A customer is seen inside a 7-Eleven convenience store along a street in central Tokyo on September 9, 2024.
Richard A. Brooks | Afp | Getty Images
Japanese convenience retailer Seven & i Holdings slashed its earnings forecasts and pressed ahead with restructuring plans that include spinning off non-core businesses into a standalone subsidiary.
The company slashed its profit forecast for the fiscal year ending February 2025 and now expects net income of 163 billion yen ($1.09 billion), a 44.4% reduction from its prior forecast of 293 billion yen. The reduction comes as it reported first-half net profit of 52.24 billion yen on 6.04 trillion yen in revenue. While sales came in higher than forecast, profits significantly below its own guidance for 111 billion yen.
Seven & i said it saw fewer customers at its overseas convenience stores as they took a “more prudent approach to consumption.” The company noted it recorded a charge of 45.88 billion yen related to its spin-off of Ito-Yokado Online Supermarket.
In a separate filing, the owner of 7-Eleven said it will set up an intermediate holding company for its supermarket food business, specialty store and other businesses, amid growing pressure from investors to trim down its portfolio.
The restructuring, which would consolidate 31 units, comes as the Japanese retail group resists a takeover attempt by Canada’s Alimentation Couche-Tard.
In September, Seven & i rejected the initial takeover offer of $14.86 per share, claiming that the bid was “not in the best interest” of its shareholders and stakeholders and also cited U.S. antitrust concerns.
After receiving that proposal, Seven & i sought and obtained a new designation as “core business” in Japan. Under Japan’s Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act, foreign entities need to notify the government and submit to a national security review if they are buying a 1% stake or more in a designated company.
Revised offer
Seven & i confirmed Wednesday that it received a revised bid from ACT, but did not disclose further details. Bloomberg previously reported that the Canadian operator of Circle-K stores had raised its offer by around 20% to $18.19 per share, which would value Seven and i at 7 trillion Japanese yen. If finalized, the deal could become the biggest-ever foreign takeover of a Japanese company.
Seven & i Holdings
It’s “entirely possible” that ACT’s buyout bid to turn into a hostile takeover attempt, Nicholas Smith, a Japan strategist at CLSA told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Thursday. A hostile takeover occurs when an acquiring company attempts to gain control of the target company against the wishes of its management and board of directors.
“We’ve had a lot of problems with poison pills in Japan in recent years, and the legal structure is extremely opaque,” he added. Companies trying to shake off an acquirer may opt to deploy a “poison pill” by issuing additional stock options to dilute the attempted acquirer’s stake.
However, “an outright hostile tender offer would be highly unlikely,” in the view of Jamie Halse, founder and managing director of Senjin Capital, as no banks would be willing to provide the financing.
That said, if the offer gets to a “sufficiently attractive level,” he said it may be difficult for the board to continue to reject it.
“Shareholders are likely already frustrated that no further negotiations have taken place despite the increase in the offer price,” he said, adding that an activist investor may seek to “harness those frustrations” and “effect a change in the board’s composition.”
Seven & i shares were traded at 2,325 Japanese yen as of Thursday close. The Tokyo-listed shares have surged over 33% since the Canadian company’s buyout interest became public in August.
The newly revised offer indicates ACT leaders are “committed,” Jesper Koll, head of Japan at Monex Group, told CNBC via email. He also pointed out that the new offer price suggests a 53% premium to where shares were trading before the initial offer.
“The money they offer is good, but there is more at stake than just numbers,” Koll said.
“I really can’t see ACT revising up its price tag,” Amir Anvarzadeh, a Japan equity market strategist at Asymmetric Advisors, told CNBC, “the pressure is on Seven & i management to prove that they can speed things up and stay independent.”
Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading: American Airlines — Shares slipped less than 1%, recovering from earlier losses, after the airline temporarily grounded all of its flights due to a technical issue. Broadcom — The semi stock added 2%, extending its December rally. Shares have surged more than 46% this month, propelling its 2024 gain above 112%. Big banks — Shares of some big bank stocks rose more than 1% amid news that a group of banks and business groups are suing the Federal Reserve over the annual stress tests, saying it “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.” Citigroup , JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs shares gained more than 1% each. Arcadium Lithium — Shares rose more than 4% after the company announced its shareholders have approved the $6.7 billion sale to Rio Tinto . The deal is expected to close in mid-2025. International Seaways — The energy transportation provider surged 8% after an announcement that the company would be added to the S & P SmallCap 600 index, effective Dec. 30. The company will replace Consolidated Communications , which is soon to be acquired. Crypto stocks — Shares of stocks tied to the price of bitcoin rose as the cryptocurrency gave back recent losses amid a climb in tech names broadly. Crypto services provider Coinbase gained almost 3% and bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy gained more than 5%. Miners Riot Platforms and IREN gained 6% and 4%, respectively. U.S. Steel — The steel producer’s stock hovered near the flatline amid news that President Joe Biden will decide on the fate of its proposed acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel after a government panel failed to reach a decision . Apple — Apple shares gained 0.9% to notch a new all-time high. The stock has rallied nearly 34% year to date. — CNBC’s Sean Conlon, Lisa Han, Tanaya Macheel and Alex Harring contributed reporting.
A general view of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, United States.
Samuel Corum | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
The biggest banks are planning to sue the Federal Reserve over the annual bank stress tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. A lawsuit is expected this week and could come as soon as Tuesday morning, the person said.
The Fed’s stress test is an annual ritual that forces banks to maintain adequate cushions for bad loans and dictates the size of share repurchases and dividends.
After the market close on Monday, the Federal Reserve announced in a statement that it is looking to make changes to the bank stress tests and will be seeking public comment on what it calls “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”
The Fed said it made the determination to change the tests because of “the evolving legal landscape,” pointing to changes in administrative laws in recent years. It didn’t outline any specific changes to the framework of the annual stress tests.
While the big banks will likely view the changes as a win, it may be too little too late.
Also, the changes may not go far enough to satisfy the banks’ concerns about onerous capital requirements. “These proposed changes are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements, according to the Fed.
The CEO of BPI (Bank Policy Institute), Greg Baer, which represents big banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, welcomed the Fed announcement, saying in a statement “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”
However, Baer also hinted at further action: “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”
Groups like the BPI and the American Bankers Association have raised concerns about the stress test process in the past, claiming that it is opaque, and has resulted in higher capital rules that hurt bank lending and economic growth.
In July, the groups accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.