Jefferies Financial Group Equities Analysts Boost Earnings Estimates for TopBuild Corp. (NYSE:BLD)

Jefferies Financial Group Equities Analysts Boost Earnings Estimates for TopBuild Corp. (NYSE:BLD)

TopBuild Corp. (NYSE:BLD – Get Rating) – Stock analysts at Jefferies Financial Group lifted their Q3 2022 earnings estimates for TopBuild in a research report issued on Tuesday, February 22nd. Jefferies Financial Group analyst P. Ng now forecasts that the construction company will post earnings of $3.76 per share for the quarter, up from their prior estimate of $3.75. Jefferies Financial Group has a “Buy” rating and a $280.00 price target on the stock. Jefferies Financial Group also issued estimates for TopBuild’s FY2023 earnings at $15.14 EPS. TopBuild (NYSE:BLD – Get Rating) last released its quarterly earnings results on Monday, February 21st. The construction company reported $3.12 earnings per share for the quarter, beating the Zacks’ consensus estimate of $2.92 by $0.20. The business had revenue of $1.06 billion during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $1.04 billion. TopBuild had a net margin of 10.06{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} and a return on equity of 22.67{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. The business’s revenue was up 47.4{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} on a year-over-year basis. During the same period last year, the business earned $2.15 EPS.

BLD has been the subject of a number of other reports. Stephens raised their price target on shares of TopBuild from $260.00 to $285.00 and gave the company an “equal weight” rating in a report on Thursday, November 4th. Truist Financial raised their price target on shares of TopBuild from $260.00 to $300.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a report on Wednesday. BTIG Research lowered shares of TopBuild from a “buy” rating to a “neutral” rating in a report on Friday, December 3rd. Zelman & Associates raised shares of TopBuild from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating in a report on Thursday, December 23rd. Finally, KeyCorp raised their price objective on shares of TopBuild from $260.00 to $300.00 and gave the stock an “overweight” rating in a report on Thursday, November 4th. Four investment analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and six have assigned a buy rating to the company. According to MarketBeat, TopBuild has a consensus rating of “Buy” and an average price target of $275.00.

(Ad)

This Company Has Created An Advantage Over Its Competition.

BLD opened at $195.98 on Thursday. The company has a fifty day simple moving average of $245.00 and a 200 day simple moving average of $240.95. The firm has a market cap of $6.45 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 20.56 and a beta of 1.57. TopBuild has a twelve month low of $179.50 and a twelve month high of $284.07. The company has a current ratio of 1.83, a quick ratio of 1.48 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.43.

In other news, CEO Robert M. Buck sold 2,000 shares of TopBuild stock in a transaction dated Wednesday, December 15th. The shares were sold at an average price of $273.33, for a total value of $546,660.00. The transaction was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through the SEC website. Insiders own 0.46{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the company’s stock.

Several hedge funds and other institutional investors have recently bought and sold shares of the company. BlackRock Inc. lifted its position in TopBuild by 2.0{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the 4th quarter. BlackRock Inc. now owns 3,174,752 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $875,946,000 after purchasing an additional 61,751 shares during the last quarter. Findlay Park Partners LLP lifted its position in TopBuild by 26.5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the 4th quarter. Findlay Park Partners LLP now owns 2,460,089 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $678,763,000 after purchasing an additional 516,000 shares during the last quarter. Alliancebernstein L.P. lifted its position in TopBuild by 1.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the 4th quarter. Alliancebernstein L.P. now owns 1,795,396 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $495,368,000 after purchasing an additional 31,188 shares during the last quarter. Pictet Asset Management SA lifted its position in TopBuild by 2.9{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the 4th quarter. Pictet Asset Management SA now owns 1,535,898 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $423,770,000 after purchasing an additional 43,915 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Macquarie Group Ltd. lifted its position in TopBuild by 6.2{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the 3rd quarter. Macquarie Group Ltd. now owns 1,145,882 shares of the construction company’s stock valued at $234,688,000 after purchasing an additional 66,627 shares during the last quarter. 95.52{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

TopBuild Company Profile (Get Rating)

TopBuild Corp. is an installer and distributor of insulation products and other building products to the U.S. construction industry. It operates through two segments: Installation and Distribution. The Installation segment provides insulation installation services nationwide through its TruTeam contractor services business branches located in the U.S.

Read More

Earnings History and Estimates for TopBuild (NYSE:BLD)

This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest and most accurate reporting. This story was reviewed by MarketBeat’s editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]

Should you invest $1,000 in TopBuild right now?

Before you consider TopBuild, you’ll want to hear this.

MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street’s top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on… and TopBuild wasn’t on the list.

While TopBuild currently has a “Buy” rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

View The 5 Stocks Here

 

Xinjiang: IFC, World Bank Group member, accused of lending money to companies allegedly linked to forced labor in China

Xinjiang: IFC, World Bank Group member, accused of lending money to companies allegedly linked to forced labor in China

The report, titled “Financing and Genocide: Development Finance and the Crisis in the Uyghur Region,” presents evidence that in recent years the IFC has loaned money to four Chinese companies that have been linked to forced labor and land expropriation in the region, along with environmental damage and the destruction of indigenous cultural heritage sites.

According to public disclosures, the four companies named in the report — Chenguang Biotech Group, Camel Group, Century Sunshine and Jointown Pharmaceutical Group — have received loans and equity investments from the IFC valued at $439 million. Including loans sourced from institutional investors via the IFC, that figure rises to around $485 million.

The loans could contravene the IFC’s own internal guidelines — known as its Performance Standards — which function entirely to “prevent IFC from financing projects that will have adverse environmental and social impacts that jeopardize [its] development aims,” according to the report.

Solar panels are key to Biden's energy plan. But the global supply chain may rely on forced labor from China

CNN Business was granted exclusive, advance access to the report, which was led by the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom and published by the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank.

The Helena Kennedy Center for International Justice researches modern day slavery, gender-based violence and hate crime and has previously published reports alleging the use of forced labor in Xinjiang to produce cotton and solar panels. They say the four named companies are not the only businesses receiving IFC funds in the region.

“I think it’s clear that the IFC needs to divest from all their investments in the Uyghur region,” said report author Laura Murphy, a professor in Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery at Sheffield Hallam University, who added that it is “incumbent on the IFC based on their own standards that they ensure that their clients are not involved in forced labor.”

In a statement, an IFC spokesperson told CNN the corporation has “strong environment, social and governance (ESG) standards” that are diligently applied during the life of the investment and are considered a model for development finance worldwide.

“We do not tolerate discrimination or forced labor under any circumstances,” the spokesperson said. “Whenever such serious allegations are brought to our attention, we work to verify and address them with our clients with urgency.”

Beijing responded to the report on Thursday, saying it was “false” and “full of lies and groundless accusations.”

“It is understood that the organization has no staff in Xinjiang. There was no field investigation, no real research, no evidence to back up the report,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said in a briefing.

“The Chinese government attaches great importance to the protection of human rights and workers’ rights and interests. For some time now, certain countries have been hyping up social lies and extending their reach to multilateral development institutions,” Wang added.

CNN sought comment from the four Chinese companies named in the report but did not receive a response. The report’s authors also said they attempted to contact them but did not receive a response.

Police officers patrolling the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China in 2018.

‘Punished with internment’

Xinjiang has become a geopolitical hotspot because of the breadth of human rights abuses alleged to have taken place in the region, including what some Western governments have called the “genocide” of Uyghurs and other minorities.

The US State Department has estimated that since 2017 up to two million members of religious and ethnic minorities have been imprisoned in a shadowy network of internment camps.

China has described the facilities as “vocational training centers” where people learn job skills, Chinese language and laws, and officials declared in 2019 that such centers — also aimed at deradicalizing local Muslims — had been closed down. They also claimed that the original detainees had graduated but that people were still enrolling to gain new skills.

Western governments and human rights organizations have alleged that minorities in the region have been subjected to forced labor through job creation schemes run by the Chinese government to achieve “poverty alleviation.”

Workers who have participated in those job programs have told CNN that if they did not take the jobs they were offered, for a fraction of the usual rate of pay, they were warned they would be sent to camps.

“The Chinese government has embarked on a massive campaign which they deem to be poverty alleviation,” said Murphy of Sheffield Hallam. “These programs are often non-consensual, and people who refuse can be punished with internment.”

China has consistently denied all allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang and told CNN in a statement prior to publication that claims of forced labor were lies created to smear its reputation.

“China has repeatedly emphasized that the so-called issues of ‘forced labor’ and ‘repression’ against ethnic minorities are huge lies concocted by anti-China forces in the US and the West. They are entirely baseless. Such attempts to attack and smear China based on lies and disinformation are bound to fail,” the statement said.

A watchtower at a high-security facility near what is believed to be a re-education camp on the outskirts of Hotan, Xinjiang.

Concerns raised about IFC outcomes

It is part of the World Bank Group and says it provided roughly $31.5 billion in loans and other financial assistance — including nearly $12 billion in “fragile, conflict-affected, and poverty-stricken countries” — last fiscal year to private companies and financial institutions in emerging and developing economies around the world.

The IFC spokesperson told CNN its mission is to “fight poverty by helping the private sector thrive.” “In doing so, we create jobs and raise living standards, especially for the poor and vulnerable,” the spokesperson said.

But its investments have been criticized for years by charities that accuse the IFC of sometimes causing more harm than good by failing to carry out due diligence.

In 2015, Oxfam International published a report compiled with input from several NGOs that claimed the IFC sent billions of dollars in “out of control” investments to third parties that caused “human rights abuses around the world.”

IFC said at the time that it was working with its clients to resolve issues raised by Oxfam and other civil society organizations and that it valued any insights into those concerns. The organization also said that it took additional efforts to train its staff and be more selective about its clients and was strengthening oversight and supervision.

The World Bank Group had been acknowledging concerns even prior to that report. In 2013, the organization’s Independent Evaluation Group highlighted declining “outcome ratings” for IFC-financed projects and advised the IFC to focus on “supervision” and “enhancing the quality of projects” through “intensified efforts.”

CNN approached the World Bank Group for comment about the Helena Kennedy Centre’s findings, and a spokesperson directed CNN to the IFC’s response.

The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Alleged connections to forced labor

The four Chinese companies with ties to Xinjiang named in the Helena Kennedy Centre report work in sectors ranging from food to pharmaceuticals and energy. Using corporate documents, stock exchange filings, Chinese state media reports, IFC disclosures and satellite imagery, the report claims these companies have ties to parts of the region where allegations of forced labor are rampant.

In some cases, the report says these companies have participated in state-endorsed “labor transfer” or “poverty alleviation” schemes, which international human rights organizations and foreign governments have for years claimed perpetuate forced labor in the region.

CNN has independently verified that the four companies named in the Helena Kennedy Centre report have all received loans from the IFC in recent years. At least two of those loans, made to Camel Group and Jointown Pharmaceutical, have been used to finance projects in Xinjiang. Because the firms are all publicly traded on Chinese stock exchanges, corporate filings detail some of their dealings in the region. Chinese state media reports also explain some of their work, while the IFC’s own records shed some light on the organization’s involvement in providing financing to these firms.

One company, Chenguang Biotech Group, makes food additives, natural dyes and pigments, and sources its raw materials primarily from India and Xinjiang. In Xinjiang, the company is involved in the production of marigolds.

The IFC, which loaned Chenguang $40 million in 2019 so the company could increase production, conducted an assessment that found the company’s risk of being implicated in forced labor with respect to marigold growers to be “low” and that overall “the risks in Chenguang’s primary supply chain are low to medium.”

But according to the Helena Kennedy Centre report, Chenguang sources some of its workforce from “coercive” state-sponsored labor and land transfer programs.

The report claims that in some cases farmers have no say in whether to participate in major farming projects, or what they want to plant. Companies, too, are under pressure to support state programs.

Citing an official press release, the report said that, in one case, the paramilitary organization Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), which controls the region economically and politically, conducted “ideological work” on those who expressed reluctance about changing their farming methods, which the report described as a method of “coercing” minorities.

Those people are encouraged by government agencies to “relinquish their land, change their crops, alter their farming methods, work for cooperatives or large-scale farms that have expropriated their lands, or move to factory labor,” the report said.

Another company, the battery maker Camel Group, received nearly $36 million in funding from the IFC in July 2019 to expand its battery recycling operations in parts of China, including Xinjiang, according to IFC documents. Chinese corporate records also show the company has at least two subsidiaries in the region.

An IFC risk assessment did acknowledge “potentially significant adverse environmental or societal risks” on account of smelting waste lead but added that Camel promised the organization it would promote the hiring of more local minority residents in Xinjiang. IFC also assessed that “no forced labor practices” are used by Camel Group and that its battery suppliers are subject to quarterly audits by the company to ensure they are complaint with child and forced labor inspections.

However, the Helena Kennedy Centre report cited government press releases that it says show Camel has benefited from state-sponsored labor transfer programs. In July 2017, according to one government release, 165 laborers were taken across Xinjiang for a 10-day long “closed pre-job training,” which the report authors say was an indication that their movements were restricted.

During that time, according to a government press release, the participants received “military and ideological training,” and “were required to sing patriotic songs” and learn Mandarin Chinese — measures that human rights organizations worry can lead to the erasure of culture for Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in Xinjiang. Those groups speak languages closer to Turkish than Mandarin Chinese.

Before the laborers were dispatched to their assigned companies — one of which was Camel — they were made to attend a flag-raising ceremony, affirm their loyalty to the ruling Chinese Communist Party and pledge to “make due contributions to national security, national unity, social stability and harmony,” according to the government press release.

A third company, the fertilizer and materials firm Century Sunshine Group, received $165 million from the IFC between 2014 and 2016, according to IFC documents. That figure includes $125 million to upgrade a fertilizer manufacturing facility in Jiangsu province, north of Shanghai on China’s eastern coast. As of December 2020, IFC had roughly a 17{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} stake in the company, according to an annual report from Century Sunshine.

Century Sunshine also has ties to Xinjiang. The report cited local state-run media from December 2017 that said the company’s Xinjiang subsidiary took in 10 rural laborers from a township in eastern Xinjiang through state-sponsored labor transfer programs. Two years later, that same subsidiary was one of nine firms that participated in a state-backed labor recruitment event that encouraged off-season farmers to work for industrial manufacturing facilities in the area — an event involving labor transfer the report’s authors said was at “high risk”of violating standards for labor and working conditions.

The final company implicated in the report, Jointown Pharmaceutical, received nearly $200 million in debt financing from the IFC in the last few years, according to IFC documents. IFC assessed their investments in Jointown Pharmaceutical as having “limited” environmental or social risks.

The company — which distributes personal protection equipment, medical devices and pharmaceutical drugs — received nearly $150 million in July 2019 to build distribution centers and upgrade four warehouses in middle and western China, including Xinjiang. In October 2020, Jointown Pharmaceutical received another $50 million to buy pharmaceutical products and expand distribution because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Like Camel and Century Sunshine, the Helena Kennedy Centre report alleges that Jointown Pharmaceutical has participated in Xinjiang-related labor transfer programs. The report cited an article published in December 2020 by the Xinjiang Food and Drug Administration on its official WeChat account that said Jointown Pharmaceutical acknowledged receiving “more than 200” workers “transferred” from southern Xinjiang and other remote and underdeveloped prefectures through the labor programs.

The report also said that Jointown Pharmaceutical has “many” facilities in Xinjiang that are located next to buildings identified as internment camps by the Australian Strategy Policy Institute, a Canberra-based think tank. One of Jointown Pharmaceutical’s facilities in the regional capital of Urumqi, for example, is in one of the city’s “largest prison districts,” according to the report.

Efforts to monitor investments in Xinjiang

While travel to Xinjiang by foreign organizations has become almost impossible in recent years, the Helena Kennedy Centre report says the IFC paid a one-day visit to the region in 2019, during the height of the government crackdown there.

Report co-author Kendyl Salcito, the Executive Director of human rights research non-profit NomoGaia, told CNN she spoke via phone to an IFC representative who went on the trip. The employee told Salcito that their group was temporarily detained by police three times within a roughly 24-hour period, adding that the atmosphere was very uncomfortable and they wanted to leave quickly.

The IFC continued to fund projects in the region after that visit, as seen in IFC documents reviewed by the report authors and by CNN. In November 2020, Salcito said, the IFC told her that it did not have alternative arrangements for monitoring projects there.

The IFC did not respond to CNN’s questions about Salcito’s account of the trip. However, the spokesperson told CNN that in the last two years the IFC has dedicated more resources to supervising companies it works with in Xinjiang.

“While accessing projects on the ground has been more difficult for all development actors in the last two years due to the Covid-19 pandemic and travel restrictions, IFC has dedicated more resources to supervising the companies we work with regarding adherence to our ESG standards. These standards are legally binding, include protections for workers, communities, and the environment, and expressly prohibit discrimination and the use of forced labor,” the spokesperson said.

Paramilitary police vehicles on a road in Artux in China's northwest Xinjiang region in June, 2019.

The IFC has taken some steps to withdraw from the region. It ceased its relationships with three other Chinese firms that “were engaged or sourcing from companies engaged in repression in the Uyghur Region,” according to the report.

The IFC did not respond to CNN’s questions about why it chose to divest those companies and not others.

In 2020, the IFC told Salcito in email exchanges viewed by CNN that the Chinese companies it works with assured the organization they did not use any forced labor. The IFC did not respond to CNN’s questions about that correspondence. The Helena Kennedy Centre report authors say that form of self-reporting is wholly insufficient.

“The continued willingness to provide financing in the region, without any direct oversight, indicates that its investment strategy in the region continues to overlook the ongoing crimes against humanity and Performance Standards violations that render the IFC’s investments complicit,” the report said.

A lack of due diligence

Multinational corporations have for years found it difficult to perform due diligence on their supply chains linked to Xinjiang because of limited access, surveillance and the threat of government interference. That makes the use of publicly available records and satellite imagery all the more important in determining whether a firm has ties to forced labor in the region.

Satellite images, for example, have shown that detention facilities are often built up simultaneously alongside factories and business parks, which human rights activists say is a clear indication that factory workers are being drawn from the prison or camp population.
Maxar satellite imagery of a re-education internment camp in
Hotan, Xinjiang, China.

Some companies, investors and other organizations have pulled out of the region because of the difficulties in auditing activity there. Many international auditors will no longer certify products made in Xinjiang, and the Fair Labor Association — a Washington-based non-profit whose members include multinational corporations and Ivy League universities — has banned its members from sourcing from Xinjiang due to an inability to gather accurate information, or to verify if workers there are under duress.

“The underlying problem in the Uyghur region is the political repression is so great, we’re of the view that no company can do adequate human rights due diligence,” said Sophie Richardson, China Director of Human Rights Watch. “Where [a company] can’t do adequate human rights due diligence, it should withdraw.”

Foreign governments have also been piling pressure on companies. In December, US President Joe Biden signed into law new rules that will effectively ban imports of products made in Xinjiang.

Washington is also leading a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which conclude Sunday. In December, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that the United States would not continue do “business as usual” and participate in the “fanfare” of the Games because of the “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.”

But activists also point out that governments that work with the IFC should also review their funding plans. The United States, after all, has plowed more than $23 billion over the last 20 years into the World Bank Group, and as of June 2021 was the largest IFC shareholder with a stake of about 21{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}.

That funding has increased during the pandemic: In March 2020, the World Bank Group announced that the US government authorized a $5.5 billion capital increase for the IFC as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

In a statement to CNN, the US Treasury Department said that it “works closely with other parts of the United States government to strongly condemn and respond to the atrocities taking place in Xinjiang.”

It said the government had pressed multilateral development banks (MDBs) — including the IFC — to strengthen their safeguards so projects “do not inadvertently support companies that participate in or benefit from forced labor.”

The statement added: “The US has been — and will continue to be -— a lead voice on this issue in all the MDBs and will continue working with other shareholder countries to make companies with alleged linkages to forced labor practices ineligible for MDB investments.”

China-Linked Group Attacked Taiwanese Financial Firms for 18 Months

The Chinese condition-sponsored threat team known as Antlion has focused at the very least 6 money establishments in Taiwan over the past 18 months, installing a custom made backdoor program on compromised methods and exfiltrating delicate facts from the companies.

The cyber-espionage team managed a extensive-expression existence in victims’ networks, exploring a person producing firm’s network for virtually 6 months and a economical group for additional than 8 months, Symantec, the stability division of Broadcom, mentioned in its evaluation on the marketing campaign. In the previous, Antlion — in some cases regarded as Pirate Panda and Tropic Trooper — has executed espionage on targets in a number of nations situated in close proximity to the South China Sea, this kind of as India, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

More lately, the Antlion team has qualified mainly economic businesses in Taiwan, making use of residing-off-the-land procedures to steal organization contact info, transaction data, and expenditure program, states Alan Neville, an analyst on Symantec’s Threat Hunter Group

“We can only speculate on their correct goal,” he claims. “It really is crystal clear the group are effectively arranged and expert in that we can see the attackers remained active on compromised networks for extended durations of time and have been in a position to conduct these assaults versus monetary organizations in parallel.”

The assaults coincide with increasing tensions amongst China and Taiwan above its political standing. Over the very last year, China has greater armed forces exercise near Taiwan, and the cyberattacks seem to be an extension of that plan.

In the latest examination, Symantec’s threat-searching team connected the cyber-espionage group to intrusions into two various money establishments and a production company. Even so, Neville clarifies that, around the earlier year, the menace looking staff has investigated assaults versus 6 fiscal institutions, a departure from Antlion’s usually broader selection of targets in the authorities, transportation, and media sectors.

Stolen Credentials

Among typical features in Antlion’s arsenal is a custom backdoor known as xPack that authorized the attackers intensive entry to compromised units by issuing Home windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) instructions remotely. The attackers also apparently employed SMB shares to enable documents to be copied from the compromised methods to recently infected machines. The team also executed broad searches for credentials and exfiltrated the sensitive details for later use.

The xPack backdoor is a personalized .Net loader targeted on the original obtain, allowing new options to be downloaded, decrypted, and executed on compromised equipment.

In a December 2020 intrusion of a economical company, the attackers applied WMI instructions to gather info on the compromised procedure and inside of minutes dumped the credentials, in accordance to Symantec’s investigation. Throughout the stop-of-the-month holiday seasons, the attackers moved laterally to other units, continuing to acquire qualifications till early summer season 2021.

“Antlion is believed to have been associated in espionage routines because at the very least 2011, and this new activity reveals that it is even now an actor to be conscious of much more than 10 yrs after it 1st appeared,” Symantec’s Risk Hunting Crew stated in the evaluation. “The size of time that Antlion was capable to shell out on victim networks is noteworthy, with the team capable to invest various months on target networks, affording lots of time to request out and exfiltrate potentially delicate info from contaminated organizations.”

How to Protect Towards Antlion-Style Assaults
For the reason that the use of WMI commands, SMB shares, and other living-off-the-land techniques, providers need to keep an eye on the use of twin-use applications inside of the network, enforcing guidelines these kinds of as keeping PowerShell up to date and allowing for RDP only from particular, recognized IP addresses, Symantec’s Neville claims.

“Many of these equipment are employed by attackers to transfer laterally undetected via a network,” he says. “Broadly speaking, [companies] must undertake a defense-in-depth system, utilizing a number of detection, defense, and hardening systems to mitigate hazard at just about every place of the possible attack chain.”

Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited — Moody’s downgrades Yuzhou to Caa2/Caa3; outlook negative

Rating Action: Moody’s downgrades Yuzhou to Caa2/Caa3; outlook negativeGlobal Credit Research – 10 Jan 2022Hong Kong, January 10, 2022 — Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded the corporate family rating (CFR) of Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited to Caa2 from B2. At the same time, Moody’s has downgraded the company’s senior unsecured rating on the bonds to Caa3 from B3.The outlook on the ratings remains negative.”The downgrade reflects Yuzhou’s increased refinancing risks driven by its weakened funding access and sizable amount of maturing debt,” says Celine Yang, a Moody’s Vice President and Senior Analyst.”The negative outlook reflects the uncertainty over the company’s ability to mobilize all of its cash to manage its refinancing needs over the next 6-12 months,” adds Yang.RATINGS RATIONALEMoody’s expects Yuzhou’s refinancing risks to heighten as it faces difficulties in raising new funds from onshore and offshore channels to address its maturing debts amid a tight credit environment. In particular, the company has a large amount of onshore and offshore debt maturing by the end of December 2022 — including around USD700 million of offshore bonds and RMB6.5 billion of onshore bond maturing or becoming puttable during the period. In particular, Yuzhou has a total of around USD590 million bonds maturing in January 2022.As of 30 June 2021, the company had unrestricted cash of RMB25 billion, compared with reported short-term debt of RMB15.2 billion. But Moody’s believes there is uncertainty for the company to mobilize all the cash, particularly for the cash holdings at the project and operating companies’ levels, for debt repayment.Moody’s also expects Yuzhou’s contracted sales to decline over the next 6-12 months, driven by weaker homebuyer confidence amid tight funding conditions. This will weaken the company’s operating cash flow and, in turn, its liquidity.Yuzhou’s Caa2 CFR is constrained by its high refinancing risk, weakened liquidity and funding access, as well as its weak credit metrics and high reliance on sales from joint ventures (JVs) and associates, which constrain its corporate transparency and increases uncertainty over its accessibility to the cash at the JV level.Yuzhou’s Caa3 senior unsecured bond rating is one notch below its CFR because of the risk of structural subordination. This subordination risk reflects the fact that most of Yuzhou’s claims are at the operating subsidiaries and have priority over claims at the holding company in a bankruptcy scenario. In addition, the holding company lacks significant mitigating factors for structural subordination. As a result, the expected recovery rate for claims at the holding company will be lower.In terms of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, Moody’s has considered Yuzhou’s concentrated ownership given the controlling shareholder, Mr. Lam Lung On, holds a 58.81{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} stake in the company as of 30 June 2021. Yuzhou had a relatively high dividend payout ratio of 46.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in 2019, compared with 35{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}-36.5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the previous four years.FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGSMoody’s could downgrade the ratings if Yuzhou’s funding access further weakens or if it defaults on its upcoming maturities.Given the negative outlook, a rating upgrade is unlikely. However, positive rating momentum could develop if the company strengthens its liquidity and significantly improves its operating cash flow.The principal methodology used in these ratings was Homebuilding And Property Development Industry published in January 2018 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1108031. Alternatively, please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.Yuzhou Group Holdings Company Limited is a property developer that focuses on residential housing in the Yangtze River Delta and the West Strait Economic Zone. Established in Xiamen in the mid-1990s, Yuzhou is one of the city’s largest developers. The company moved its headquarters to Shanghai in 2016, and launched Shanghai-Shenzhen dual headquarters in 2020.Yuzhou listed its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2009. As of 30 June 2021, Yuzhou’s land bank totaled 22 million square meters in saleable gross floor area.REGULATORY DISCLOSURESFor further specification of Moody’s key rating assumptions and sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and Sensitivity to Assumptions in the disclosure form. Moody’s Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found at: https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_79004.For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this credit rating action, and whose ratings may change as a result of this credit rating action, the associated regulatory disclosures will be those of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.The ratings have been disclosed to the rated entity or its designated agent(s) and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.These ratings are solicited. Please refer to Moody’s Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings available on its website www.moodys.com.Moody’s considers a rated entity or its agent(s) to be participating when it maintains an overall relationship with Moody’s. Unless noted in the Regulatory Disclosures as a Non-Participating Entity, the rated entity is participating and the rated entity or its agent(s) generally provides Moody’s with information for the purposes of its ratings process. Please refer to www.moodys.com for the Regulatory Disclosures for each credit rating action under the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page and for details of Moody’s Policy for Designating Non-Participating Rated Entities.Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.Moody’s general principles for assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit analysis can be found at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1288235.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the EU and is endorsed by Moody’s Deutschland GmbH, An der Welle 5, Frankfurt am Main 60322, Germany, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the UK and is endorsed by Moody’s Investors Service Limited, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5FA under the law applicable to credit rating agencies in the UK. Further information on the UK endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the rating.Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating.The first name below is the lead rating analyst for this Credit Rating and the last name below is the person primarily responsible for approving this Credit Rating. YuYing (Celine) Yang Vice President – Senior Analyst Corporate Finance Group Moody’s Investors Service Hong Kong Ltd. 24/F One Pacific Place 88 Queensway Hong Kong China (Hong Kong S.A.R.) JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 Franco Leung Associate Managing Director Corporate Finance Group JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 Releasing Office: Moody’s Investors Service Hong Kong Ltd. 24/F One Pacific Place 88 Queensway Hong Kong China (Hong Kong S.A.R.) JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 © 2022 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY’S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY’S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications.To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.Additional terms for Japan only: Moody’s Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY100,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. ​

Power Corporation Group of Companies Consolidates Interest in China Asset Management Co., Ltd. Under IGM Financial

Readers are referred to the section “Forward-Looking Statements” at the end of this release. All figures are expressed in Canadian dollars.

  • Power continues to simplify corporate structure

  • Power Corporation sells its 13.9{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} interest in ChinaAMC to IGM Financial

  • Transaction to be partially funded through sale by IGM of common shares of Great-West Lifeco to Power Corporation

  • Further opportunity to support Power share buyback program

MONTRÉAL, Jan. 5, 2022 /CNW Telbec/ – Power Corporation of Canada (Power Corporation or Power) (TSX: POW) today announced that it has entered into an agreement under which the Power Corporation group of companies’ current combined 27.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} equity ownership stake in China Asset Management Co., Ltd. (ChinaAMC) will be consolidated at IGM Financial Inc. (IGM) (TSX: IGM). Under the agreement, Power will sell its 13.9{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} ownership stake to Mackenzie Financial Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of IGM, for aggregate consideration of $1.15 billion in cash. Power shareholders will continue to participate in ChinaAMC through Power’s 64.3{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} economic interest in IGM.

To partially fund the transaction, IGM has agreed to sell 15,200,662 Great-West Lifeco Inc. (Great-West Lifeco) (TSX: GWO) common shares to a subsidiary of Power Financial Corporation (Power Financial or PFC), for aggregate consideration of $575 million, representing a price of $37.83 per share which is equivalent to the 5-day volume-weighted average price of the Great-West Lifeco common shares as at the close of business on January 5, 2022 (the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer).

“We continue to execute on our strategy to simplify and streamline Power and to deliver value for our shareholders,” said R. Jeffrey Orr, President and Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation. “We look forward to continued participation in ChinaAMC through our ownership of IGM. We also believe this is an attractive opportunity to both increase our ownership in Great-West Lifeco and support our share buyback initiatives.”

Power Corporation expects to return a portion of the net cash proceeds from the transaction to its shareholders, after factoring in the purchase of Great-West Lifeco common shares, through share repurchases over time pursuant to a normal course issuer bid of Power. The transaction is expected to be accretive to Power’s net asset value.

Timing and Regulatory Approvals

The sale of Power’s interest in ChinaAMC will be subject to, among other things, approval by the China Securities Regulatory Commission and by certain other Chinese regulatory authorities.

The acquisition by Power of the Great-West Lifeco common shares is conditional on the closing of the sale of the ChinaAMC shares.

The transactions are expected to close in the first half of 2022.

Advisors

BMO Capital Markets and Morgan Stanley are acting as financial advisors to Power. Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, and Baker McKenzie are acting as Power’s legal advisors.

Early Warning Disclosure

PFC currently beneficially owns, including through its controlling interest in IGM, an aggregate of 657,587,165 Great-West Lifeco common shares, representing approximately 70.7{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the issued and outstanding Great-West Lifeco common shares (69.1{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} on an economic basis). Excluding Great-West Lifeco common shares beneficially owned by IGM, PFC currently owns 620,250,032 Great-West Lifeco common shares, representing approximately 66.7{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the issued and outstanding Great-West Lifeco common shares.

On closing of the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer, PFC will indirectly acquire 15,200,662 additional Great-West Lifeco common shares (representing approximately 1.6{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the issued and outstanding Great-West Lifeco common shares) such that PFC will beneficially own an aggregate of 635,450,694 Great-West Lifeco common shares, excluding those beneficially owned by IGM, representing 68.3{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the issued and outstanding Great-West Lifeco common shares. The Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer will not impact the aggregate beneficial ownership of Great-West Lifeco common shares by PFC, which shall remain at 70.7{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the issued and outstanding Great-West Lifeco common shares (including indirect beneficial ownership through its controlling interest in IGM). PFC’s economic interest will increase to 69.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. PFC and its subsidiaries will continue to own, in the aggregate, voting securities representing approximately 65{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the votes attached to all voting securities of Great-West Lifeco.

PFC holds the Great-West Lifeco common shares for investment purposes and, in accordance with applicable securities laws, may increase or decrease its investment in Great-West Lifeco depending on market conditions and then relevant factors. PFC relies on Part 5 of National Instrument 62-103 in respect of aggregation relief relating to any securities that may be held by Great-West Lifeco and its subsidiaries, IGM and its subsidiaries, and any investment fund managed by entities within the Power Corporation group of companies.

About Power Corporation

Power Corporation is an international management and holding company that focuses on financial services in North America, Europe and Asia. Its core holdings are leading insurance, retirement, wealth management and investment businesses, including a portfolio of alternative asset investment platforms. To learn more, visit www.PowerCorporation.com.

Power Financial, a wholly owned subsidiary of Power Corporation of Canada, is an international management and holding company with interests in financial services and asset management businesses in Canada, the United States and Europe. It also has significant holdings in a portfolio of global companies based in Europe. PFC is continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act and its head office is located at 751 Victoria Square, Montréal, Quebec H2Y 2J3. To learn more, visit www.PowerFinancial.com.

About China Asset Management Co., Ltd

Founded in 1998 as one of the first fund management companies in China, China Asset Management Co., Ltd. (ChinaAMC) has maintained a market leading position in China’s asset management industry with total AUM of approximately RMB¥1.607 trillion ($309 billion) at June 30, 2021. The company currently serves over 75,000 institutional clients and 184 million retail investors. ChinaAMC boasts one of the industry’s strongest investment teams with over 250 dedicated investment professionals. CITIC Securities is the largest shareholder of ChinaAMC. To learn more, visit fund.chinaamc.com for more information.

About IGM Financial Inc.

IGM Financial Inc. is one of Canada’s leading diversified wealth and asset management companies with approximately $270 billion in total assets under management and advisement at November 30, 2021. The company provides a broad range of financial planning and investment management services to help more than two million Canadians meet their financial goals. Its activities are carried out principally through IG Wealth Management, Mackenzie Investments and Investment Planning Counsel. To learn more, visit www.igmfinancial.com.

About Great-West Lifeco Inc.

Great-West Lifeco Inc. is an international financial services holding company with interests in life insurance, health insurance, retirement and investment services, asset management and reinsurance businesses. It operates in Canada, the United States and Europe under the brands Canada Life, Empower Retirement, Putnam Investments, and Irish Life. To learn more, visit www.greatwestlifeco.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements based on certain assumptions and reflect Power’s and PFC’s current expectations, or with respect to disclosure regarding Power’s and PFC’s public subsidiaries, reflects such subsidiaries’ disclosed current expectations as disclosed in their respective MD&A. Forward-looking statements are provided for the purposes of assisting the reader in understanding the Power’s and PFC’s financial performance, financial position and cash flows as at and for the periods ended on certain dates and to present information about management’s current expectations and plans relating to the future and the reader is cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. These statements include, without limitation, statements regarding the anticipated benefits of the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer, the timing of the completion of the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer, the timing for the receipt of the required regulatory and other approvals, the interest of PFC in Great-West Lifeco following the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer, repurchases pursuant to a normal course issuer bid of Power, and the effect of the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer on Power’s and PFC’s future operations, financial conditions and share price performance. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as “expects”, “anticipates”, “plans”, “believes”, “estimates”, “seeks”, “intends”, “targets”, “projects”, “forecasts” or negative versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “would” and “could”.

By its nature, this information is subject to inherent risks and uncertainties that may be general or specific and which give rise to the possibility that expectations, forecasts, predictions, projections or conclusions will not prove to be accurate, that assumptions may not be correct and that objectives, strategic goals and priorities will not be achieved. A variety of factors, many of which are beyond Power’s and PFC’s and their respective subsidiaries’ control, affect the operations, performance and results of Power and PFC and their respective subsidiaries and their businesses, and could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations of estimated or anticipated events or results. These factors include, but are not limited to: the impact or unanticipated impact of general economic, political and market factors in North America and internationally, fluctuations in interest rates, inflation and foreign exchange rates, monetary policies, business investment and the health of local and global equity and capital markets, management of market liquidity and funding risks, risks related to investments in private companies and illiquid securities, risks associated with financial instruments, changes in accounting policies and methods used to report financial condition (including uncertainties associated with significant judgments, estimates and assumptions), the effect of applying future accounting changes, business competition, operational and reputational risks, technological changes, cybersecurity risks, changes in government regulation and legislation, changes in tax laws, unexpected judicial or regulatory proceedings, catastrophic events, man-made disasters, terrorist attacks, wars and other conflicts, or an outbreak of a public health pandemic or other public health crises (such as COVID-19), Power’s and PFC’s and their respective subsidiaries’ ability to complete strategic transactions, integrate acquisitions and implement other growth strategies, the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer not occurring as expected, including failure of any condition to the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer, or the failure to achieve the anticipated benefits of the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC and the Great-West Lifeco Share Transfer and Power’s or PFC’s and their respective subsidiaries’ success in anticipating and managing the foregoing factors.

The reader is cautioned to consider these and other factors, uncertainties and potential events carefully and not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Information contained in forward-looking statements is based upon certain material assumptions that were applied in drawing a conclusion or making a forecast or projection, including management’s perceptions of historical trends, current conditions and expected future developments, that the required approvals for the disposition of Power’s equity ownership stake in ChinaAMC will be received, as well as other considerations that are believed to be appropriate in the circumstances, including the availability of cash to complete purchases under normal course issuer bid, and that the list of factors in the preceding paragraph, collectively, are not expected to have a material impact on Power or PFC and their respective subsidiaries. While each of Power and PFC consider these assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to management, they may prove to be incorrect.

Other than as specifically required by applicable Canadian law, each of Power and PFC undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, whether as a result of new information, future events or results, or otherwise.

Additional information about the risks and uncertainties of Power’s and PFC’s business and material factors or assumptions on which information contained in forward-looking statements is based is provided in their disclosure materials, including each of Power Corporation’s most recent Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Annual Information Form, filed with the securities regulatory authorities in Canada available at www.sedar.com.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures and Presentation

This press release presents and discusses a financial measure which is not in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Net Asset Value presents the fair value of the net assets of Power, expressed on a per share basis. Net Asset Value presents the fair value of the net assets of Power and is used to assist in assessing value, on a per share basis. This non-IFRS financial measure does not have a standard meaning and may not be comparable to similar measures used by other entities. Reconciliations of the Net Asset Value and the non-IFRS basis of presentation with the presentation reported in accordance with IFRS are included in Power’s most recent Management’s Discussion and Analysis.

SOURCE Power Corporation of Canada

Cision

Cision

View original content: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2022/05/c8420.html

Brokerages Anticipate SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ:SIVB) Will Post Quarterly Sales of $1.44 Billion

Equities analysts predict that SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ:SIVB) will post sales of $1.44 billion for the current quarter, according to Zacks. Six analysts have issued estimates for SVB Financial Group’s earnings, with the highest sales estimate coming in at $1.56 billion and the lowest estimate coming in at $1.35 billion. SVB Financial Group posted sales of $1.21 billion during the same quarter last year, which would indicate a positive year over year growth rate of 19{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. The business is scheduled to report its next quarterly earnings results on Thursday, January 20th.

On average, analysts expect that SVB Financial Group will report full year sales of $5.88 billion for the current financial year, with estimates ranging from $5.79 billion to $6.00 billion. For the next fiscal year, analysts expect that the business will report sales of $6.51 billion, with estimates ranging from $6.17 billion to $7.04 billion. Zacks’ sales calculations are an average based on a survey of sell-side research analysts that cover SVB Financial Group.

SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ:SIVB) last posted its earnings results on Wednesday, October 20th. The bank reported $6.24 earnings per share for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $5.04 by $1.20. The firm had revenue of $1.53 billion during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $1.31 billion. SVB Financial Group had a return on equity of 18.95{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} and a net margin of 31.79{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. During the same quarter in the previous year, the business earned $8.47 earnings per share.

A number of brokerages have weighed in on SIVB. Morgan Stanley upgraded SVB Financial Group from an “equal weight” rating to an “overweight” rating and boosted their price objective for the company from $775.00 to $985.00 in a research note on Monday, December 6th. Royal Bank of Canada reiterated an “outperform” rating and issued a $780.00 price objective (up previously from $743.00) on shares of SVB Financial Group in a research note on Friday, October 22nd. Truist boosted their price objective on SVB Financial Group from $700.00 to $850.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Monday, October 25th. Stephens boosted their price objective on SVB Financial Group from $700.00 to $790.00 and gave the company an “equal weight” rating in a research note on Thursday, October 28th. Finally, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods raised SVB Financial Group from a “market perform” rating to an “outperform” rating and set a $700.00 target price on the stock in a report on Tuesday, September 7th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, four have assigned a hold rating and fourteen have assigned a buy rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, the company currently has an average rating of “Buy” and a consensus target price of $769.95.

(Ad)

“Options Basics” is the new traders complete toolbelt, full of plain English instructions, real life  examples, and simple, reliable tactics to get you started!

In related news, insider Michael Descheneaux sold 2,200 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, November 9th. The stock was sold at an average price of $736.09, for a total transaction of $1,619,398.00. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through the SEC website. Also, insider Laura Izurieta sold 6,062 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Monday, December 6th. The stock was sold at an average price of $688.94, for a total value of $4,176,354.28. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last quarter, insiders have sold 21,620 shares of company stock worth $15,133,863. 0.68{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the stock is owned by company insiders.

A number of large investors have recently made changes to their positions in SIVB. JPMorgan Chase & Co. increased its stake in SVB Financial Group by 103.6{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} during the second quarter. JPMorgan Chase & Co. now owns 2,428,967 shares of the bank’s stock worth $1,351,549,000 after acquiring an additional 1,235,927 shares during the last quarter. BlackRock Inc. increased its stake in SVB Financial Group by 9.5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} during the third quarter. BlackRock Inc. now owns 5,059,688 shares of the bank’s stock worth $3,273,011,000 after acquiring an additional 439,970 shares during the last quarter. Invesco Ltd. increased its stake in SVB Financial Group by 42.9{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} during the third quarter. Invesco Ltd. now owns 1,238,752 shares of the bank’s stock worth $801,323,000 after acquiring an additional 372,184 shares during the last quarter. Amundi acquired a new stake in shares of SVB Financial Group in the second quarter valued at about $199,823,000. Finally, Macquarie Group Ltd. grew its stake in shares of SVB Financial Group by 1,057.8{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in the second quarter. Macquarie Group Ltd. now owns 349,276 shares of the bank’s stock valued at $194,347,000 after buying an additional 319,110 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors own 86.77{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of the company’s stock.

SIVB stock opened at $703.92 on Friday. The business has a 50 day moving average price of $714.23 and a 200 day moving average price of $625.56. The stock has a market cap of $41.31 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 21.49, a PEG ratio of 2.69 and a beta of 1.90. SVB Financial Group has a fifty-two week low of $348.36 and a fifty-two week high of $763.22. The company has a quick ratio of 0.48, a current ratio of 0.48 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.15.

About SVB Financial Group

SVB Financial Group is a holding company, which engages in the provision of banking and financial services. It operates through the following segments: Global Commercial Bank, SVB Private Bank, SVB Capital, and SVB Leerink. The Global Commercial Bank segment comprises of results from the commercial bank, private equity division, SVB wine, SVB analytics, and debt fund investments.

Further Reading: What does a neutral rating on stocks mean?

Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on SVB Financial Group (SIVB)

For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Earnings History and Estimates for SVB Financial Group (NASDAQ:SIVB)

This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest and most accurate reporting. This story was reviewed by MarketBeat’s editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]

Should you invest $1,000 in SVB Financial Group right now?

Before you consider SVB Financial Group, you’ll want to hear this.

MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street’s top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on… and SVB Financial Group wasn’t on the list.

While SVB Financial Group currently has a “Buy” rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

View The 5 Stocks Here