During the second quarter of 2026, the Praetorian Capital Fund LLC (the “Fund”) depreciated by 4.39% net of fees. Given the Fund’s concentrated portfolio structure and focus on asymmetric opportunities, I anticipate that the Fund will be rather volatile from quarter to quarter. During the second quarter, our core portfolio positions depreciated moderately, while the Event-Driven book also experienced declines.
Praetorian Capital Fund LLC
Gross Return
Net Return*
Q1 2026
20.91%
16.44%
Q2 2026
-4.99%
-4.39%
YTD 2026
14.87%
11.33%
2025
13.94%
12.39%
2024
-9.41%
-10.55%
2023
34.70%
26.45%
2022
16.38%
11.95%
2021
181.80%
142.87%
2020
161.87%
129.49%
2019
18.71%
14.97%
Since Inception (1/1/19)
1528.17%
915.33%
*Net return varies from gross return as it accounts for management fees and incentive allocations. Please see the additional disclaimers on the final page of this document.
Advertisement
Markets Are Complex
Six months ago, if you had asked me what would happen during a Mid-East war, I’d have guessed that gold and US Treasuries would rally on a global flight to safety. Nope, they declined—markets are complex. I would have guessed that if we drew more than a billion barrels of global commercial inventories, oil would scream out of control. Nope, it’s effectively unchanged since the conflict began—markets are complex. If you asked me how our core book would do, I’d have told you that we’d likely outperform given our heavy weighting towards volatility and inflation beneficiaries. Nope, we’ve given up ground—markets are complex.
I’ve always been of the view that in the short run, markets can trade at literally any price level. Throughout my career, I have repeatedly been humbled by securities that have exceeded even my wildest expectations of where they could trade. While the overall decline in our portfolio was quite moderate by this Fund’s standards, I remain humbled, as I really would have expected our book to have performed better in a Mid-East war that saw increased volatility and inflation readings. Markets are complex.
It’s worth taking a step back and trying to frame what happened. As you know, I’m firmly of the view that we’re in a Feudalist economic system . Rather than rehash my view of Feudalism again, just think of it this way: the oligarchs of foreign countries underpay their workers to produce products for our citizens to consume. Their resulting dollar earnings are then recycled into US Dollar risk assets, leading our currency and assets to be overvalued, our businesses unable to compete globally outside of a handful of sectors like technology, and our economy effectively hollowed out. Our overpriced assets then allow increased consumption, and the cycle begins anew. This ecosystem benefits the top few percent of families in both nations, while impoverishing everyone else. Economic Feudalism.
When Hormuz was closed, some unique trends happened, briefly alleviating Feudalism globally. As Asian Mercantilists were unable to procure affordable energy products, they chose to ration supply to their industries. Products that had been subsidized by cheap loans and labor for decades suddenly traded up to free-market levels, and US industries suddenly became competitive again. There was then a wave of hiring across dozens of US industries, as Asia was unable to produce competing products. You could say that the Iranians undertook the anti-involution campaign that China keeps talking about, yet never seems to pursue. The global economy upticked dramatically, and the global recession took a pause, as the chains of Feudalism were briefly broken. The result was that many of our portfolio’s trends reversed—we’re long Feudalism. Many years ago, they used to talk about Risk-on or Risk-off trades. I think in terms of Feudalism and Run-It-Hot. Main Street actually had a few good months due to the war, but our book is not positioned for that. Now with the war seemingly trailing off (or maybe not??), our positions are beginning to bounce back.
Advertisement
For better or worse (mostly worse), Feudalism is the dominant mindset amongst elites globally—in many ways, our domestic economic policies are simply a mirror reflection of our trading partners’ imbalances. We all suffer together economically, though it is quite good for those at the top. Last April, Trump tried to put up trade barriers and reverse this situation, but to undo Feudalism, US equities would decline dramatically. As I like to remind people, during the Trade War, Main Street won for 6 days. Trump couldn’t even take that much pain. Hence my confidence in Feudalism accelerating, until both sides make a political decision to undo it. But why would they?? Everyone at the top is winning—hence it will continue, with brief pauses along the way. In our portfolio, we continue to double down on Feudalism (though we do have a large refinery position to hedge this exposure, and it hedged beautifully), while focusing on eliminating positions that are tied to real GDP growth. The most recent quarter was a short-lived speed bump in this process, but even the Iranians have a stock market—maybe they also prefer Feudalism??
Thoughts on the Event-Driven Book
Ever since Trump returned to power, our Event-Driven book (ED) has underperformed my expectations. I’m used to a world where securities trend, and I can use very tight risk profiles to manage the exposures within this book. The staccato nature of Trump tweets leads to an extreme level of disjointed market action, which doesn’t really work well with many of our strategies. During the second quarter, we gave back the majority of the gains from the first quarter, before I chose to cut off the ED book for the summer (risk discipline says that when you’re taking losses, you stop what you’re doing). We’re roughly flat for the year on the ED book, which is annoying for something that’s almost always been a profit center. While it hasn’t caused harm, the recent performance of the ED book is certainly not what I’d normally underwrite in our Fund’s return profile, especially as we’ve now had seven consecutive years where the ED book has been additive to returns.
The book did poorly during Trump’s first term, only to excel when events moved beyond his control during COVID. When I reboot the book during the fall, I plan to target more single-stock situations, where we’ve done well over the past year and change, avoiding macro-type situations, where Trump frequently creates discontinuous markets. This is quite similar to what worked during the last Trump Presidency. Unfortunately, sometimes I need to relearn the old lessons.
Let’s Talk AI
Clearly, AI has been the biggest market trend for the past few years. I’m embarrassed to say that not only did we miss participating, but we actively sought out ways to fade it. To date, I remain of the view that most of the capital invested in this sector will be impaired. I think of AI much like other massive multi-year capex programs over the past two centuries: the canals, the railroads, and the fiber buildout. Great expenditures of capital produced only bankruptcy and loss for those who spent the capital.
Advertisement
When looking at AI, I frequently think of the Panama Canal, which bankrupted the French, before getting completed by the US government. To date, it is unclear if the canal has even earned its construction cost in inflation-adjusted terms, much less a positive return on capital, and that is for one of the most strategic and monopolistic assets in the world. On the other hand, the railroads and the fiber buildouts suffered from endless competition, overcapacity and high fixed costs, necessitating endless discounts to gain share. They’ve been even worse investments. At the same time, they’ve been great value creators for those who were adjacent. As I look around my office, I see many items that transited the Panama Canal or rode the rails. This communication is likely reaching you through fiber that was laid down by a now-bankrupted telecom. We are all beneficiaries of this malinvestment, while the shareholders who funded it have suffered the consequences. Unfortunately, I used my history lens to contemplate AI, rather than join in the orgy of speculation.
If you think of the railroad buildout, two types of players won. On one hand, you have Carnegie, Frick and the other suppliers to the railroad buildout. On the other hand, you have Rockefeller and the agriculturalists who played the railroads off each other to procure cheap transport. We should have owned the suppliers to AI, which have been phenomenal trades. Unfortunately, I kept thinking that eventually adult supervision would step in and end this overspending. Why would asset-light tech companies pivot to become asset-heavy capital immolators?? No one wants to be a shale company . In that vein, I was wrong—or at least early in seeing AI for what it is. The buildout continues, even though there’s a dawning realization that the economics are brutally awful ( much as I intimated almost a year ago ) . It has gone on for three years longer than I ever thought possible, but I now think that we’re nearing a crossroads in terms of the ability to continue growing capex spend at the current rate—the rate of change in spend is indeed inflecting lower. As a result, those funds chasing the AI bottlenecks will be painfully surprised when new supply magically comes online, just as growth slows, in my opinion. It was an amazing run (which we missed). However, I think these cyclical industries will ultimately return to their roots and be cyclical—crushing the hopes and dreams of shareholders. I have feared this moment, and missed out on the AI capex plays—much to our detriment, as they’ve been one of the strongest macro trends in a market that has been surprisingly devoid of deep and liquid trends to play over the past few years.
Having missed out on being Carnegie, I want to focus on being Rockefeller. What industries will use AI to dramatically reduce their costs?? Who will find ways to grow revenue by utilizing AI?? We have some interesting ideas, and I’m sure we’ll think of more. Taking it a bit further along in this process, if corporates become focused on using AI to reduce headcount, who else benefits as millions of workers need to reskill?? We’ve purchased shares of the two largest technical colleges in the US (more below in the positions section), as I believe that they’ll be dramatic beneficiaries of this reskilling trend. I’m sure there are other ancillary trends for us to try and capture, and we’re actively seeking them out as AI continues to evolve.
We’re decidedly an anti-tech fund. We watch tech as it drives trends, but we rarely invest in tech itself—instead I want to seek out the second-order beneficiaries, as tech is a really tough place to make money . The corollary is that in a market that’s driven by a handful of tech names, we’re likely to lag on the performance side. In a complete AI mania, as we’ve just witnessed, I’d expect us to lag even worse, hopefully catching up through outperformance on the flip side as AI names surrender their gains. It’s too soon to tell if the bubble has reached its peak, but for the first time since it began, I am recognizing a growing realization that much of the capital invested in AI has been squandered. If that becomes the accepted wisdom, I’d expect that the spending will slow, followed by the deluge.
Advertisement
It’s worth remembering that the AI buildout represents between 2 and 3% of GDP before including the multiplier effects inherent in any massive capex program. The Wealth Effect is many multiples larger. I feel fully justified in saying that this bubble now supports in excess of 10% of US GDP, with many other countries also benefitting mightily. I don’t mince words when I say that if this goes in reverse, it will be a mess. The fiber buildout within the internet bubble was a little more than 1% of US GDP, with a far smaller Wealth Effect. Even then, the unwind led to a mild recession, which coincidentally caused the S&P to decline by 49% and the NASDAQ to decline by 78%. I think the AI unwind could lead to a deeper recession and a nasty decline from much higher starting valuations.
In fact, it’s so scary to contemplate that I expect the government to step in and halt the decline. This will officially kick off phase II of “Project Zimbabwe.”
Positioning
In the Q1/26 letter, I noted that many of our names were breaking out to new highs, and that experience taught me that I should expect them to continue to trend higher—especially as I expected that many of them would report strong calendar Q1 earnings. While I was correct on the second part of this view (with few exceptions, earnings were quite strong), I was wrong about new highs. You could say that a quick pause in Feudalism was responsible, as we mostly saw a bifurcation in performance, and our only “Run-It-Hot” sector, refiners, powered higher. Unfortunately, this was offset by pullbacks in our Precious Metals basket (somehow war is bad for precious metals??) and our Emerging Markets basket, as war is potentially bad for them. Fortunately, Marex (MRX – USA) powered higher on elevated volatility, though our Event-Driven book gave back prior gains. In all, it was an uneventful quarter compared to many others, though frustrating all the same, as things seemed like they were setting up to blast off.
With the war seemingly on-again/off-again, depending on what middle-of-the-night posting Trump sends out on any given day, I remain hopeful that prior trends in motion can resume their upwards motion.
Advertisement
My Own Exposure to This Fund
I would never ask you to invest in this Fund, if I didn’t have the vast majority of my own capital also invested in this Fund. Due to an accident of history, for the past 8 years, I have had a large personal investment in a publicly traded company, Mongolia Growth Group (MGG) that I couldn’t figure out what to do with, as I couldn’t figure out how to liquidate the assets in Mongolia.
In 2025 after much toil and heartache, we started the process of returning capital to shareholders and during May of 2026, that process was completed. I personally received a large cash distribution, and invested almost all of it into the Fund as of July 1, excluding a portion that was used to pay off a loan tied to the office building that our Fund operates out of (you could say that paying off this loan was an investment in strengthening our Fund’s management company).
Subsequent to these transactions, my only investments outside of the fund are 50 Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK/B – USA)—the legacy of a single share I bought while in college, so that I could attend the annual meetings, and my residual shares of MGG. At this point, MGG has a small pool of capital and is seeking to merge with some other company. Should we find an attractive merger partner, I will likely step down as Chairman of the company, ending a 15-year journey in public markets—I have already stepped down as CEO. Hopefully, this will complete a process to concentrate all of my personal investments through this fund.
I want you to know that there are positives and negatives to having the fund’s CIO with such a focused personal investment. On one side, I’m rather highly incentivized to get it right. On the other side, I’m likely to be rather risk-averse. Unlike anyone else in this fund, I do not have other investments to balance out my investment in this fund, and I literally cannot afford to get it wrong. This risk discipline can cut both ways, hence why I flag it. However, I want you to know that after many years, I’ve finally concentrated all of my personal investments into this fund.
Advertisement
Position Review (Top core position weightings at quarter end from largest to smallest)
Emerging Markets Basket
For the past decade and change, Emerging Markets have been in a relative bear market, as investor capital has migrated to US markets. In the process, many Emerging Markets have gotten quite cheap when looking at them from a valuation perspective. This Fund has a sweet spot for cheap assets, but Emerging Markets have been cheap for quite some time now. You could have said the same thing years ago and would likely be sitting on paper losses today, while having tied up capital. What you need is a catalyst that unlocks this value. I believe that catalyst is a potential decline in the US Dollar, tied to policy changes emanating from the Trump Administration. For MAGA policies to work, the US needs to follow a weak-dollar policy. At the same time, Emerging Markets, which frequently borrow in US Dollars, are hamstrung by a strong Dollar, but a weakening Dollar is a boon to their economies. As a result, I’ve built up positions in various Emerging Markets that are highly impacted by the US Dollar, with the view that a weakening Dollar should be a catalyst for asset values.
Precious Metals Basket
In an inflationary world with loss of faith in Central Banks, precious metals tend to do well. We own two companies that should be beneficiaries of precious metals either appreciating or at least staying at elevated prices. Neither of these companies is directly in the mining business, which is risky and capital-intensive—though one is a service provider to miners.
Technical Colleges; Lincoln Educational Services (LINC – USA) and Universal Technical Institute (UTI – USA)
These two technical colleges are helping to train the next generation of skilled tradespeople and medical workers. As AI reduces the demand for office workers, many millions of existing workers must be reskilled, while high school graduates will naturally seek out better job opportunities that offer higher wages, with less career risk.
LINC and UTI are the two largest technical colleges in the US. I expect them to continue opening new campuses and growing student counts. Based on management guidance, they’re both quite cheap looking out a few years, net of startup costs for new campuses. I think they’ll dramatically overshoot guidance in terms of new student starts, utilization and recruitment costs, leading to substantial margin growth on relatively fixed-cost structures.
Advertisement
Refiners
Refiners have suffered for over a decade (excluding the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine war), leading many Western refiners to shut, rather than invest substantial capital in upgrades to meet spurious mandates. Meanwhile, China flooded the world with refined product, destroying economics for everyone. Over the past few years, China has chosen to shut so-called teapot refiners and pivot larger refiners to petrochemicals. At the same time, demand for refined products has continued to grow, and for the first time in very many years, the crack spread has become elevated on a forward basis, indicating a tightness in the markets.
On the supply side, we have relatively good visibility in terms of which new refineries will come online, with some uneconomic ones still slated to shut. On the demand side, most data providers assume a rather balanced market with demand growth staying anemic. I don’t think this is a bad assumption, as the world is in a recession.
However, should there be economic growth, even just some wisps of growth as the Dollar declines and Emerging Markets (which have a huge marginal propensity to consume petroleum products as they see growth) recover, energy demand could exceed estimates.
This had previously been my energy thesis, basically that 8 billion people want the same standard of living that 1 billion in the First World have today. Now, I believe I’ve found a better way to express it, as it takes many years to build a new refinery. Meanwhile, new oil supply can come online far faster, leading to a bottleneck that extracts most of the pricing economics in a demand recovery.
Advertisement
We own two diversified refining companies with clean balance sheets, a strong propensity for buybacks, and a valuation that is at a substantial discount to replacement cost of their refineries. I think this trade works if governments return to pro-growth policies or the US Dollar weakens enough that EM energy demand can increase.
Think of this position as a hedge should global economic growth accelerate, though it can also experience periods of excess earnings should geopolitical volatility change global trading patterns and increase domestic crack spreads.
JOE owns approximately 165,000 acres in the Florida Panhandle. It has been widely known that JOE traded for a tiny fraction of its liquidation value for years, but without a catalyst, it was always perceived to be “dead money.”
Over the past few years, the population of the Panhandle has hit a critical mass where the Panhandle now has a center of gravity that is attracting people who want to live in one of the prettiest places in the country, with zero state income taxes and few of the problems of large cities.
Advertisement
The oddity of the current disdain for so-called “value investments” is that many of them are growing quite fast. I believe that JOE may grow revenue at a rapid rate for the foreseeable future, with earnings growing at a much faster clip. Meanwhile, I believe the shares trade at an attractive multiple on Adjusted Funds from Operations (AFFO), while substantial asset value is tossed in for free.
Besides the valuation, growth, and high Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) of the business, why else do I like JOE? For starters, land tends to appreciate rapidly during periods of high inflation. More importantly, I believe we are witnessing a massive population migration as people with means choose to flee big cities for somewhere peaceful.
I suspect that every convulsion of urban chaos and/or tax-the-rich scheming will launch JOE shares higher, and it will ultimately be seen as the way to “play” the stream of very wealthy refugees fleeing for somewhere better.
In summary, our names mostly suffered a setback this quarter, despite putting up strong first quarter earnings results in the aggregate. I expect continued positive results for the second quarter, to be reported over the coming weeks.
Advertisement
On the flip-side, there is a growing realization that the AI buildout was a massive misallocation of capital. Should this buildout slow, I think we will get a steep decline in equity markets and finally set the stage for “Project Zimbabwe.” My plan remains to keep exposures lower than normal and await such a smash before deploying capital at bargain levels.
Sincerely,
Harris Kupperman
Appendix
Advertisement
Praetorian Capital Fund LLC
Quarterly Returns
Gross Return
Net Return*
Q1 2026
20.91%
16.44%
Q2 2026
-4.99%
-4.39%
YTD 2026
14.87%
11.33%
Q1 2025
2.76%
2.44%
Q2 2025
3.91%
3.59%
Q3 2025
6.11%
5.70%
Q4 2025
0.57%
0.21%
2025
13.94%
12.39%
Q1 2024
11.90%
9.25%
Q2 2024
-1.76%
-1.69%
Q3 2024
-2.51%
-2.29%
Q4 2024
-15.48%
-14.76%
2024
-9.41%
-10.55%
Q1 2023
-1.78%
-2.09%
Q2 2023
9.79%
8.00%
Q3 2023
15.04%
11.92%
Q4 2023
8.57%
6.85%
2023
34.70%
26.45%
Q1 2022
19.79%
15.55%
Q2 2022
-18.16%
-15.69%
Q3 2022
0.01%
-0.30%
Q4 2022
18.69%
15.26%
2022
16.38%
11.95%
Q1 2021
57.50%
45.66%
Q2 2021
28.14%
23.96%
Q3 2021
11.42%
9.85%
Q4 2021
25.32%
22.44%
2021
181.80%
142.87%
Q1 2020
-41.22%
-41.22%
Q2 2020
54.32%
54.32%
Q3 2020
34.09%
29.32%
Q4 2020
115.28%
95.63%
2020
161.87%
129.49%
Q1 2019
6.10%
4.88%
Q2 2019
7.96%
6.44%
Q3 2019
-10.23%
-8.40%
Q4 2019
15.44%
12.42%
2019
18.71%
14.97%
*Net return varies from gross return as it accounts for management fees and incentive allocations. Please see the additional disclaimers on the final page of this document.
Disclaimer
This document is being provided to you on a confidential basis. Accordingly, this document may not be reproduced in whole or part and may not be delivered to any person without the consent of Praetorian PR LLC (“PPR”).
Advertisement
Nothing set forth herein shall constitute an offer to sell any securities or constitute a solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities. Any such offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to purchase shall be made only by formal offering documents for Praetorian Capital Fund LLC (the “Fund”) or Praetorian Capital Offshore Ltd. (collectively, the “Funds”), managed by PPR, which include, among others, a confidential offering memorandum, operating agreement and subscription agreement, as applicable. Such formal offering documents contain additional information not set forth herein, including information regarding certain risks of investing in the Fund, which are material to any decision to invest in the Fund.
No information in this document is warranted by PPR or its affiliates or subsidiaries as to completeness or accuracy, express or implied, and is subject to change without notice. No party has an obligation to update any of the statements, including forward-looking statements, in this document. This document should be considered current only as of the date of publication without regard to the date on which you may receive or access the information.
This document may contain opinions, estimates, and forward-looking statements, including observations about markets, industries, and regulatory trends as of the original date of this document which constitute opinions of PPR. Forward-looking statements may be identified by, among other things, the use of words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” or “estimates,” or the negatives of these terms, and similar expressions. Actual results could differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements due to implementation lag, other timing factors, portfolio management decision-making, economic or market conditions or other unanticipated factors, including those beyond PPR’s control. Statements made herein that are not attributed to a third-party source reflect the views and opinions of PPR. Opinions, estimates, and forward-looking statements in this document constitute PPR’s judgment. PPR maintains the right to delete or modify information without prior notice. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such statements.
Return targets or objectives, if any, are used for measurement or comparison purposes and only as a guideline for prospective investors to evaluate a particular investment program’s investment strategies and accompanying information. Targeted returns reflect subjective determinations by PPR based on a variety of factors, including, among others, internal modeling, investment strategy, prior performance of similar products (if any), volatility measures, risk tolerance and market conditions. Performance may fluctuate, especially over short periods. Targeted returns should be evaluated over the time period indicated and not over shorter periods. Targeted returns are not intended to be actual performance and should not be relied upon as an indication of actual or future performance.
Advertisement
The past performance of the Fund is not indicative of future returns. Net returns presented have been calculated net of fees, including a 20% incentive allocation, with up to 2% expenses from inception through December 2020, and a 1.25% management fee since January 2021. All returns reflect the reinvestment of dividends and do not include the performance of a side pocket portfolio. While the Fund undergoes annual audits, the returns presented have not been independently verified. The performance reflected herein and the performance for any given investor may differ due to various factors including, without limitation, the timing of subscriptions and withdrawals, applicable management fees and incentive allocations, side pocket participation, and the investor’s ability to participate in new issues.
There is no guarantee that PPR will be successful in achieving the Funds’ investment objectives. An investment in a Fund contains risks, including the risk of complete loss.
The investments discussed herein are not meant to be indicative or reflective of the entire portfolio of the Fund. Rather, such examples are meant to exemplify PPR’s analysis for the Fund and the execution of the Fund’s investment strategy. While these examples may reflect successful trading, not all trades are successful and profitable. As such, the examples contained herein should not be viewed as representative of all trades made by PPR.
It comes after an independent report found numerous concerns
Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporter and Hannah Baker South West Business Editor
09:51, 20 Jul 2026
Councillor Bill Revans, leader of Somerset County Council, outside County Hall in Taunton(Image: Daniel Mumby)
Somerset Council has appointed a new finance chief as it faces a government order to get its finances urgently in order following a damning independent report.
Lizzie Watkin will take on the role on July 31 following approval by full council. She has joined from Wiltshire Council, where she served as corporate director of resources and section 151 officer.
Advertisement
Ms Watkin previously worked for Somerset County Council as strategic finance manager and has also held finance leadership roles at Taunton Deane Borough Council and South Somerset District Council.
The announcement follows a ‘best value notice’ – a series of standards that ensure a council is providing value for money to local taxpayers – issued last week by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which has piled pressure on the council to sort out its financial issues.
The notice was issued after an independent review of the council’s finances by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
The report identified numerous concerns around the council’s leadership and organisational culture, branding its financial management “weak” and awarding the council one out of a possible five stars.
Advertisement
The local authority is currently hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, largely from external borrowing via the Public Works Loans Board, which is part of the Treasury.
Ms Watkin will now be responsible for ensuring the council can balance its books at its next budget in February 2027.
James Blythe, deputy director of local government stewardship and interventions, laid out the reasons for the notice in a letter to the council’s chief executive Duncan Sharkey last week.
Mr Blythe said ministers “remain concerned” about the speed at which the council is turning its financial situation around, despite acknowledging that some initial progress had been made.
Advertisement
The local authority must now provide “regular written updates” to MHCLG on its progress, and the notice will remain in place until further notice, being initially reviewed in July 2027.
Liz Leyshon, the council’s deputy leader and lead member for finance, said: “As we continue to drive improvement, transformation and long-term financial sustainability, Lizzie’s expertise will be invaluable in helping us build on the progress already being made and ensuring we continue to deliver the best possible outcomes for residents.”
Last week, council leader Bill Revans admitted the government notice was a “serious step”, adding that Somerset Council would respond “positively and constructively”.
“This does not come as a surprise,” he said. “We have been transparent about the financial concerns and pressures facing this council and the scale of the challenges we face.
Advertisement
“We have already established an improvement advisory board to provide challenge, support and oversight of our improvement journey. This will unlock welcome additional support from the government and through the Local Government Association – though this will not involve any money.
“We remain completely responsible for making decisions locally and delivering services for the people of Somerset.”
He added: “We know there is much more work to do to strengthen our finances, governance, transformation and service performance. While progress has been made, we have never been complacent and never will be.
“I have said for some time that the way local government is funded is broken. This does not diminish our responsibility to improve, and we accept that responsibility.”
Advertisement
Further reports on the council’s finances will be published in the coming months, including its initial budget proposal and planned changes to its council tax support scheme.
Andy Burnham enters Downing Street today with his first industry revolt already under way, after reports that his government could abolish the department responsible for science, technology and the funding streams thousands of growing firms depend on.
A Labour source told the FT that “it needs to be mainstreamed and there is the sense that DSIT has not been firing on all cylinders”. The sector’s response has been rather less diplomatic.
For business owners, the stakes are practical rather than presentational. DSIT sponsors UKRI, the research funding body that sits above Innovate UK grants, as well as the Government Digital Service. Any reorganisation would put the machinery behind those programmes into flux just as firms are being urged to adopt AI and invest in innovation.
That concern sits at the heart of a letter sent to the new prime minister by Julian Harris, CEO at Tech UK, and Dom Hallas, executive director at Startup Coalition, who called the proposal “the wrong change at the wrong time”.
Advertisement
“DSIT works because it brings researchers, AI practitioners, innovators and policymakers together in one department – a single front door that gives the tech sector clarity, pace and a government partner that understands technology and champions the sector in the Cabinet,” they wrote.
“Breaking up the work of DSIT endeavours such as the world-leading AI Safety Institute, the Sovereign AI fund, GDS and UKRI would slow momentum at a time when pace is essential for both the growth of the economy and our standing on the global stage. It also sends a terrible signal to a sector that is growing at 10% a year. This is clear from the immediate reaction of the sector to these reports thus far.
“We are supportive of your vision to bring growth to every postcode in Britain, and we want you to be able to leverage the tech sector to deliver on your ambitions to change our economy and society for the better. To do so, we should use this moment to strengthen tech leadership at the heart of government, not dismantle it.”
Matt Clifford, who served as Keir Starmer’s AI opportunities adviser, was blunter still. “This would be a big mistake,” he wrote on X. “Right now is a critical moment for tech as an economic and national security issue. Tying up our most senior science and tech officials in a reorg wastes time and energy that’s desperately needed for the actual substance.”
Advertisement
Labour MP Peter Fortune agreed, responding: “DSIT does need focus but it is vital we promote our excellent tech sector if we are going to encourage growth and innovation. Our AI sector (thanks to Matt for everything he has done) is amazing – but it could be even better. We need to signal our determination to lead.”
Not every founder is manning the barricades. Commenting on LinkedIn, Atif Syed, founder of Wootzano, said: “It’s definitely a bold move, but let’s be honest – DSIT is in need of a serious overhaul to radically support tech businesses on the ground. I look forward to seeing what will replace it and how the new administration intends to back our sector.”
His Cabinet is due to be announced imminently. The FT reported that Jonathan Reynolds could return as business secretary, the role he handed to Peter Kyle last autumn, while Shabana Mahmood and Ed Miliband are among those tipped for chancellor. Despite the threat to DSIT, Burnham is thought to be planning to appoint an AI minister at Cabinet level.
Advertisement
For SMEs, the message from the sector’s leaders is simple: whatever the Whitehall wiring diagram ends up looking like, firms need clarity on who champions technology in government before grants, standards and AI policy grind through a year of reorganisation.
Amy Ingham
Amy Ingham is a reporter at Business Matters, covering UK business news with a focus on breaking news, business policy, late payments and insolvency. She joined the magazine in 2026 after completing the NCTJ Diploma in Journalism at Harlow College’s journalism school. Her recent reporting includes British Steel’s nationalisation and its impact on SME suppliers, the decline in late payments by large firms, and Insolvency Service director disqualifications. Reach her at aingham@cbmeg.co.uk.
The government’s flagship assault on Britain’s late payment culture could end in a “car crash” unless the new rules are drafted carefully and, crucially, enforced, a former small business commissioner has warned. His evidence: thousands of firms are already breaking the payment rules we have, and not one has been prosecuted.
Philip King, who served as interim small business commissioner during the pandemic, said previous attempts to fix the problem had fallen flat largely because nobody enforced them. “Unless we enforce this stuff, do we go any further forward?” he said.
For small business owners, the package promises long-overdue relief. Large companies will be required to pay smaller suppliers within 60 days, interest will fall due automatically on overdue invoices, so-called retentions will be banned in construction, and the small business commissioner will gain powers to fine companies that mistreat suppliers.
King, a veteran campaigner on the issue and former chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Credit Management, welcomed the reforms. But he cautioned: “The issue is going to be how the regulations are written. If they are drafted well, they have a good chance of success. If they’re drafted badly, then there’s a car crash.
Advertisement
“The secondary issue is interpretation. The move to a maximum 60 days is great, but what if companies currently on 30-day payment terms move to 60?
“There’s all sorts of risks, it needs to be done really carefully. And enforcement is really important. If there’s a clear set of rules and an accountability factor to it, I think that would push things forward.”
His scepticism is well founded. The UK’s largest businesses already have a statutory duty to report their payment practices every six months, and failing to do so is a criminal offence. Yet at best only around half of the companies that should be filing reports are doing so, thousands regularly breach the rules, and no criminal enforcement action has ever been taken.
The stakes for the SME economy are considerable. The government says slow and late payment costs the economy £11 billion a year and “chokes growth, costs jobs, and forces too many good businesses to close”.
Advertisement
There is a further gap that should give owner-managers pause. The new rules target the payment performance of large businesses, yet a substantial share of the problem sits between small firms themselves. “An awful lot of late payments are small company to small company, yet any business with fewer than 250 staff, which is the vast majority of UK companies, isn’t captured by it. It’s not all-encompassing and there’s a risk in that,” King said.
Peers will now try to toughen the bill. Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Sharpe of Epsom are due to propose amendments including more resources for the commissioner’s office, which can mediate on payment disputes, alongside measures to stop large companies delaying payments over ESG clauses and a ban on cryptocurrency payments as a contractual term.
Leigh, the co-founder of Cavendish Corporate Finance, said he would also support a “cold shoulder” provision under which the worst offenders would be shunned by government, including on public contracts.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “Too many big companies have simply not been paying on time for years. To fix that, we need to work with large businesses to make sure our ambitious reforms get small businesses the money they deserve. Our new legislation will give the commissioner stronger powers to investigate and fine companies that are not fulfilling their reporting requirements.”
Advertisement
Amy Ingham
Amy Ingham is a reporter at Business Matters, covering UK business news with a focus on breaking news, business policy, late payments and insolvency. She joined the magazine in 2026 after completing the NCTJ Diploma in Journalism at Harlow College’s journalism school. Her recent reporting includes British Steel’s nationalisation and its impact on SME suppliers, the decline in late payments by large firms, and Insolvency Service director disqualifications. Reach her at aingham@cbmeg.co.uk.
Shares of Tips Music rallied as much as 11% to an intraday high of Rs 740 on the BSE on Monday after the company said its board will meet on July 22 to consider and approve the unaudited financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2026, and a proposal for the buyback of its fully paid-up equity shares.
A share buyback (or repurchase) is a corporate action where a company buys its own outstanding shares from existing shareholders. Tips Music’s share price has risen 11% in the last one month and over 30% in 2026.
Tips Music Q4 snapshot
The company reported a 32% YoY increase in Q4 FY26 revenue to Rs 103.9 crore. Net profit for the quarter rose 93% YoY to Rs 59 crore from Rs 30.6 crore in the corresponding period last year.
During the quarter, it released 66 songs, including 47 film songs and 19 non-film songs, with Tu Jaane Hai Kahan among the notable releases. Its YouTube subscriber base expanded to 153.1 million during the quarter. For FY26, the board declared a cumulative dividend of Rs 13 per share, resulting in a total payout of Rs 166.18 crore.
Advertisement
About Tips Music
Founded in 1988, Tips Music is one of India’s leading listed music companies. Its portfolio includes several iconic Bollywood soundtracks from the 1990s, such as Khalnayak, Soldier, Coolie No. 1, Rangeela, Pardes and Taal. Over the years, the company has expanded its catalogue with titles including Raaz, the Race franchise, Ramaiya Vastavaiya, Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani, regional films Ponniyin Selvan 1 and Ponniyin Selvan 2, and more recent releases such as Crew, HanuMan and the Saunkan Saunkne series.
Live Events
The company’s music catalogue features more than 34,000 songs across multiple languages and genres. Its roster has included artists such as Alka Yagnik, Kumar Sanu, Udit Narayan, Sonu Nigam, A.R. Rahman, Diljit Dosanjh, Badshah, Arijit Singh, B Praak and Aditya Rikhari. Tips Music distributes its content across digital platforms, streaming services and broadcasters. (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
Urgent action is needed to help people in their sixties on low incomes who face a delay of up to a year before they can claim their State Pension. That is the main recommendation of a new report from the Work and Pensions Committee. Pension age rises over the next two years from 66 to 67 and the committee of MPs fears some of the people affected by that delay face poverty unless the benefit rules are changed to give them more money. The Department for Work and Pensions says in February, 0.02% of the Universal Credit caseload was aged 65 or 66. It also welcomed the report saying it will consider the recommendations in due course.
There’s growing concern in the housing industry over the rise in a practice known as “gazundering”. It’s when people selling homes are told by buyers just days before exchanging, that they must drop the agreed price by thousands of pounds or risk losing the deal. The Conveyancing Association says it’s a growing problem and is urging the government to implement reforms which would stop the practice “without delay”. The government says it’s stopping gazundering by introducing “legally binding agreements that prevent buyers from walking away at the last minute without a valid reason, with fines for those who do.”
Money Box has found that a grant which can be used to install a heating system than can also act as air conditioning is not up and running, despite being announced in November. We’ll investigate why.
Advertisement
Presenter: Paul Lewis
Reporters: Dan Whitworth, Jo Krasner and Niamh McDermott
Editor: Jess Quayle
Senior News Editor: Sara Wadeson
Photo Credit: Witthaya Prasongsin via Getty Images
One Nation’s Secret Harbour by-election candidate, Luke Herdegen, has talked openly about regular Saturday nights of “cocaine, vodka and whiskey” while living in London a decade ago.
Shares of Bharat Heavy Electricals (BHEL) recently scaled a fresh 52-week high, but brokerages believe the rally may not be over yet after the Maharatna PSU posted a strong set of Q1FY27 results last week.
The company on Thursday reported a consolidated net profit of nearly Rs 377 crore for the April-June quarter, compared with a net loss of Rs 455.5 crore in the year-ago period. Revenue from operations jumped more than 40% year-on-year to Rs 7,697.72 crore from Rs 5,486.91 crore a year earlier.
The PSU’s operating profit margin improved sharply to 6.69% in Q1 FY27, from a negative 9.54% in Q1 FY26, while net profit margin rose to 4.89%. Its net worth rose more than 9% YoY to Rs 26,471 crore during the quarter under review, while earnings per share (EPS) stood at Rs 1.08.
After the release of the results, BHEL shares jumped to a fresh 52-week high of Rs 446.50 apiece on Friday, before seeing some profit booking today. The stock is overall up more than 43% in 2026 so far. In the longer term, the company’s shares have delivered 67% returns over one year, 336% over three years, and 561% over five years.
ICICI Securities said BHEL has started the ongoing financial year 2027 on a strong note, with revenue growing 40% YoY. The PSU reported a net profit, positive for the first quarter, after Q1 FY19.
Live Events
“We believe this performance was driven by a pick-up in execution of projects won in the new cycle – these have better realisation. It has won new orders worth Rs 2.7 trillion over the last three years. BHEL reported Q1 FY27 order inflow (OI) of INR 267bn, taking its order book (OB) to Rs 2.6 trillion – 7.2x TTM sales. We expect execution to grow at a 13% CAGR over FY26–28 and profitability to improve further on the back of multiple levers,” it said. The brokerage maintained its ‘Buy’ call on the shares of ICICI Securities, but increased its target price to Rs 520 apiece from Rs 450 apiece. The latest target price implies an upside potential of more than 23% from the stock’s previous closing price of Rs 422 apiece.
JM Financial on BHEL share price
JM Financial also noted that the company posted profit in the first quarter for the first time in eight years. The domestic brokerage named BHEL among its top 5 picks as the 97GW of the original target for thermal additions now extends to 110GW+.“Notwithstanding the current performance, we maintain FY27E revenue at Rs 419 billion (24% YoY), gross margin of at least 31.5% (29% in FY26) and EBITDA margin of 10.4% (6.9% in FY26),” JM Financial said. It maintained its ‘Buy’ rating on the shares of the company with a target price of Rs 481 apiece, implying a 14% upside potential. Also read: Axis Bank shares fall 5% after Q1 earnings fail to cheer D-Street. What brokerages say
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
The FDA and CDC are investigating Taco Bell’s lettuce supplier as consumers in four states are urged to avoid shredded lettuce.
The Food and Drug Administration said Sunday that a Taylor Farms lettuce sample initially reported as positive for Cyclospora should be considered a false positive following an additional laboratory review.
“Due to the complexity in detection of Cyclospora, FDA laboratory experts re-reviewed the sample results and have concluded that the finding does not represent true amplification and should be considered a false positive,” the agency said.
Advertisement
The FDA said no product samples had produced a confirmed positive result for Cyclospora as of Sunday.
There are no confirmed positive sample results for Cyclospora as of Sunday. ( Justin Sullivan/Getty Images / Getty Images)
Taylor Fresh Foods also said the FDA apologized to the company over the erroneous result. The FDA did not include an apology in the agency language provided with the story.
The FDA said it notified Taylor Farms of the revised finding and continues to work with the company and its Taylor Farms de Mexico operation to ensure products implicated in the investigation have been removed from the market. The agency and its state partners are continuing to collect and analyze product samples.
Taylor Farms initiated a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico on July 17 after federal investigators traced lettuce served at certain Taco Bell restaurants to Taylor Farms de Mexico. The recall includes iceberg lettuce distributed to retail stores, restaurants and other food-service customers.
Advertisement
“Based on initial information provided by health officials, in an abundance of caution, we completed a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce from central Mexico,” the statement continued. “Recalled product was limited to iceberg lettuce grown and processed in central Mexico. All other Taylor Farms products, including all Taylor Farms brand products available for purchase, are not involved in the recall.”
Taylor Fresh Foods said it was informed that the FDA made a mistake. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images / Getty Images)
This comes after the FDA said on Saturday that a sample of shredded iceberg lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms tested positive for Cyclospora, which has sickened thousands of people across the U.S.
Cyclosporiasis has been linked to shredded iceberg lettuce at Taco Bell restaurants in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, leading to around 100 hospitalizations so far, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No deaths have been reported.
Shares of HDFC Bank fell more than 5% on Monday after the private lender’s Q1 earnings failed to impress investors, wiping out nearly Rs 70,000 crore in market value, even as brokerages remained bullish on the stock.
HDFC Bank fell to an intraday low of Rs 774.55 apiece on the NSE, with its market capitalisation falling to less than Rs 11.93 lakh crore. This came after India’s private lender on Saturday reported a 5% year-on-year (YoY) rise in net profit to Rs 19,060 crore for the April-June quarter of the ongoing financial year 2027.
The bank’s net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned and interest expenses, rose 7% YoY to Rs 33,534 crore in Q1 FY27 from Rs 31,438 crore in Q1 FY26. HDFC Bank’s gross non-performing assets (NPA) fell more than 3% YoY to Rs 35,846 crore, but net NPA increased slightly to Rs 12,357 crore during the quarter under review.
Jefferies on HDFC Bank share price
Jefferies maintained its ‘Buy’ call on the shares of HDFC Bank with a target price of Rs 1,050 apiece. This implies an upside potential of more than 28% from the stock’s previous closing price of Rs 819.6 apiece.
Advertisement
HDFC Bank remains one of the international brokerage’s top picks, while it noted that the company’s June quarter earnings were in-line with estimates, as slight miss on NII was offset by lower opex and credit cost. The bank’s desire to participate in corp lending lifted loan growth to 16% YoY, but dragged NIMs by 12 bps QoQ, limiting NII growth to 7%, Nomura said, adding that slower growth in opex (slow branch/staff growth) and lower credit costs (low slippages) aided profits.
“We tweak earnings estimates for FY27 and FY29. Improvement in margins should aid earnings that should grow at 15% CAGR in PBT (ex-treasury/ one-offs) over FY26-29 with ROE of 13% in FY27. Valuations at 1.8x FY27 adjusted PB and 14x PE are attractive,” Jefferies further said.
Nomura on HDFC Bank share price
Nomura also has a ‘Buy’ call on the shares of HDFC Bank, with a target price of Rs 950 apiece, implying nearly 16% upside potential. The international brokerage noted that the bank reported a largely in-line Q1 FY27 performance.
Live Events
“We raise our FY27F loan/deposit growth estimates to 16%/17% (from 13%/15%). FY27-28F EPS estimates are largely unchanged, as lower top-line is offset by lower provisions and opex. On the FCNR(B) scheme, management expects to gain a handsome market share, though it did not disclose any quantum. Leadership continuity and FCNR execution remain key near-term monitorables, in our view,” it added. Also read |HDFC Bank shares fall 5% after Q1 results. Should you buy, sell or hold the stock?
Anand Rathi on HDFC Bank
Anand Rathi Share and Stock Brokers has a ‘Buy’ rating on the shares of HDFC Bank and a target price of Rs 963 apiece, implying an upside potential of more than 17% from the stock’s previous closing price.The domestic brokerage noted that despite some pick-up in loan growth to 15.5% YoY, HDFC Bank’s credit growth remained well below peers such as ICICI Bank and Axis Bank. “HDFC Bank has been unable to close the post-merger gap with ICICI across key operating metrics, including NIM, loan growth and CASA ratio. Given that CASA growth continues to lag loan growth, we believe it will take longer for the bank to narrow the funding cost gap with ICICI. Consequently, we do not expect loan growth or RoE to sustainably exceed 14% over the medium term. In addition, we see some uncertainty around the RBI extending the tenure of the current CEO, given the recent developments at the bank,” it said.
Advertisement
Nevertheless, Anand Rathi maintained its ‘BUY’ rating, supported by reasonable valuations and favourable sector tailwinds. Among large-cap private banks, it continues to prefer Axis Bank and ICICI Bank.
Motilal Oswal on HDFC Bank share price
Motilal Oswal also reiterated its ‘Buy’ rating on HDFC Bank shares, with a target price of Rs 2,050, implying an upside of around 28%. The domestic brokerage said that the private lender reported a largely in-line quarter, supported by healthy business growth and lower provisions, although net interest margin (NIM) remained the key disappointment, contracting 12 basis points QoQ to 3.26%. Loan growth was led by the SME and corporate segments, while retail lending remained relatively subdued.
JM Financial on HDFC Bank share price
JM Financial has maintained its Add rating on HDFC Bank with a revised target price of Rs 900, implying an upside of around 10%. While the domestic brokerage said the bank’s liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) of 115% and a credit-deposit ratio of around 96% limit its ability to accelerate loan growth, it remains constructive on the bank’s medium-term margin outlook, expecting NIM to improve as high-cost borrowings gradually run off. Also read |HDFC Bank Q1 Results: Net profit rises 5% YoY to Rs 19,060 crore, NII up 7%
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
But it says its strategy still leaves it better positioned than its European rivals
Felix Armstrong www.cityam.com
08:11, 20 Jul 2026Updated 08:18, 20 Jul 2026
Passengers boarding a Ryanair plane at Exeter Airport(Image: Theo Moye)
Ryanair saw its profits tumble by more than a third as soaring jet fuel costs driven by the Iran conflict began to bite. The budget carrier had previously shielded itself from escalating fuel prices by locking in energy costs through hedged contracts.
Advertisement
However, Ryanair revealed the cost of the 20 per cent of its jet fuel that remained unhedged more than doubled in the first quarter of this year, reaching $150 per barrel.
As a result, the airline’s operating costs surged 11 per cent to €3.8bn in the three months to June, while its pre-tax profit plummeted by 36 per cent to €593m.
The carrier, which is listed in both Dublin and New York, announced in May that it would slash some of its fares to drive up passenger volumes and counter the weakened demand brought about by the Middle East conflict, as reported by City AM.
Passenger numbers climbed six per cent in the first quarter of this year, yet reduced ticket prices meant the airline’s revenue dipped by one per cent to €4.3bn over the period.
Advertisement
Fares were subdued at the start of this year because “the Middle East conflict led to consumer hesitancy, concerns about EU jet-fuel shortages, economic uncertainty and later bookings,” chief executive Michael O’Leary told investors.
“Despite a recent, slight, uptick in volumes, and less price stimulation, second-quarter pricing is trending modestly down year-on-year and the final first-half fare outcome is heavily dependent on the strength of close-in bookings in August and September,” he added.
Airlines have warned that concerns over potential travel disruption stemming from the Iran conflict are prompting holidaymakers to leave bookings to the last minute, making it increasingly difficult for carriers to plan effectively.
Ryanair said its “conservative” jet fuel hedging strategy still leaves it better positioned than its European rivals.
Advertisement
The carrier revealed that 80 per cent of its fuel requirements for the current financial year are locked in at $67 per barrel.
However, Ryanair’s energy costs are set to rise sharply next year, with 15 per cent of its requirement for the 2028 financial year hedged at $85 per barrel.
Stockbroker Panmure Liberum suggested Ryanair’s update would be seen as “slightly disappointing” by the market, after the firm’s profits fell short of analyst forecasts.
In June, the airline handed O’Leary a six year extension as part of a new contract which could see him given 10 million additional shares.
Advertisement
Stan McCarthy, Ryanair chairman, said he is “pleased to report” that O’Leary has agreed to extending his leadership “for the benefit of all shareholders.”
O’Leary, renowned for his larger-than-life personality and forthright manner, is amongst Ireland’s most wealthy businessmen.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login