the United States, putting pressure on returns and reducing prospects for narrowing its long-term valuation gap. Even its long-standing premium rating relative to the European banking sector has recently evaporated.”

The prospect of stringent Swiss capital rules and UBS’ extensive U.S. presence through its core global wealth management division comes as White House trade tariffs already weigh on the bank’s fortunes. In a dramatic twist, the bank lost its crown as continental Europe’s most valuable lender by market capitalization to Spanish giant Santander in mid-April.

Continue Reading

Trending