The deal, should it happen, would represent not only the latest strategic move by Uber but also a nostalgic return for CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, who helmed Expedia for over a decade before swapping flights for surface transport in 2017.

It was during his tenure at Expedia that Khosrowshahi benefited from the mentorship of veteran dealmaker Barry Diller. As board chairman, Diller helped transform Expedia into one of the largest online travel-booking platforms in the world. Its reported revenue for the first six months of 2024 was $6.45 billion; full-year revenue for 2023 was $12.84 billion.

Considering Uber boasts a market cap of roughly $168 billion, it’s plausible that Khosrowshahi may be ready to reclaim a piece of his past. Like Diller, Khosrowshahi hasn’t been shy about wielding Uber’s M&A might, although the results achieved have been mixed. His biggest purchase was in 2019 when Uber bought the Middle Eastern ride-hailing company Careem for $3.1 billion, only to sell it four years later for a disappointing $400 million.

Also with Khosrowshahi at the helm, Uber bought Jump Bikes for $200 million in 2019 as an entrée into the micro mobility arena. And to grow Uber Eats, the San Francisco-based startup snagged grocery delivery service Postmates for $2.65 billion and alcohol delivery app Drizly for $1.1 billion. On the flip side, Uber sold its autonomous-driving unit to the self-driving startup Aurora Innovation in 2020 for $4 billion.

An acquisition of Seattle-based Expedia would elevate Uber’s ambitions to new heights. It could be more than just a nostalgic power play, too.

An Expedia takeover makes good on a promise Khosrowshahi made in 2021 when he outlined a plan to transform Uber into a so-called superapp. Picture a platform where you can not only book a ride but also order a burger and plan your next vacation—all with the convenience of Uber’s app. If Khosrowshahi gets his way, Uber could evolve from a mere car service into your digital personal assistant, managing everything from groceries to travel plans—all while slyly reminding you that surge pricing still applies.

Florida-based GQG did not like the rather aggressive takeover proposal.

In April, BBVA offered Banco Sabadell €12.23 billion ($12.19 billion). About a month later, the bank’s board rejected the bid.

BBVA, undeterred, took its offer straight to Banco Sabadell’s shareholders, going full “hostile takeover” mode.

The Financial Times reported that asset manager GQG, founded in 2016 by billionaire Rajiv Jain, told BBVA’s management that the chase wasn’t worth it, and that Banco Sabadell would water down BBVA’s focus on emerging markets.

By July, GQG had exited BBVA.

BBVA and Banco Sabadell’s back-and-forth has not sat well with the Spanish government. However, the European Central Bank gave the transaction a thumbs-up in September.

The acquisition still requires approval from La Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV), Spain’s stock market regulator. The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), Spain’s regulatory body responsible for ensuring fair competition, must also authorize the transaction with a detailed review.

The process will likely be resolved in the first quarter of 2025.

Under Spanish law, the government cannot block a bid. However, it holds the final say on whether a merger proceeds, contingent on the CNMC and CNMV’s approvals.

GQG, BBVA and Sabadell did not respond to requests for comment.

BBVA has been involved in several significant deals over the years, often to expand its presence in international markets. In 2020, BBVA sold its US banking unit to PNC Financial Services Group for $11.6 billion—one of the largest bank deals in the US. The sale was part of BBVA’s strategy to free up capital and refocus on its core markets, especially Spain, Mexico and Turkey. By 2021, the firm made good on that promise when it launched a bid to buy out the remaining shares of Garanti Bank to fully consolidate one of Turkey’s largest banks into its operations.

Global Finance: What surprised you in 2024?

Meghan Robson: The economic landscape has been positive and driven credit spreads to multiyear tights. In investment grade bonds, we’re now at spreads of 80 basis points. That’s a level we haven’t seen since 2005. In high yields, we’re now trading below 300 basis points. That’s the tightest since 2022. We were expecting US growth to slow more than it has. Data has been better than we expected, not only in the labor market but also consumer spending remains very resilient. The retail sales reading is strong. This raises the chances of a soft landing.

On monetary policy, the Federal Reserve has been a bit more dovish than we expected. Chairman Jerome Powell used his Jackson Hole speech in August to declare victory on inflation and ended up delivering that 50 basis point cut. Our base case was a 25 basis point cut—a bit more than expected. That really supported a bullish view. The market still expects that the Fed will be able to continue rate cuts at a regular cadence into next year. All that bodes well for credit and lowers the chances of a recession.

GF: Do you foresee a soft landing?

Robson: We are expecting a soft landing. We’re starting to see signs that corporate fundamentals are improving. In the second quarter, growth in Ebitda [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization] outpaced interest expense growth for high-yield corporates. We’ve seen this downtrend in interest coverage. That is finally starting to stabilize as we’ve lapped higher rates and have easier comps there. As rates start to come down, that should potentially look better. There’s also the benefit of easier credit conditions going forward, which we think will continue into next year and allow corporates to refinance.

Another point is maturity walls. We’ve seen dramatic improvements with companies addressing maturities due in 2025, but also a lot of progress on maturities due out to 2026. We’re less concerned about that kind of imminent threat we were worried about at the beginning of the year? The risk looks a lot better, and all those reasons support the soft-landing thesis.

GF: Were the recession fears a false alarm?

Robson: Everything you learn as a credit analyst indicates there would be more problems after a rise in rates. So, I think there was some justification in looking at history and the impacts to interest coverage, and predicting that corporate fundamentals would have been more challenged. It seems like markets tend to overreact both positively and negatively to the news. So, the risks were overstated in terms of the market reaction, but I think there were solid reasons to believe we could have seen a bigger downside scenario than we have.

The year-over-year change in corporate margins is still positive, and as a result, profits are broadly expanding. Companies, for the most part, have not had to lay people off. Until you really see that margin compression, I think we won’t see a pickup in layoffs. If we do see margin compression, then companies will be forced to cut costs, and that’s where the recession probability could rise.

GF: How does US credit compare to the rest of the globe?

Robson: We have a modest preference for Europe over the US, given where valuations are. Also, political risk is a bit lower in the European region than the US. We’re also very focused on China’s growth. Beijing’s stimulus, in our view, is not enough yet to be a game changer for some of the sectors with exposure to China that we’re worried about. Chemicals and basics, for example, are going to struggle. We’re also closely watching the Middle East conflict. There’s clearly a feed-through to energy prices, and it could be a headwind to some of our issuers of things like transportation that rely on energy costs.

GF: After LVMH’s earnings, what’s your take on the luxury sector?

Robson: We’re more cautious. In aggregate, we’ve seen a strong labor market, and retail sales are robust. But in the second quarter, this new theme emerged of a slowdown in discretionary spending categories across all income groups, and one subsector is aspirational luxury. Think about a purchase that you might make once per year, like a purse. Consumers are much more discerning around big-ticket items, large leisure goods such as pools and boats. Liquor brands, for example, take these premiumization strategies, and we’re beginning to see spending fall off from those areas. We group all of those into highly discretionary spending categories and are underweight for those types of sectors. But we still think the consumer remains solid.

GF: How might the US presidential election outcome affect the dollar?

Robson: One of the key tail risks with reference to the dollar is sweeping trade policy from Donald Trump. We could have a 10% global tariff across the board and 60% on China. That could boost inflation of up to 5% relative to the baseline and a spike in rates. We would see high yields in the leveraged finance markets much more vulnerable in that situation. Some folks argue that high yield would do better under trade restrictions, just because companies have been more domestically focused in terms of their revenue. Our view is that ultimately, the macro backdrop of inflation and higher rates would be more challenging.

In terms of defensiveness, we like investment grade over high yields. There are certain sectors that we think are offering better risk/reward. So, credit spreads have gotten so tight and so compressed that there’s not much of a cyclical risk premium. You’re not being rewarded as an investor for taking on that extra risk given how tight spreads have become. So, we do like noncyclical sectors like utilities and healthcare, which we think could perform better should we see a pickup in volatility.

GF: Is the election delaying M&A activity?

Robson: There has been a delay of not only M&A, but also capex as it relates to the US election. We think that Kamala Harris would be more dampening to M&A volumes, whereas Trump would be more supportive of M&A just given his track record of supporting less regulation. For debt issuances, there’s typically a six-month runway between announcing the M&A and then seeing the deal price. If we were to see announcements after the election, it wouldn’t be until probably the end of first quarter 2025 or second quarter 2025 that we would see the corresponding debt for that deal.

GF: How does it look for private equity firms?

Robson: The borrowing channel looks better. Interest rates, expected to move lower, signifies that the cost of funding is good. We’ve also seen equity or purchase price multiples of leveraged buyouts, even though there haven’t been many, move lower than the peaks. That’s in specific sectors like software, where the multiples have been lower. That, combined with lower rates, makes it much more economical for private equity sponsorship. We’ve also seen a willingness of sponsors to contribute an elevated percentage of equity to deals, which should facilitate more activity.

GF: For corporates, what should their strategy be?

Robson: Be nimble and flexible in terms of your issuance plan. When market conditions are strong, you’ll be in a place where you can take advantage. Recently, we had some issuers on the sidelines, monitoring the situation for potentially coming to market. We saw rates fall off 10 basis points. They ended up putting those on hold. But should we see an improvement in conditions, they will be able to take advantage of those. I think for investment grade, the demand continues to be strong from yield buyers. Investors domiciled in Japan have seen their hedging costs come down, so that continues to support issuance in investment grade. And then in high yield, given lower recession risks, investors have a lot of appetite for supply. They’ve been starved of issuance. There is potential for those deals to be received well also, but we would recommend waiting until after the election. I think there’s still potential for volatility.

GF: What risks concern you?

Robson: The best catalyst is the one you don’t know. I think for credit, the unknown risk could be a technical one where volatility potentially causes something similar to the European pension-driven selloff. As it relates to Japan, given that the buyer base has grown so much, there could be a forced-selling surprise type of scenario. The selloff in August demonstrates how quickly markets can react negatively and have something turn technical. That is something we’re always trying to unpack. There’s also the underpricing of the election risk: Investors seem very complacent, especially around Trump scenarios where they say he won’t end up actually doing anything he said because he’s “market positive and wouldn’t enact anything.” I think that understates the policy risk.

GF: How will AI shape the future of corporate credit analysis?

Robson: Advancements in AI are extremely exciting for corporate bond researchers. Natural language processing can help with analyzing things like earnings statements. In terms of the creativity in the work product you can generate. Long term, it remains an open question. There will be a lot of investments in companies that can fail. For now, there’s a positive outlook.      

Why settle for slow? When it comes to processing payments, it’s better for a bank to be “always on,” says Debopama Sen, Citi Services’ head of Payments in the Treasury and Trade Solutions business.

Big banks, like Citi, are jockeying to be their clients’ single “port of call” when it comes to transacting. To get there, they’re leveraging their respective strengths and forging partnerships to create new and innovative payment solutions that can move money across borders at any minute of the day with unprecedented speed.

As Sen puts it: “You cannot wait for the US to open.”

For years, clients were clamoring for a fast-lane-like option to transfer money without hitting the dreaded roadblocks that come with different time zones, early cutoffs, and regulatory delays.

This year, their wish was granted. Citi and Emirates NBD recently launched a 24/7 US dollar clearing service. Some 200 clients now use it to send and receive payments.

“This was a great partnership with another bank,” Sen says, hailing the project as “a milestone event.”

At least two other firms—BNP Paribas and BNY Mellon—also recently celebrated the launch of new payment initiatives with speedier service. At a glance, 2024 is shaping up as the year “round-the-clock” became a reality for merchant, consumer, and business-to-business transactions.

“Perhaps it wasn’t important eight years ago, but it’s very important today,” says Sen.

Shortly after Citi confirmed its partnership with Emirates NBD, BNP Paribas touted its own “new era” when the Paris-based bank executed its first “express payment” to Australia. The transaction, completed on July 2, was in partnership with Melbourne-based ANZ Group Holdings.

“With this partnership, we are using the new capability of the local Aussie instant rails to settle real-time [payments], but with full transparency,” says Wim Grosemans, BNP Paribas’ head of Product Management, Payments and Receivables, Cash Management. “It’s the right and future-proof way of doing things.”

BNY Mellon is also working to speed up. In August, the New York-based bank teamed up with Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to enable completion of international payments in as little as 60 seconds.

For CBA, one of Australia’s largest financial institutions, the move expands its presence in the global payments space. BNY boasts that commercial payments from overseas to businesses and individuals with Australian bank accounts “will now be available to the final beneficiary in under a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

That shift underscores what appears to be a new benchmark, says Samit Soni, a partner in Bain & Company’s financial services practice: “There is a desire for banks to enable payments in less than a minute.”

The need-for-speed attitude in the payments sector coincides with a larger trend: Corporates now find themselves in a world where the new normal flow of business is 24/7. US Treasuries and stock index futures, for example, can be traded at any time from Monday to Friday; retail traders are increasingly using platforms like Robinhood for 24-hour weekday access to US stocks; and the New York Stock Exchange—for the first time ever—is expressing interest in a 24/7 bourse.

A seamless experience is also in demand, as evidenced by a massive transition in cross-border payments, converging from a wide variety of legacy message and data formats to ISO 20022, a common, global, end-to-end standard. Grosemans sums it up as “exciting times.”

Regulators like what they hear, too. Cross-border mandates are now cropping up with the aim of accelerating real-time payment adoption between regions.

Bain’s Soni recalls the linkage agreement between Singapore’s PayNow system and India’s Unified Payments Interface from earlier this year. The initiative allows customers from participating banks in both nations to transfer funds instantly using just a mobile number or virtual payment address.

Merger and acquisition activity is also returning as legacy firms remain on the hunt for companies with a payment specialty. US Bank, for instance, purchased Tempe, Arizona-based Salucro, a 20-year-old shop known for innovating in the health care payments space, in August.

“Dealmaking seems to have picked up,” Soni says, noting that Bain is in the process of assembling its next M&A report on payments. Preliminary data show deal value in the payments space for 2024 at around $53 billion: higher than in 2023, when it barely hit $30 billion. Around this time last year, overall deal value for fintechs dropped 23% while volume fell 30% over the first nine months of 2023.

This year, it’s a different scenario.

There are several reasons why deal activity is more vibrant, Soni says. One reason is that corporates like to cherry-pick assets that enhance their capabilities. Additionally, many incumbent firms are restructuring by spinning off their payments divisions into standalone entities to capture higher valuations.

Lastly, while fintech startups may have attractive offerings, they find themselves cash-strapped on the heels of a weak fundraising environment. Nowadays, they’re more willing to hear what buyers have to offer.

“M&A is picking up, from what we are seeing on the ground,” says Logan Allin, founder of global asset manager Fin Capital. Allin’s firm, which boasts 120-plus investments in fintech software, recently announced two fintech-related exits: NeuroID, to Dublin-based Experian PLC; and Salt Labs, to San Francisco-based Chime Financial.

The fact that interest rates are coming down helps when it comes to dealmaking, he adds: “We believe that the specter of interest rate cuts is driving M&A corp-dev departments to move more quickly with a view that companies [and] asset values will be more expensive in the future.”

Among the early-stage companies that were acquired this year, there’s consumer credit startup Petal, which sold to Mexico’s Empower Finance in April. In June, São Paulo-based Nubank scooped up Hyperplane, an AI-powered startup that builds personalized product offerings.

A startup that takes one specific customer problem and solves it “extremely well” is attractive, Citi’s Sen says. Citi has often found itself on the buyside in recent years.

In 2019, it purchased PayQuik, a fintech company specializing in real-time, cross-border payments. In 2020, it acquired Vadiyya, a fintech startup focused on enhancing payment processing technology, particularly for small and medium-size enterprises. And in 2022, Citi explored the burgeoning blockchain space and bought a stake in BondEvalue, a bond trading platform.

Citi is still on the lookout for the newest tech.

“The really new, young, hungry disruptors are definitely a space to watch out for,” Sen says. “Banking clients are looking for a one-stop shop, or a one-stop solution across a wide section of markets to serve the end-to-end need. And so sometimes we partner with some of these players to bring that together as well.”

But as the market moves faster and tech gets more innovative, so do the attendant threats. As digital commerce becomes more democratized, regulators are growing increasingly worried about financial crime, Sen notes.

“Today, they’re dealing with many small counterparties, and they may or may not necessarily have the wherewithal to manage that risk,” she says. “Therefore, having those monitoring systems in place, having proactive risk management for managing financial crime, I think, is something that the industry is very aware of, and so is the regulator.”

Indeed, financial crime is on an upward trend. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission reported that the US alone recorded over $10 billion in fraud losses, a 14% increase compared to 2022. Investment scams were particularly damaging, accounting for nearly half of these losses.

At the global level, financial crimes such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and human trafficking contributed to trillions of dollars in illicit funds flowing through the financial system in 2023, with fraud alone causing projected losses of nearly $486 billion.

Driving this explosion of malfeasance are factors including advancements in digital tools that criminals employ. With transactions happening in the blink of an eye, preventative steps have difficulty catching up, BNP Paribas’ Grosemans says. 

“There are all types of fraud strategies and new fraud strategies are being invented every day,” he adds. “There is a systemic risk there and we have to get our heads around what that means and how we protect customers against fraud.”

Benchmark tech analyst Cody Acree argues that a private equity firm like Apollo is a better fit for struggling Intel. “Who benefits from Intel’s resurgence other than a core investor?” he asks. A strategic partner like Qualcomm or Broadcom, by contrast, “may be hard to find.”

Intel’s market share continues to decline. Its stock price has plummeted 60% this year and its market capitalization fell below $100 billion in early August: the first time that has happened since 2012. Any buyer, however, would need to offer at least a 40% premium over Intel’s current trading price to be taken seriously by the company’s board, Acree says. This would translate to a market value of about $135 billion.

“The Apollo deal makes more sense because there’s a belief among certain investors that Intel can turn things around,” Acree argues, suggesting that some investors view the company as a distressed asset ripe for a rebound.

Qualcomm would likely need to finance an Intel acquisition through a combination of debt and stock. Analysts believe the San Diego-based tech giant could make the math work, particularly if the deal involved selling off Intel’s manufacturing assets.

Acree draws parallels between Intel’s current struggles and the situation rival AMD once faced. Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala, purchased a significant stake in AMD’s manufacturing assets in 2008, which led to the creation of GlobalFoundries. While Acree suggests Mubadala could also be a potential buyer for Intel, he acknowledges that such a deal would be a stretch, given the fund’s preference for outright ownership of assets.

Besides Intel’s ongoing design issues and dwindling market share in both the PC and server markets, a strategic buyer would also face regulatory hurdles. Recall Nvidia’s attempt to acquire Arm Holdings in 2020; regulators in the US, the UK, Europe and China blocked the effort. And Qualcomm’s own attempt to purchase NXP in 2018 fell apart due to regulatory disapproval from China. Both deals involved hefty breakup fees.

The sports betting giant spent roughly $3 billion in total; both acquisitions are expected to close in the second quarter of 2025. Snaitech generated $285 million of adjusted EBITDA in 2023 and NSX is expected to report $34 million of adjusted EBITDA for 2024, according to New York-based investment bank Needham & Company.

Flutter may not be done yet. It is expected to have $6 billion at its disposal, at least through mid-2026, “for additional M&A or buybacks,” analysts at the firm wrote in late September.

This isn’t the first time Flutter has turned to mergers and acquisitions to push further into international markets. The company first launched via a deal in 2016 when Ireland’s Paddy Power and Britain’s Betfair merged.

In 2020, the company completed a $12 billion acquisition of Canadian online gaming giant The Stars Group. The deal brought PokerStars under Flutter’s umbrella, adding an online poker business to its burgeoning portfolio. Last year, the company acquired Italian online betting firm Sisal, bolstering its European presence.

With the rapid legalization of sports betting, FanDuel has grown into a dominant player. This past summer, rumors swirled that it was interested in taking over Penn Entertainment, a casino operator with more than 40 properties in its portfolio.

As the regulatory environment continues to evolve, particularly in the US, Flutter’s growth-by-acquisition approach positions it to boost shareholder value, Flutter CEO Peter Jackson said at the company’s Investor Day event on September 25. The goal is to deliver up to $5 billion of share repurchases over the next three to four years, he added. Flutter’s main rival, DraftKings, has been less active and successful when it comes to cross-border M&A. In 2020, it managed to go public via a SPAC deal with SBTech, a UK-based sports betting technology provider. In 2021, it offered to acquire Entain, a UK-based gambling company, with a reported $22 billion offer. After negotiations, however, DraftKings withdrew its bid, citing the complexity of the deal.

Global Finance: What’s driving the current interest in sports finance?

Neil Barlow: The ownership of major sports franchises has often been the preserve of wealthy billionaires. US investors look toward European soccer and say, “There’s this amazing asset that has global appeal across Asia, the Middle East, South America … but how come their valuations don’t match that of an NFL team? What are they not doing?” Private equity firms seek operational opportunities. They may look at a particular club or franchise in a major sport, such as soccer, and see a potential real estate play. Perhaps a stadium could be redeveloped to host, say, a Taylor Swift concert or the NFL when they come to London or to Frankfurt. They hope to create opportunities to amplify the commercial impact of those teams in terms of what they are doing abroad.

GF: Which firm exemplifies this trend?

Barlow: Consider the likes of Sixth Street; we advised them on Barcelona. But seeing operational opportunities around clubs doesn’t always mean owning a club. That’s incredibly expensive, and there are stringent rules around financial fair play or acquiring players. And in the US, there are rules about the size of a stake that you can own in a franchise. While the NFL is opening up to private equity investment, there are stringent rules in the NBA and the NHL around owning minority stakes.

GF: So, where else in the sports ecosystem can private equity firms find opportunity?

Barlow: One example is media rights. The ability to provide liquidity or capital is readily realized when you say, “Let’s buy a certain percent of your broadcast revenue over the next 10 to 20 years. You can use this money to reinvest in your squad, your facilities, or your coaching and staff.” And the private equity investor has a pretty confident stream of revenue that is on an upward trajectory over a certain period. We have seen a lot more of those types of deals rather than club buyouts. While there are certain trophy clubs and assets out there, private equity firms are typically more focused on the adjacent sports aspects. What you are seeing is family offices—which are private equity in nature but funded in large part by multimillionaires or billionaires—looking at club acquisitions. But we haven’t seen a Blackstone or an Apollo or a Carlyle buy a Manchester United.

GF: Can private equity compete with nation-states?

Barlow: To quote PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, when you’re up against a nation-state to fund a project, you have to make strong decisions around how you operate the business. Take the golf example that I am alluding to. There has been a lot of angst and questions: Do you team up with a nation-state and create a merged global product? Is that in the best interests of the product, the players and commercialization? Or, do you look for private equity investment? It may not be of the same level, but you may feel like you have more autonomy around the future of your own product. And clearly there’s a lack of progress around the PGA Tour/LIV Golf merger.

When sovereign wealth investment first came into European soccer, the level and speed of investment happened at a time when the leagues hadn’t fully appreciated the guardrails they may have wanted in place to ensure fair competition. Contrast Manchester City’s investment from Abu Dhabi United Group and PSG’s investment from Qatar Sports Investments, with Newcastle United Football Club and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund years later. Today, new investments, as seen with Newcastle, happen in a more constrained environment, for example as to the amount that can be deployed on players. The rules have now developed to regulate the enormity of funding.

GF: What lessons have you learned from recent advisory roles, and how can CFOs apply that in their own work?

Barlow: A number of portfolio companies are asked by their owners to move into exit mode at a rapid speed. Sometimes an owner thinks, “Now’s our time. Let’s go.” And I think CFOs have had to really grapple with how quickly they can produce the data, the budgeting, the forecasting and the financials. That puts pressure on the C-suite. Often in those scenarios, only a small number of managers or senior employees at an organization are in the know about that process. So, the ability to be organized and gather information is key. Otherwise, transactions can stall and that obviously puts a huge strain on CFOs.

Also, build a rapport with the private equity owner, where they can preempt in advance when they think those cycles of exit activity are going to happen, and prepare behind the scenes. If the business has seasonal revenue, how’s that going to look to the buyer market? Maybe the buyer dinks you on price and valuation. Then the private equity house goes back to the CFO and says, “Why didn’t we predict this?” Often they can predict it, if they’ve had that conversation. The teams that I’ve seen operate most effectively are having those communications early, in order to preempt when these things might happen.

So, stay on it. Keep your organization organized. Keep your files in place. You’re going to be asked to produce a data room in a matter of weeks or days, and I’ve seen that to be near impossible for the majority of businesses because most businesses of a global nature do not necessarily have all the information you need in a virtual data room at their fingertips.

GF: What’s the biggest challenge for private equity firms today?

Barlow: There is a huge premium on culture, relationship and reputation. The track record of the private equity investor, especially with regulators in different parts of the world, is hugely important. Scrutiny around financial services, banking, etc., has increased exponentially over the past few years. We have seen in Europe, for example, certain regulators take more stringent views on private equity investment because obviously there has been a lot of strain on those businesses with the Covid-19 pandemic. Compared with pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, which traditionally are less involved on the day-to-day operations and more involved on the investment side, private equity firms lean into operational growth, and they obviously have a head start.

GF: How come so many American investors are buying clubs in Europe?

Barlow: That’s something I’ve talked to clients about. The euro and the pound sterling is weak compared with the dollar, so over the past few years, US-based dollar funds see pricing as attractive. Also, if you look at the sports model in the US, they don’t have these tiered leagues or teams like you have in Europe. They just don’t exist. But if you look at the leagues in Italy, England, Scotland, Ireland—there are multitudes of leagues that allow an entry point at a much lower valuation, like Ryan Reynolds got with Wrexham in Wales.

You then professionalize it: Bring in sponsorship and create such a media clamor that the valuation increases. And if there’s an increase in performance and they climb the leagues, you can double or triple the value of these assets. Is a massive private equity house going to look at that as an opportunity? No, because the returns and the multiples aren’t large enough. But there are certainly a large number of private investors, family offices, and individuals that will be hugely attracted to that and can access sports club ownership in a way that you could never do in the US.

GF: Do you expect to see this trend expand to other regions?

Barlow: There has been less movement in South or Latin America because the revenue streams and leagues are less developed. However, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. We are seeing clients looking especially multiclub models, where you own different clubs in different jurisdictions and you create synergies. There is a huge interest in those opportunities, particularly in countries like Mexico, Argentina and Brazil.

GF: It doesn’t seem like it’s a seller’s market. Do foresee any change in the near or long term?

Barlow: I wish I had a crystal ball, but my current feeling is this is going to continue through the end of this year and into the first quarter of 2025. I think there is a lot of momentum behind people realizing that they need to get on and do something. And I think people have started to either get ready or think about the potential for IPO-ing a businesses. It’s becoming quite difficult for private equity buyers to decide where to spend their time. But, if you’re thinking about IPO-ing in 2025, you’re going to have to start working with your company and management team now to get that preparation going. That is one example of how the industry recognizes that they can’t sit here and say, “Oh, we will wait six months.” Because, at that point, you’re into 2026. As for sports, it’s a great example of a new frontier of operational opportunity for private equity, which is why you’re seeing a massive move in that direction.

Global Finance: How has rising inflation impacted your country scores?

Yoel Sano: Higher inflation generally means higher risk of social instability. When Russia attacked Ukraine, we saw an immediate inflation spike; the cost-of-living crisis went global. Rising food prices were one of the major factors that disrupted social stability. In terms of the impact, it depends on the country’s macroeconomic backdrop, including import bills, dependency on imports, fiscal position and debt position. In Sri Lanka, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was toppled in 2022. In Argentina, they elected Javier Milei, a radical sort of free marketeer, late last year to fix triple-digit inflation. We currently have anti-inflation protests erupting in Nigeria. So, the impact manifests itself in different ways. The most extreme cases lead to sudden changes in government, or it could be a slow-burn ejection of a government like we saw in Argentina. Or it could just be sort of sporadic unrest like we see in Nigeria.

GF: Do organized disinformation campaigns affect political analysis?

Sano: Our analysts obviously monitor Twitter [now X] throughout the day to sort of see what news is available. But we also look at the mainstream international outlets from a variety of different sources. It can be hard to verify information. It is often somewhat tricky to absolutely be sure about what happens, for example, in wars like Ukraine and Gaza. The quantity and speed with which information is disseminated makes a lot of noise, so we just have to work our way through it. There are fact-checking organizations, but some may be unreliable themselves. It’s a case of perseverance and trying to see through the fog. But certainly the onset of disinformation can cause situations to erupt quite suddenly. I’m based in the UK. Just in early August, we’ve seen riots by anti-immigrant, far-right activists, which seem to have been triggered by false information concerning the identity of the murderer of three young girls at a dance party. The false aspect of the story had been debunked, but the underlying sort of aggression is still there—it’s still a risk. Those kinds of incidents, where you have a sudden piece of disinformation thrown up, can trigger unrest that will probably be more common going forward. I’d say it’s about the speed of disinformation, and in some ways the volume level as well, than the amount of disinformation.

GF: What’s your outlook for the major Latin American markets?

Sano: We’re quite positive on Mexico’s economy in the long term as an alternative to, say, China. Mexico can bring more manufacturing and business operations to market, as it is geographically closer to the US and perhaps more politically reliable under President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum [she assumes office on October 1]. Sheinbaum is quite a capable, technocratic-type leader who would maintain Mexico’s stability.

In Brazil, there’s a lot of uncertainty about who will succeed Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. We have municipal elections in October; that’ll be a test for Brazil’s 2026 presidential election. And we know that ex-President Jair Bolsonaro cannot run for the presidency in 2026 due to his own legal challenges. So, the Brazilian right will be looking for a new standard bearer for the 2026 presidential election. We’re watching that very closely.

In Argentina, Milei’s main test will be the midterm elections in October 2025.

In Venezuela, we are seeing the challenges against President Nicolás Maduro, who seems to have retained the support of the military and key institutions. He seems to be able to ride out the protests, but it depends how big any protests become. In order for any leader to be deposed, you need to have protests for weeks, maybe months on end. And even that doesn’t completely guarantee political change because we’ve seen, in 2020 in Hong Kong and Belarus, large protests went on for months and the governments stayed put.

Peru has been a country where we’ve seen almost chronic instability for quite some time now. General elections are scheduled to be held in April 2026. In Ecuador, there’s a lot of drug-related violence. In Bolivia, there seems to be a power struggle within the ruling Socialist movement. They have elections in 2025.

Chile also has elections next year in Latin America. So, again, this will be a test of whether the current center left will retain the presidency or whether the right will come back to power. I know that President Gabriel Boric has faced a number of problems. He has faced constitutional amendments being defeated by referendums, so he has had quite a turbulent presidency thus far.

GF: Will China continue to wield influence in Latin America?

Sano: I think there are a lot of avenues for uncertainty regarding China’s influence on parts of Latin America, where China is a major commodity importer. Milei’s predecessor, Alberto Fernández, signed Argentina up to join BRICS. Milei immediately withdrew Argentina from BRICS when he was elected president. He’s now trying to mend ties with China. But it shows that you can’t assume that just because there’s a sort of China-friendly government in place at one time, it’ll always be the case. Overall, trade is an area where China will remain important for Latin America.

GF: What key strategy would you offer to CFOs to manage risk?

Sano: You must have some sort of backup system or resiliency plan to deal with disruption to any operations. For example, several months before the Covid-19 pandemic began, BMI started giving all its staff laptops, replacing traditional PCs. A few weeks before we went into lockdown, we conducted a test situation where we all worked from home—just to see how that would function. When the lockdown actually happened in March 2020, we were ready and able to maintain continuity of business. Imagine if this had happened 20 years earlier, without all this infrastructure. So, it’s important for companies to have backup systems, particularly in this era of cyberthreats.

It also depends on what business you’re in. With international shipping businesses, the Houthis of Yemen started attacking shipping vessels in the Red Sea in late 2023. Freight was rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa. Yes, it was more expensive and more time consuming, but at least there was an alternative. I think building redundancy in any kind of system is useful.

If you’re a major manufacturer, you don’t want to be reliant on a single source for your components, and you’d ideally want to ship your material from multiple countries so there’s not a single point of failure.

GF: Any surprises in the months since BMI held its last annual “World of Worries” Q&A event?

Sano: Our analysts do these global/macro risk assessments on a global basis and on a regional basis, discussing themes for the coming year. What surprised us in 2024? The Israel-Hamas war in Gaza has gone on a little longer than we expected. I would also say that you can’t predict events like the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter a few months ago and centrist Masoud Pezeshkian winning a snap election. We couldn’t predict that former President Donald Trump would be shot, but we did flag the possibility of the coming US election being conducted without either Donald Trump or Joe Biden on the ballot, either due to Trump’s legal difficulties or Biden’s age. So, we’re correct—in that sense—about the Biden age issue. There will always be something that happens, catching us off guard from time to time. We’re holding another “World of Worries” event on October 9, with much of the focus on risks in 2025.

That’s according to the latest data from Russell Reynolds Associates, which specializes in executive searches. This year saw increased levels of turnover, with the proportion of outgoing finance chiefs reaching 8.9% globally from January to June.

A total of 163 new CFOs were appointed during that time frame. Companies including 3M, Aramark, Chevron, Costco, Fifth Third Bancorp, Ulta Beauty, Tupperware, and United Parcel Service announced CFO changes.

Several high-profile announcements occurred more recently. Stanford University CFO Randy Livingston confirmed his retirement, after spending 23 years at the university. Tate & Lyle, a $3.4 billion food and beverage distributor in London, named Sarah Kuijlaars CFO effective September 16. Kuijlaars was previously the CFO of the diamond company De Beers Group and luxury carmaker Rolls-Royce.

Jonas Rickberg was appointed CFO at Sweden-based construction firm Skanska Group. And apparel brand Guess revealed that a former CFO, Dennis Secor, returned to the post August 26.

CFO tenures are becoming shorter. Management consultancy Russell Reynolds Associates found that the average tenure of an outgoing CFO has reached a five-year low of 5.7 years. Some 54% of this year’s outgoing CFOs either retired or shifted to an exclusive board role. That’s up 15 percentage points year over year—a five-year high.

Headhunters are also seeking former CFOs to be CEOs. The latest Crist Kolder Associates Volatility Report finds that these promotions are becoming more common.

Certain market-index operators are more likely to promote internal talent to the CFO role. The Nikkei 225, Japan’s leading stock index, and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng made almost all their appointments internally. In Western indices, external appointments were more common. As for gender parity, women remain underrepresented in the CFO role, with Russell Reynolds reporting that the S&P 500 companies are 40 years away from reaching gender parity. Of the 163 CFOs appointed in 2024, 44 were women. Still, that’s the highest number of women CFO appointments in the past five years.  

The Chipotle CEO is ending his time at the Mexican grill chain and plans to start as top boss at Starbucks on September 9.

Niccol, 50, replaces Laxman Narasimhan, marking what observers deem a new beginning for the renowned coffee franchise.

Under Narasimhan, Starbucks faced a litany of challenges related to unionization efforts and stunted sales growth across the globe, particularly in China.

By swapping in Niccol, the Starbucks board hopes for a successful turnaround not unlike what he accomplished at Chipotle. From 2018, Niccol helped revitalize the brand after it had been plagued by food safety scandals, resulting in severe damage to its reputation and declining sales.

He also spearheaded a new digital ordering strategy that kept each restaurant busy during the Covid-19 pandemic. With Niccol at the helm, Chipotle stock reportedly enjoyed 800% returns.

Now, Starbucks investors have a reason to be excited. For years, the company struggled to find a leader to fill founder Howard Schultz’s shoes. The mere mention that Niccol was joining the C-suite spiked the coffee company’s market cap up by $27 billion (by contrast, Chipotle’s shares plummeted 25%).

Climate-conscious customers, however, have a different take, questioning Niccol’s highly publicized commute from his home in Southern California to Starbucks headquarters in Seattle. Company brass agreed to fly him over 1,000 miles each way several times a week on a private jet. On the remaining days, Niccol can work from his home in Newport Beach, and is not required to relocate. When the arrangement was announced last month, a flurry of critics complained on social media that Niccol’s commute clashes with Starbucks’ sustainability spiel. Others poked fun at the notion of using more reusable cups and paper straws just to offset the carbon emissions generated by Niccol’s sky-high commute. Recall that Starbucks subordinates were instructed to return to the office at least three times a week back in 2023—no matter how far away they lived.