From Chinese tech stocks to European defense shares, US President Donald Trump’s second term seems to be lifting the world’s biggest value traps. One of the most prominent and controversial is the holding company owned by Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-shing (李嘉誠).
CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd has agreed to sell most of its ports, including those near the Panama Canal and a larger unit that has operations across 23 countries, to a consortium led by New York-based BlackRock Inc. It was a major victory for Trump, who had complained loudly that China had taken over the critical waterway.
The market response was overwhelmingly positive. The US$19 billion cash proceeds were about the same size as CK’s market cap before the deal was announced. That is remarkable considering the entire port business, including in China and Hong Kong that were not sold as part of the deal, accounted for about 28 percent of the conglomerate’s operating free cash flow, according to the latest data available. CK’s stock rose 22 percent on the date the news came out, the most in more than two decades.
However, as the initial excitement starts to fade, investors are growing nervous, wary of a billionaire family that has a poor track record on shareholders’ returns.
The Li clan takes pride in the myriad of businesses and markets it operates in, but what kind of value-add could a diversified conglomerate offer when globalization is out of favor and geopolitical risks are on the rise? CK’s de-rating has accelerated since Trump’s first term, with the stock trading at just 35 percent of its book value even after the recent share bump.
The complex business dealings have made enterprise valuation an impossible task. Apart from a 76 percent stake in CK Infrastructure Holdings Ltd, which has made 30 deals totaling US$50 billion according to Bloomberg data, CK operates telecom assets across Europe, as well as 12 retail brands with more than 16,000 stores in 28 markets worldwide. The number of equity analysts that cover the holding company’s stock has dwindled to just seven, versus 17 a decade ago.
In a sign of deep capital market skepticism, CK seems to have trouble monetizing its assets. Its health and beauty subsidiary A.S. Watson is still privately-held, a decade after postponing an ambitious US$6 billion dual listing in Hong Kong and London. Softer consumer sentiment in China, once a growth market, has become a drag. Last summer, CK Infrastructure did a secondary listing in the UK, hoping to widen its investor base. Trading volume has hardly improved since.
CK has not indicated how it plans to deploy the US$19 billion from the port deal. In the past, the company did not announce special dividends or buybacks after major asset disposals, which would have pleased investors. Analysts say the proceeds could go into acquisition deals in infrastructure assets in the UK, considering CK Infrastructure’s recent interest in UK water supplier Thames Water Utilities Inc, as well as waste firm Viridor Ltd.
Though nicknamed “Superman,” Li’s aura has long faded in some investing circles. In 2015, minority shareholders revolted and blocked a proposal by CK Infrastructure to buy out another subsidiary, Power Assets Holdings Ltd, in a rare setback to the tycoon who sought to consolidate his businesses before handing over control to his elder son Victor Li Tzar-kuoi (李澤鉅).
This is the perhaps the last chance the 96-year-old would have to make amends with disgruntled shareholders. Instead of more empire-building, the Li family could perhaps share its winnings with outsiders. After all, stock buybacks are often the best use of corporate capital, especially when shares are trading below their fair value. That would be real superpower.
Shuli Ren is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian markets. A former investment banker, she was a markets reporter for Barron’s. She is a CFA charterholder. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS