Business
Your EBITDA Isn’t What You Think It Is
And Sophisticated Buyers Already Know It Before You Sit Down
There is a conversation that happens thousands of times a year across Canada. It unfolds over golf rounds, dinner tables, and quiet advisory meetings between business owners and the people they trust most. It sounds something like this: “We’re doing about three million in EBITDA.” The number lands with authority. It carries the weight of years of work, sacrifice, and compounding effort. It feels like truth.
But somewhere beneath the confidence, a quieter voice exists. One that remembers the personal vehicle expenses run through the company. The above-market management fee paid to a holding entity. The one-time equipment write-off that, if you are being precise, was not exactly one-time. The family member on payroll whose role would not be backfilled by an arm’s-length hire at the same cost.
That quieter voice does not speak at dinner. But in a formal sale process, it eventually must.
The gap between the EBITDA a founder believes in and the EBITDA a buyer will actually underwrite is not simply a financial discrepancy. It is a credibility problem, a trust problem, and ultimately a multiple problem. Understanding how that gap forms, why it quietly widens over years of owner-operator decisions, and how to close it before a deal process begins is one of the most strategically valuable things a business owner can do in the years preceding an exit.
The Number That Feels Real But Cannot Survive Diligence
Most private business owners arrive at their EBITDA figure through a combination of internal management accounts, year-end tax filings, and a set of verbal adjustments they carry in their heads like trusted companions. The legal dispute from three years ago. The daughter who was on salary during university and has since moved on. The company-paid memberships that are genuinely optional and personal in nature.
Each of these adjustments may be entirely legitimate in isolation. Normalized or adjusted EBITDA is an accepted and expected starting point in mid-market mergers and acquisitions. Buyers understand that owner-operated businesses run with a degree of personal overlap. The issue is not the existence of addbacks. The issue is how those addbacks are presented, supported, and stress-tested when a sophisticated buyer deploys a quality of earnings team against your financials.
A quality of earnings analysis, which has become near-universal in transactions above two million dollars in enterprise value, does not accept your verbal summary. It reconstructs earnings from source documents. It traces cash flows. It interrogates year-over-year patterns for inconsistencies. It distinguishes between genuinely non-recurring items and expenses that have been classified as one-time repeatedly across multiple years.
When addbacks are undocumented, inconsistently applied, or narratively weak, they begin to erode. Sometimes gradually. Sometimes in a single diligence meeting that reshapes the entire deal structure.
Why Owners Overestimate Their Own Numbers
This is not a character failing. It is a natural consequence of how owner-operators experience their own businesses over time.
When you run a company for fifteen years, certain financial decisions become invisible to you. The SUV that is 80 percent personal becomes “the company truck.” The annual retreat to a resort that blends strategy with leisure becomes “an offsite.” The consulting fee paid to a spouse who contributes meaningfully but whose market-rate compensation would be a fraction of what is being paid becomes a normal line item in the overhead.
None of these decisions are inherently problematic. Many are prudent tax management strategies entirely appropriate in an owner-operated context. The problem surfaces when those same decisions are presented to a buyer without translation. Without the narrative infrastructure to explain them, contextualize them, and demonstrate that they will not recur under new ownership, they become liabilities rather than addbacks.
The psychological phenomenon at play here is what behavioral economists call the endowment effect. We assign higher value to things we own and have built than an objective outside observer would assign to them. This applies to businesses as directly as it applies to real estate or collectibles. A founder who has poured identity into a company will, almost always, unconsciously calibrate its value upward. The buyers across the table do not share that emotional history. They are underwriting future cash flows, not rewarding past effort.
The Diligence Room and the Anatomy of a Collapsed Deal
Picture a deal that looked clean on paper. A manufacturing company generating what the owner reported as $2.8 million in normalized EBITDA. The initial letter of intent was signed at a seven-times multiple. Enterprise value of $19.6 million. Life-changing money.
Six weeks into diligence, the buyer’s quality of earnings team begins circling three categories of addbacks totaling $620,000. A related-party lease paid at a rate 40 percent above market comparables. A “one-time” consulting engagement that appeared in each of the prior four years under slightly different descriptions. And an owner salary addback that assumed a replacement CEO could be hired for $180,000 annually, when the actual market rate for the operational role being performed was closer to $280,000.
None of these were fabrications. They were real items, poorly documented, inconsistently framed, and not pre-emptively addressed before the buyer’s team arrived with questions. The adjusted EBITDA settled at $2.18 million after negotiation. At the same multiple, the enterprise value dropped to $15.3 million. Four million dollars in value, dissolved not because the business was worth less, but because the financial presentation could not defend what it was claiming.
This is the scenario that keeps owners awake. Not the negotiation itself. The feeling of having the numbers taken apart in a room where you cannot control the narrative.
Inconsistent Reporting and What It Signals to a Buyer
Beyond specific addback disputes, there is a broader credibility signal that buyers read before a single addback is ever discussed. It is the internal consistency of your financials over time.
When revenue recognition policies shift between years without explanation, when gross margin percentages fluctuate in ways that do not align with cost input changes, when owner compensation appears in three different line items across three different years of financials, a pattern emerges. And that pattern communicates something specific to an experienced acquirer.
It communicates that the business has been managed for tax efficiency rather than for clarity. That the financials have been optimized for minimizing reportable income rather than for demonstrating value. This is an entirely rational strategy for an ongoing business owner with no near-term plans to sell. It becomes a significant obstacle when the goal changes.
The institutional buyers, private equity groups, and strategic acquirers who operate at this level of the market have developed finely tuned instincts for what they call “hair on the deal.” Inconsistent reporting, even when individually explainable, creates a cumulative impression of opacity. And opacity is expensive. It either reduces the price or adds conditions and escrow structures that erode net proceeds.
The Addback Problem Is Not Financial, It Is Narrative
Here is a reframe that most business owners find genuinely clarifying: the addback problem is not primarily an accounting problem. It is a storytelling problem.
A well-presented addback schedule does not simply list expenses and declare them non-recurring. It builds a case. Each item is supported by documentation. Each item is explained in plain language that a non-specialist buyer can follow. Each item is anticipated before the buyer asks about it, which shifts the dynamic from reactive defense to proactive transparency.
Consider two ways of presenting the same addback. Version one appears as a line in a spreadsheet: “Owner personal expenses, $147,000.” Version two appears as a documented schedule with a brief explanatory note: “Owner-related expenses totaling $147,000, comprising $82,000 in vehicle costs related to two personal vehicles maintained on the company fleet, $41,000 in club memberships and personal travel, and $24,000 in discretionary charitable donations made in the owner’s name. These costs are fully discretionary and will not be replicated under new ownership. Supporting documentation available.”
Both versions are presenting the same financial reality. But only one of them invites trust. Only one of them signals to a buyer that the management team understands what they are looking at and has done the work of presenting it honestly.
This is the essence of buyer-grade financial preparation. It is not about inflating numbers. It is about presenting accurate numbers in a way that earns credibility rather than erodes it.
What “Buyer-Grade” Actually Means in Practice
The phrase gets used frequently in deal preparation conversations, but its practical components are worth unpacking directly.
Buyer-grade financial presentation typically encompasses several interconnected elements. First, a normalized income statement that clearly separates reported financials from adjusted figures, with each adjustment individually identified and cross-referenced to supporting documentation. Second, a consistent three-to-five year historical view that allows a buyer to observe trends, identify any anomalies, and understand the trajectory of the business without needing to request additional data. Third, a working capital analysis that defines what a normalized level of working capital looks like for the business and defends that figure against buyer attempts to renegotiate the peg at closing. Fourth, a capital expenditure schedule that distinguishes between maintenance capex required to sustain current operations and growth capex that is discretionary.
Each of these components, when prepared in advance and organized into a cohesive information package, does something important. It shifts the center of gravity in a diligence process. Instead of the buyer’s team setting the agenda and the seller’s team responding reactively, the seller has framed the conversation. The buyer is working within a narrative structure that the seller has already established.
Firms that work with business owners preparing to sell my business, particularly those with revenues between five and one hundred million dollars, frequently cite proactive financial preparation as the single most impactful thing a seller can do to protect their multiple in a competitive process. Not the quality of their legal counsel. Not the breadth of the buyer pool. The quality of the financial story they arrive with.
The Multiple Is Not Fixed, It Floats on Confidence
One of the most consequential misunderstandings in private business transactions is the belief that the purchase multiple is determined by the market and applied mechanically to a normalized EBITDA figure. In reality, the multiple is a negotiated outcome that floats on a combination of factors, and one of the most underestimated is the buyer’s confidence in the numbers themselves.
A buyer looking at two companies with identical normalized EBITDA figures will offer a meaningfully different multiple to the company whose financials they find credible versus the one whose financials require extensive interpretation. This is not arbitrary. It is a rational response to risk. When a buyer cannot fully trust the earnings figure, they protect themselves with a lower entry price, a more aggressive working capital peg, a longer escrow period, or an earn-out structure that defers a portion of the proceeds contingent on future performance.
Each of these mechanisms transfers risk from the buyer back to the seller. They are not punishments. They are rational structures in the presence of uncertainty. The most effective way to reduce their prevalence in a deal is to reduce the uncertainty that triggers them.
The Pre-Sale Window That Most Owners Miss
The ideal window for beginning financial preparation in anticipation of a sale is two to three years before the intended exit date. This is not an arbitrary buffer. It reflects the practical reality that a buyer will request three to five years of historical financials, and the quality of those years is largely fixed by the time a deal process begins.
If a business owner begins cleaning up their financial presentation eighteen months before going to market, they can influence the most recent one or two years in the historical record. If they begin three years out, they can shape the majority of the period a buyer will scrutinize. If they wait until they are actively in a process, they are defending history rather than engineering credibility.
The preparation process itself involves several stages. An honest internal audit of current financial practices, identifying where owner-related expenses have been commingled with business operations. A reclassification of recurring expenses into the appropriate reporting categories. The establishment of consistent accounting policies that will hold across multiple reporting periods. The documentation of all anticipated addback items with supporting evidence organized and retrievable. And the development of a coherent management narrative that explains the business, its performance drivers, and the sustainability of its earnings in language a sophisticated buyer can evaluate.
Working with experienced business brokers in Canada who have a track record in mid-market sell-side preparation can accelerate this process significantly, particularly for business owners who have not been through a formal transaction before. The institutional knowledge of what buyers in specific industries and size ranges actually scrutinize is not something that can easily be replicated through general research.
The Credibility Multiple and Why Buyers Pay It
There is an informal concept in M&A advisory circles sometimes referred to as the credibility premium. It describes the additional multiple that a well-prepared, financially transparent business tends to command in a competitive process compared to a comparable business with messier presentation.
The mechanics of this premium are intuitive when examined through the buyer’s psychology. A buyer who sits down with a business’s financial package and finds it organized, consistent, well-documented, and proactively explanatory experiences something important: reduced anxiety. Acquisitions are high-stakes decisions. The individuals and investment committees making them are acutely aware of downside risk. When a seller’s presentation reduces perceived risk, the buyer’s required return adjusts accordingly, which manifests as a willingness to pay a higher price.
Robbinex, a business brokerage firm serving Canadian mid-market business owners, has built a portion of its advisory process around exactly this dynamic, working with sellers to prepare financials that not only survive diligence but actively build buyer confidence throughout the process.
The inverse is equally true. When a buyer encounters financial statements that require interpretation, when addbacks feel more like guesses than documented facts, when the numbers tell a slightly different story each time they are approached from a different angle, anxiety rises. And anxious buyers do not pay premiums. They build in discounts, conditions, and protective mechanisms that erode the seller’s net outcome.
What the Owner With $3M EBITDA Actually Needs to Hear
Return to the owner at the beginning of this piece. The one who tells friends his company does three million in EBITDA. He is not wrong, exactly. The business probably does generate something close to that figure in economic benefit to him as the owner. The problem is that three million in economic benefit to a current owner and three million in transferable, defensible, buyer-grade normalized EBITDA are meaningfully different concepts.
The transferable version asks a harder question: how much of this cash generation will survive the departure of the current owner, under new management, with no personal expenses, no related-party arrangements, and no discretionary owner decisions embedded in the cost structure?
When that question is answered rigorously and honestly, the number sometimes holds. The business genuinely generates three million in transferable value and the addbacks are clean and defensible. But more often, the rigorous answer produces a lower number, typically somewhere between fifteen and thirty percent lower than the informal version, and sometimes more.
The earlier that gap is identified, the more time exists to close it. Not through manipulation of the numbers, but through deliberate operational decisions, financial hygiene improvements, and documentation practices that make the true value of the business visible and legible to the people who will eventually be asked to pay for it.
A business that generates two million in rigorously defensible EBITDA with clean books, documented addbacks, consistent reporting, and a coherent earnings narrative will often command a higher absolute purchase price than a business claiming three million in EBITDA that collapses under scrutiny. The multiple applied to a credible number, by a buyer who trusts what they are seeing, frequently exceeds the multiple applied to an inflated number that generates anxiety and adversarial negotiation.
The owners who understand this earliest are the ones who arrive at closing with the outcome they expected. The ones who discover it in the diligence room are the ones who spend the flight home recalculating what the deal actually delivered.
For anyone considering a transition in the next several years, the work of preparing financials to withstand scrutiny is not a transaction cost. It is a value creation strategy. One that pays its highest returns not when the documents are assembled, but when a buyer looks across the table, absorbs what they are seeing, and decides that this is a business worth paying a premium to own.
ECB Holds Rates Steady Amid Iran Chaos. Why Central Banks Are Following the Fed.
CBAK Energy shareholders approve redomicile merger and company regains Nasdaq compliance
The UK government has unveiled a major intervention in the steel market, setting an ambitious target to produce up to 50 per cent of the steel used domestically while imposing steep new tariffs on imports in a bid to protect the struggling industry.
Under the plans, import quotas will be reduced by 60 per cent from July, with any steel brought into the UK above those limits facing a punitive 50 per cent tariff. The move represents one of the most assertive steps taken by ministers in recent years to bolster domestic manufacturing capacity amid intensifying global competition.
Announcing the measures in Port Talbot, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said the strategy was designed to both strengthen UK industrial resilience and counter what he described as “anti-competitive behaviour” in global steel markets.
He confirmed the government aims to increase the proportion of British steel used in the UK economy from around 30 per cent to 50 per cent, although no specific deadline has yet been set for achieving the target.
The introduction of a 50 per cent tariff on excess imports marks a significant escalation in trade policy. While tariffs are paid by importing firms, the additional costs are typically passed through supply chains, potentially raising prices for manufacturers, construction firms and ultimately consumers.
Ministers insist the policy is not protectionist but rather a necessary safeguard in a market distorted by global overcapacity and subsidised production, particularly from overseas producers able to undercut UK manufacturers.
A transitional arrangement is being considered to soften the immediate impact, with contracts agreed before 14 March potentially exempt from the new tariffs for imports arriving between July and September.
The UK steel sector has broadly welcomed the announcement, having long called for stronger measures to shield it from cheaper imports and volatile global pricing.
Gareth Stace, head of industry body UK Steel, said the strategy represents a long-overdue shift in policy.
He said the UK had lacked a coherent industrial plan for steel for years, despite its central role in national security, infrastructure delivery and the transition to low-carbon energy systems. He added that a clear domestic strategy was essential if the sector is to survive and grow in an increasingly competitive global market.
Trade unions also cautiously backed the move. The GMB said the announcement was welcome but stressed that key questions remain around ownership structures, particularly at major sites such as Scunthorpe, and the long-term technological direction of the industry.
However, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures, who argue the tariffs risk increasing costs across the wider economy.
Andrew Griffith warned that higher import costs could ripple through key sectors such as construction, potentially reducing infrastructure investment and placing additional pressure on UK manufacturers already facing tight margins.
The concern reflects a broader economic tension: while tariffs may support domestic producers, they can also raise input costs for downstream industries that rely on competitively priced materials.
The intervention comes at a critical moment for the UK steel industry, which has faced years of financial strain driven by high energy costs, global oversupply and shifting demand.
Although recent government support has helped reduce energy costs for intensive users, UK producers still face higher bills than many European and US competitors. That gap could widen further if global energy markets remain volatile.
Fears are growing that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East could push oil and gas prices higher for longer, increasing operating costs for energy-intensive industries such as steelmaking.
The government’s push to increase domestic steel production also reflects broader strategic concerns. Ministers are keen to ensure the UK retains sovereign capability in critical industries, particularly as geopolitical tensions expose vulnerabilities in global supply chains.
This is underscored by the government’s direct involvement in key steel assets, including sites in Scunthorpe and Rotherham, where public funds are currently being used to maintain operations that might otherwise have ceased.
At the same time, investment in new technology is beginning to reshape the sector. At Port Talbot, Tata Steel is developing an electric arc furnace, which will recycle scrap metal to produce steel with significantly lower carbon emissions — a key component of the UK’s net zero ambitions.
The success of the government’s strategy will ultimately depend on whether it can strike a balance between protecting domestic producers and maintaining competitiveness across the broader economy.
While boosting local production could strengthen supply chain resilience and support jobs, the risk remains that higher costs could dampen demand and investment elsewhere.
For now, the policy signals a decisive shift towards a more interventionist industrial strategy — one that places steel at the heart of the UK’s economic, environmental and national security priorities.
Amy Ingham
Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.
CEO sees “difficult financial results behind us.”
Business
(VIDEO) Kevin Hart Demands ‘Redo’ After Viral Wax Figure at Tennessee Museum Sparks Hilarious Backlash
Comedian Kevin Hart turned a potentially flattering moment into comedy gold when he roasted his own wax figure at the Hollywood Wax Museum in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, calling it an “attack” and demanding a complete redo. The figure, unveiled recently, went viral this week after Hart posted a scathing yet humorous reaction on Instagram on March 14, 2026, drawing millions of views and thousands of comments from fans who agreed the likeness fell short.
The wax statue depicts Hart in a black T-shirt, black pants, leather jacket and a prominent long gold chain, with arms outstretched in a pose meant to capture his energetic stage presence. But the resemblance drew immediate criticism for inaccuracies in facial features, proportions and overall vibe. Hart, 46 (turning 47 soon), shared a video of the figure set to the theme from “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” overlaying text reading “I know that ain’t Kevin Hart.”
“WTTTTFFFFF …. What did I do to these people…. This is an attack…. Who in the f–k is this??????” Hart captioned the post. “At this point these museums are just trying to make me cry 🥺😂😂😂😂….. This s–t has to stop…. I demand a redo damn it!!!!!!!”
The Instagram reel quickly amassed over 13 million views, nearly 371,000 likes and more than 26,000 comments within days. Fans flooded the replies with jokes, comparisons and memes. Some likened the figure to a mix of Cuba Gooding Jr. and other celebrities, while others quipped about the height being the only accurate detail. Actress Jameela Jamil commented that it was “the worst one I’ve ever seen of anyone.” Even Hart’s frequent collaborator Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson chimed in playfully, posting he had “no notes” on the figure, adding to the lighthearted roasting.
Hart’s reaction exemplifies his signature self-deprecating humor, turning what could have been an embarrassing oversight into viral entertainment. The comedian, known for films like “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and stand-up specials, has a history of embracing internet memes and fan interactions, often amplifying moments that poke fun at himself.
The Hollywood Wax Museum in Pigeon Forge, a popular tourist spot in the Smoky Mountains, features celebrity replicas but is separate from the more renowned Madame Tussauds chain, which has its own Hart figures in locations like New York and Hollywood. Those Madame Tussauds versions have generally received better reviews, though wax figures occasionally spark debates over accuracy across museums.
This isn’t the first time a celebrity wax statue has gone viral for the wrong reasons. Past examples include figures of Zac Efron, Kendall Jenner and others that drew criticism for looking off-model. Museums typically use reference photos, measurements and artist sculpting, but results vary based on execution and updates over time.
Hart’s post highlights ongoing challenges in capturing likenesses, especially for expressive performers whose energy comes from movement and facial animation rather than static poses. The figure’s stiff posture and facial structure failed to convey Hart’s trademark charisma, leading fans to speculate on whether it was rushed or based on outdated references.
Despite the mockery, the incident underscores Hart’s enduring popularity. His ability to laugh at himself keeps him relatable amid a career spanning stand-up, acting and producing. Recent projects include his HartBeat Productions slate and upcoming comedy specials, maintaining his status as one of Hollywood’s highest-paid comedians.
The viral moment also spotlights social media’s role in amplifying celebrity news. Hart’s direct engagement—posting personally rather than through a publicist—fueled the spread, turning a local museum unveiling into a global conversation.
As of March 19, 2026, neither the Hollywood Wax Museum nor Hart has announced plans for revisions, though his “demand a redo” plea suggests he may push for one. In the meantime, the figure remains on display, likely drawing curious visitors eager to see the “attack” in person.
For Hart, the episode is another chapter in a career built on turning mishaps into punchlines. Whether the museum heeds his call remains to be seen, but the comedian has already won the internet round with his quick-witted response.
The average age of a first-time buyer in England has risen from 29 to 34.
Gaffney, APEI SVP, sold $150k in stock
Business
Angelina Jolie Eyes Life Abroad After Oscars Absence, Amid Ongoing Winery Dispute with Brad Pitt
LOS ANGELES — Angelina Jolie skipped the 2026 Academy Awards earlier this month, a decision sources close to the actress described as unsurprising given no eligible projects and her shifting priorities away from Hollywood’s spotlight. The Oscar winner, who last attended the ceremony in 2024 for her directorial work, instead focused on personal transitions, including plans to relocate abroad later this year as her youngest children approach adulthood.
Jolie, 50, has been candid about feeling disconnected from the United States in recent interviews, stating she no longer “recognizes” the country due to changes in freedom of expression and social climate. Sources told People magazine in late 2025 that she is “excited” about moving overseas once custody arrangements with ex-husband Brad Pitt allow greater flexibility. Her twins, Knox and Vivienne, turn 18 in July 2026, potentially freeing her from Los Angeles residency requirements tied to the long-running divorce.
The actress listed her historic $25 million Cecil B. DeMille estate in Los Angeles for sale after renovations, with pre-qualified buyers touring the property. Plans call for splitting time between New York—home to her sustainable fashion venture Atelier Jolie—and Europe or Cambodia, where she holds citizenship and has deep humanitarian ties through her work with refugees.
Jolie’s humanitarian efforts remain central. Recent reports noted her visits to conflict zones, though specifics on 2026 activities were limited. Her UNHCR ambassadorship continues to drive advocacy, often drawing her away from entertainment circles.
Professionally, Jolie is in a transitional phase with new projects gaining traction. Her latest film, “Couture,” a fashion-world drama directed by Alice Winocour, was acquired by Vertical for North American theatrical release later in 2026 following its world premiere at TIFF in 2025. Jolie stars as Maxine, a filmmaker facing breast cancer who enters a romance during Paris Fashion Week chaos. The ensemble includes Louis Garrel, Ella Rumpf and newcomer Anyier Anei, exploring themes of women’s resilience, solidarity and shared struggles across cultures and professions.
Rumors of a real-life romance between Jolie and co-star Garrel surfaced after public dinners, but sources close to the actress told TMZ on March 2 that the pair are not dating. “It’s strictly professional,” one insider said, emphasizing her focus on work and family post-divorce.
Jolie has not been in a relationship since finalizing her divorce from Pitt in December 2024 after an eight-year legal battle, according to a source cited by People. “She’s too busy focusing on her work and her six children,” the source said. “She hasn’t had a boyfriend.”
Family dynamics drew attention when eldest son Maddox dropped “Pitt” from his last name in credits for “Couture,” where he contributed to production. The move, reported in late February, fueled speculation about strained ties, with some Pitt associates claiming it reflected Jolie’s influence. Maddox, now in his 20s, has increasingly aligned with his mother’s projects.
The divorce settlement, reached after years of custody, property and winery disputes, has not fully quelled tensions. Brad Pitt is pushing to depose Russian businessman Yuri Shefler regarding dealings related to their French winery, Château Miraval, according to court documents obtained by TMZ on March 17. The ongoing litigation centers on ownership and sales rights, with Pitt seeking clarity on transactions involving the multimillion-dollar asset. Sources described Jolie as “mentally drained” by the protracted fight, which has spanned nearly a decade since their 2016 separation.
Despite personal challenges, Jolie’s career shows momentum. She is reuniting with “Mr. & Mrs. Smith” director Doug Liman for an untitled spy thriller, signaling a return to high-profile acting. Additionally, “Sunny,” an action-thriller directed by Eva Sørhaug and inspired by mafia classics, is in production, marking her first action role in years after projects like “Eternals” and “The Eternals” in 2021.
Atelier Jolie continues to thrive as a platform for ethical fashion, blending Jolie’s advocacy with creative output. The New York-based collective emphasizes sustainability and artisan collaboration, reflecting her shift toward entrepreneurial and philanthropic endeavors over traditional stardom.
Jolie’s evolution from blockbuster star to multifaceted figure—actress, director, humanitarian and businesswoman—defines her 2026 chapter. Skipping awards season aligns with her preference for privacy and meaningful work amid life changes. As she prepares for potential relocation, upcoming releases like “Couture” and ongoing advocacy suggest she remains influential, even from afar.
With children growing independent and legal battles simmering, Jolie appears poised for a new era prioritizing global perspectives over Hollywood drama.
The trigger was the resignation of part-time Chairman and independent director Atanu Chakraborty. In his letter, Chakraborty cited developments and practices at the bank over the past two years that did not align with his personal values and ethics. “This is the basis of my aforementioned decision,” he wrote.
He highlighted that his tenure coincided with key milestones, including the merger with HDFC, which transformed the institution into one of the largest financial conglomerates in the country. While he also noted that the full benefits of the merger are yet to materialise, the move cemented HDFC Bank’s position as the second-largest lender in India.
A near 9% fall in a heavyweight like HDFC Bank underscores the significance of the development and the influence of the individual at the centre of it. Here’s a closer look at Atanu Chakraborty.
Atanu is a retired 1985-batch IAS officer from the Gujarat cadre, who served as the Economic Affairs Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, until his retirement in April 2020. He has also represented India as an alternate Governor on the World Bank Board and was a member of the Central Board of Directors of the Reserve Bank of India. His appointment as Union Economic Affairs Secretary was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
He holds a BTech degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He further pursued a postgraduate diploma in Business Finance from ICFAI, Hyderabad, and completed his MBA from the University of Hull in the United Kingdom.
HDFC Bank moved swiftly and appointed Keki Mistry, former CEO of HDFC, as interim part-time chairman with approval from the Reserve Bank of India. Following the development, the lender organised a conference call.
What did Keki Mistry say?
Addressing analysts a day after the surprise exit, interim chairman Keki Mistry said there was “no power struggle within the bank” and stressed that the board had not witnessed any kind of complete difference in opinion in its meetings.
“None of us is aware of the issues raised by Chakraborty in [his] letter,” Mistry said, adding that there had been no discussion regarding governance within the board.
Mistry added that the lender’s leadership remained aligned, dismissing suggestions of internal discord. The management team does and will continue to work cohesively, he said, adding that there has been no discussion regarding governance within the board.
Mistry added, “I would never remain on the board if there were any governance issues,” while asserting that the institution remained “very, very strong on ethics.”
The interim chairman also sought to reassure investors and stakeholders, saying there were no material matters at this point in time and that the board remained committed to safeguarding investor confidence.
Mistry also emphasised that the resignation had no bearing on the bank’s business performance. “What happened yesterday has nothing to do with operational profitability,” he added.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
Bayern Munich’s Karl and Urbig in latest Germany squad
OP_NET Launches “SlowFi” DeFi Stack Directly on Bitcoin L1
Lisa Kudrow Is Done With Cosmetic Procedures After Botox Side Effects
-
Crypto World5 days agoHYPE Token Enters Net Deflation as HyperCore Buybacks Outpace Staking Rewards
-
Tech4 days agoYour Legally Registered ‘Motorcycle’ Might Not Count Under Proposed US Law
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Addict Lip Glow
-
Tech2 days agoAre Split Spacebars the Next Big Gaming Keyboard Trend?
-
Sports5 days ago
Why Duke and Michigan Are Dead Even Entering Selection Sunday
-
Business4 days agoSearch for Savannah Guthrie’s Mother Enters Seventh Week with No Arrests
-
Business5 days agoUS Airports Launch Donation Drives for Unpaid TSA Workers as Partial Government Shutdown Enters Fifth Week
-
Crypto World5 days ago
Coinbase and Bybit in Investment Talks: Could Bybit Finally Enter the US Crypto Market?
-
Business3 days agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Business5 days agoCountry star Brantley Gilbert enters growing non-alcoholic beer market
-
Crypto World3 days agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Sports6 days agoCollege Basketball Best Bets: Conference Tournament Semifinal Picks
-
Politics1 day agoThe House | The new register to protect children from their abusers shows Parliament at its best
-
Business7 days agoTrump demands Powell cut rates as Iran conflict raises energy prices
-
Fashion3 days ago25 Celebrities with Curly Hair That Are Naturally Beautiful
-
News Videos20 hours agoRBA board divided on rate cut, unusually buoyant share market | Finance Report | ABC NEWS
-
Crypto World7 days agoSenate Votes to Include CBDC Ban in Bipartisan Housing Bill
-
NewsBeat7 days agoDeane Road crash near Bolton colleges and university
-
Crypto World21 hours agoCanada’s FINTRAC revokes registrations of 23 crypto MSBs in AML crackdown
-
News Videos7 days agoTom Lee: The 100x Opportunity EVEN Bigger Than Bitcoin (New Ethereum Prediction 2026)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login