Morgonkoll: Kinabörser lyfter efter regeringsåtgärder

Den brittiska banken HSBC, vars verksamhet har global prägel med tonvikt Asien, redovisar ett resultat per aktie för det tredje kvartalet 2023 på 0:29 dollar per aktie, vilket var nästan tre gånger högre än motsvarande kvartal ett år tidigare (0:10).

SEB höjer sin rekommendation för Billerud till köp medan HSBC skruvar ned sin riktkurs för Telia. Här är en sammanställning av torsdagens rekommendations- och riktkursförändringar.

Den globala efterfrågan på ”världens mest illaluktande frukt”, durian, har ökat med 400 procent i år. Det rapporterar CNBC med hänvisning till en rapport från HSBC. Enligt storbanken har uppgången drivits av en ökad aptit i Kina. De senaste två åren har Kina importerat durianer till ett värde av 67 miljarder kronor, vilket motsvarar 91 procent av världsmarknaden. Boomen förklaras delvis av att frukten har blivit en populär gåva och ett sätt för givaren att visa upp sin rikedom. – Kanske blir det en dag en tradition i hela världen att ge sin potentiella svärmor en durian, säger HSBC-ekonomen Aris Dacanay. Vi går mot en händelserik ekonomihöst. Är noteringsklimatet på väg att bli hett igen? Vad händer med bomarknaden när alla bundna lån löper ut? Och hur ska det gå för den historiskt svaga kronan? Med Omni Ekonomi, Omnis systerapp, får du alla affärsnyheter du behöver på ett ställe. Lägg därtill dagliga aktieanalyser direkt i appen, kommentarer från hundratals experter, fördjupning och förklaring, samt upplåst innehåll från världens ledande medier. Och mycket mer.

HSBC har skruvat upp sin riktkurs för de två storbankerna SEB och Swedbank. Här är en sammanställning av måndagens rekommendations- och riktkursförändringar.

Ledande banker i Hongkong har i år minskat sin exponering mot kommersiella fastigheter i Kina. Enligt HSBC:s vd Noel Quinn står sektorn inför en ”utmanande” framtid, skriver Nikkei.

Chaufförer, privata kockar och miljoner att leva på. Trots prat om tuffa tag har brittiska sanktioner mot ryska oligarker varit fulla av undantag. Det visar dokument som The New York Times tagit del av. Förra året godkändes 82 undantag, kallade ”licenser”. Den ryske bankpampen Mikhail Fridman fick exempelvis lov att betala för 19 anställda, inklusive städerskor och hantverkare. Andra har tillåtits årliga omkostnader på så mycket som 1 miljon dollar. Av den brittiska regeringen beskrivs Fridman och hans tidigare affärspartner Petr Aven som pro-kremlska oligarker med tajta kopplingar till Rysslands president Vladimir Putin – något de själva förnekar. – Vi är neutrala affärsman, det är allt, säger Aven till tidningen. Despite tough talk, Britain’s new sanctions program against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proved shaky. Some oligarchs have received generous exemptions. Officials have at times overreached. By Jane Bradley July 27, 2023 LONDON — The British government has allowed Russian oligarchs to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on perks like private chefs, chauffeurs and housekeepers, despite ostensibly having their bank accounts frozen, documents show. The exemptions, known as licenses, are an example of how the United Kingdom’s new financial sanctions system, put together after Brexit, has proved shaky. In some cases, oligarchs were allowed more than $1 million a year in living expenses. In others, officials had to abandon criminal investigations and remove sanctions after legal battles. “We will keep increasing the pressure on Putin and cut off funding for the Russian war machine,” the British foreign secretary said last spring as she announced Russian sanctions in the first weeks of the war in Ukraine. In the months that followed, Britain was quietly more welcoming. It granted Russian banking tycoon Mikhail Fridman a license to pay for 19 members of staff, including drivers, private chefs, housekeepers and handymen, during the first year of the war, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times and people directly familiar with the licenses. The payment came to 300,000 pounds (almost $400,000) over about 10 months. Fridman also received a roughly 7,000-pound monthly allowance to cover his family’s basic needs. Officials permitted his former business partner, Petr Aven, a monthly allowance of 60,000 pounds. The majority went to a security company owned by Aven’s financial manager, who has been under investigation for potentially helping Aven evade sanctions, court records show. It is unclear what checks the government carried out before approving the transactions. Fridman and Aven are described by the British government as “pro-Kremlin oligarchs” who are closely associated with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an allegation they both deny and are challenging in court. “We are politically neutral businessman. That is all,” said Aven, reached by phone in the Hamptons. The former business partners are among several Russians who have had sanctions imposed in public since the war, only to see those restrictions eased in secret. The British Treasury granted at least 82 licenses last year and many more applications are pending, according to official figures seen by the Times. Law enforcement agents, who deal with potential criminal breaches of the financial blacklist, have at times been frustrated with those decisions and by a licensing system that they see as undermining the sanctions. Treasury officials allowed Aven, for example, to spend more than 1 million pounds while technically cut off from the British economy. At the same time, law enforcement officers investigated him for possible sanctions evasion and raided his countryside mansion last year. Some of the people who described details about the licenses did so on condition of anonymity because the matters are confidential. A spokesperson for the U.K. Treasury declined to comment on specific cases but said licenses were granted to allow payments for “basic needs” and are “strictly monitored.” A National Crime Agency spokesperson said it would not be appropriate to comment because it is investigating Aven and Fridman. Licenses are part of sanctions systems across the world, including in the United States. But while Washington typically grants licenses for humanitarian reasons or to cover basic living expenses and legal fees, Britain’s criteria are broader. Among the considerations, according to interviews with lawyers and former Treasury officials, is whether a license will keep money flowing into the economy. A recent government report says that licenses are “issued to protect individual and U.K. business needs.” The Russian sanctions were the first high-profile challenge for a new, untested sanctions system set up in 2021 following Britain’s departure from the European Union. More than a year later, the government’s ambitious pledges have proved challenging to meet. Just as politicians overpromised, financial investigators at times overreached. The National Crime Agency sent around 50 officers to raid Fridman’s mansion last year and announced an investigation into fraud, perjury and money laundering. This spring, it dropped all but the money laundering inquiry. Last week, following a legal fight, the British government was forced to remove Russian businessman Oleg Tinkov from the sanctions blacklist. Tinkov argued he was wrongly included: He is an outspoken critic of Putin and has renounced his Russian citizenship. On Thursday, Fridman will appear in one of Britain’s highest courts to challenge the measures against him. Several other Russian tycoons will take to court in coming weeks to argue, like him, that they have been unfairly targeted simply for being Russian. The government is yet to approve a license, applied for six months ago, allowing Fridman to pay for legal representation in these proceedings. Fridman is also expected to argue in a later case for the right to keep his household staff, which the government allowed him to maintain during the first 10 months of the war. As in Aven’s case, the National Crime Agency raided Fridman’s mansion on suspicion of money laundering. After that, the government denied Fridman’s request to maintain his staff. The licensing figures highlight a persistent tension as the government joins with the United States and Europe to freeze the assets of Kremlin-connected oligarchs. Britain has been a safe haven for Russian wealth for decades. The anti-corruption group Transparency International estimates that Russians accused of financial crimes or linked to the Kremlin own 1.5 billion pounds’ worth of British property. Sanctions against these Russians might send a message to Moscow, but they hurt British businesses, too. Law firms, accountants, real estate agents, art dealers and many others have benefited as Russian money flowed through a capital that has been derisively nicknamed Londongrad. So while Britain has all but declared the end to the Londongrad era, oligarchs are finding ways to keep the country open for their business. “It’s an indication of why this country has been so bad at curbing dirty Russian money,” said William F. Browder, a former major investor in Russia who has led a yearslong human rights campaign against Putin. “There seem to be loopholes everywhere you look and here is the government giving oligarchs its full support to get around its own sanctions.” This tension is not unique to Britain. Belgium, for example, lobbied to allow its diamond industry to keep selling to Russians without violating European Union sanctions. The Telegraph in London was the first to report details of Aven’s license and his monthly allowance. Documents obtained by the Times add new details to that report, including that more than two-thirds of his allowance, about 45,000 pounds, went to a security firm owned by his financial manager, Stephen Gater. Gater himself has been under scrutiny by the National Crime Agency, which suspects him of helping Aven evade sanctions. Neither has been charged. The agency froze accounts connected to Gater last spring. HSBC, which held the accounts, believed that they were “ultimately funded and controlled” by Aven, according to court documents. The Times is the first newspaper to detail the lavish spending permitted by Fridman’s licenses, as well as the national licensing data. The British government denied requests from the Times for information on who received licenses, for how much money, and why. A Labour lawmaker, Stephen Kinnock, obtained some records through Parliament and shared them with the Times. The figures show that, in the year before the war in Ukraine, the government received 11 license applications related to Russian sanctions and approved nine. Since the war, the number of applications has surged to just over 1,000. By the end of last year, the government had approved 82, with many awaiting a decision. It was not clear how many were rejected, so it was impossible to calculate an approval rate. Comparable numbers in the United States were not immediately available but, as in Britain, applications for licenses have spiked in the past year, a senior U.S. Treasury official said. Washington has received thousands of requests and has approved around 17%, the official said. “U.S. licenses are very specific. They would never do what the U.K. does with letting people just get access to big swathes of money for broad needs,” said David Slim, an international lawyer who has worked on American and British sanctions cases. But Britain is home to many more blacklisted Russians than the United States, and they represent a larger share of the economy. “It is in the best interests of the U.K. to be more lenient with the people who have invested billions and billions of dollars,” Slim said. Some of those people, like Fridman, are angry that Britain so readily accepted their billions, then turned its back on them. He and Aven founded one of Russia’s largest private banks, Alfa Bank. The two have undoubtedly profited from the bank’s relationship with the Russian state. But the Ukrainian-born Fridman has not lived in Russia since moving to Britain in 2015. The United States has not followed Britain and the European Union in placing sanctions on either man but has imposed light restrictions on Alfa Bank. Before 2016, sanctions compliance in Britain was mostly left to the European Union. After Brexit, the government established an Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation, with a team of about 45, to help businesses comply. Russia’s invasion catapulted it to political prominence and the team has since grown to about 100. Licensing can save taxpayers money, because once the authorities seize an asset, they are responsible for its upkeep. Yachts and mansions carry eye-watering maintenance costs, and a license can keep the target of the sanctions paying for commitments that could otherwise fall to the state. That would not explain exemptions allowing people to keep their chauffeurs and chefs. © 2023 The New York Times Company. Read the original article at The New York Times.

Stockholmsbörsen har startat dagen på minus inför Feds räntebesked senare i dag. Efter ett par minuter ser det ut som följer:

• OMXSPI: -0,4% • OMXS30: -0,3%

Klockan 20 i kväll kommer veckans huvudnummer i form av Feds räntebesked. En höjning på 25 punkter anses av marknaden säker som amen i kyrkan och fokus kommer att ligga på framåtriktade uttalanden. Bland rapportbolagen redovisade Hexagons ett andra kvartal som i stort var i linje med vad analytikerna hade räknat med. Aktien faller 9 procent. SAS gjorde en vinst på 161 miljoner kronor i juni. Det är första gången sedan slutet av 2019 som bolaget redovisar plussiffror. Aktien stiger 4 procent. Scaniaägaren Traton ökade å sin sida såväl omsättning som lönsamhet rejält och aktien lyfter 0,5 procent. I en separat rapport visade även Scania upp rekordsiffror. På bettingscenen sjönk Kambis rörelseresultat medan omsättningen steg. Sportboksleverantörens aktie tappar 3 procent. Embracer har fått en sänkt rekommendation till behåll av HSBC samtidigt som Jefferies inlett bevakning med samma rekommendation. Gamingbolaget backar 1,2 procent. New York-börserna i går S&P 500: +0,3% Nasdaq: +0,6% Dow Jones: +0,1% Inflation, högre räntor och stora börsrörelser. Hur stor avkastning vågar vi räkna med ett år som detta? Vilka fällor ska man undvika på börsen? Och inom vilka sektorer finns vinnare? Med Omnis systerapp Omni Ekonomi får du Sveriges mest heltäckande bevakning av börs- och bolagsnyheter. Lägg därtill att Sveriges främsta aktieexperter svarar på de svåra frågorna och hjälper dig att navigera marknaderna. Nu får alla Omniläsare chansen till en klok investering – testa Omni Ekonomi i två månader för endast 49 kronor (spara 269 kronor).

På onsdagen har Morgan Stanley höjt sitt råd för Alfa Laval. Dessutom har spelkoncernen Embracer fått två nya behållrekommendationer från Jefferies och HSBC.

En global undersökning avslöjar en växande klyfta mellan arbetsgivare och arbetstagare när det gäller distansarbete. Medan företagschefer fruktar minskad produktivitet fortsätter anställda att önska mer arbete hemifrån. I genomsnitt vill arbetstagare världen över jobba två dagar borta från kontoret, en dag mer än vad de för närvarande får. Trenden har även spridit sig till länder där distansarbete traditionellt sett har varit mindre vanligt, som i Japan och Sydkorea. Samtidigt har den avkylda jobbmarknaden gett många företag mod att inskränka distansarbetet, skriver The Economist. Employees want to toil in the kitchen. Bosses want them back in the office. By The Economist 10 July 2023 Remote work has a target on its back. Banking CEOs, like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, are intent on making working from home a relic of the pandemic. Staff at America’s biggest lender and other Wall Street stalwarts like Goldman Sachs are finding that five-day weeks are back for good. Big tech companies are also cracking the whip. Google’s return-to-work mandate threatens to track attendance and factor it in performance reviews for rebellious employees. Meta and Lyft want staff back at their desks, demanding at least three days of the week in the office by the end of the summer. With bosses clamping down on the practice, the pandemic-era days of mutual agreement on the desirability of remote work seem to be over. Fresh data from a global survey shows just how far this consensus has broken down. Across the world, plans for remote working by employers fall short of what workers want, according to WFH Research, a group that includes Stanford University and the Ifo Institute, a German think-tank, which has tracked the sentiment of full-time workers with at least a secondary education in 34 countries. Corporate bosses fear that fully remote work dents productivity, a worry reinforced by a slew of recent research. One study of data-entry workers in India found those toiling from home to be 18% less productive than their office-frequenting peers; another found that employees at a big Asian IT firm were 19% less productive at home than they had been in the office. Communication records of nearly 62,000 employees at Microsoft showed that professional networks within the company ossified and became more isolated as remote work took hold. Yet all the pressure from above has done little to dent employees’ appetite for remote working. Workers want to be able to work more days from the comfort of their living rooms than they currently do, according to WFH Research. On average, workers across the world want two days at home, a full day more than they get. In English-speaking countries, which already have the highest levels of home-working, there is an appetite for more. And the trend is spreading to places where remote work has been less common. Japanese and South Korean employees, some of the most office-bound anywhere, want more than a quarter of the week to themselves. Europeans and Latin American crave a third and half, respectively. Continued desire for more remote work is not surprising. The time saved not having to battle public transport or congested roads allows for a better work-life balance. On average, 72 minutes each day is saved when working remotely, which adds up to two weeks over a year, according to a working paper by Nicholas Bloom of Stanford, who helps run WFH Research, and colleagues. Employees also report that they feel most engaged when working remotely, according to a poll last year by Gallup. On average globally, workers value all these benefits to the tune of an 8% rise in their salaries, suggesting that some would take a pay cut to keep their privileges. Until recently, as firms tried to lure workers during the post-pandemic hiring bonanza, employees’ demands and employers’ plans seemed to be converging in America, the best-studied market. This convergence is tailing off (see chart). At the same time, the pandemic has entrenched work-from-home patterns. At the moment, a third of workers surveyed by WFH Research have a hybrid or fully remote arrangement. Those practices will not be easy to unwind. It is no coincidence that the crackdown on remote work is happening as the labour market begins to cool. Deepening job cuts across Wall Street and Silicon Valley have handed power back to businesses. However, even in tech and finance some employees are standing their ground. In May nearly 2,000 employees at Amazon staged walkouts over the e-empire’s return-to-work policies. Other companies are quietly adapting with the times, perhaps recognising that a more flexible approach is inevitable. HSBC, a British bank, is planning to relocate from its 45-storey tower in Canary Wharf to smaller digs in the City of London. Deloitte and KPMG, two professional-services giants, plan to reduce their office footprint in favour of more remote work. The gap between the two sides of the work-from-home battle may yet narrow. The question is whether the bosses or the bossed will yield the most. © 2023 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.