Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There are a few sages who predicted all along that 2025 — not 2024 — would be the year to watch for IPOs. More have joined them as deal flow remained depressingly soggy. Will 2025 really be any better? Companies going public like certainty. There is not much of that in prospect. 

The looming US election makes the September quarter-end a good point to call time on the IPO class of 2024. Few executives will be prepared to risk the choppier markets that usually surround November votes. So far this year companies have raised some $26bn by going public in New York including social media group Reddit and cruise operator Viking. That beats $20bn raised in all of last year and positively sparkles compared with $8bn in 2022. But it is still the sort of amount that was being raised every six months in the years before the 2020-21 boom.

The argument for 2025 is that companies have still spent this year dealing with the fallout from that period. Valuations needed to deflate. Executives had to flip from talking up top line growth and start discussing plans for net profitability. If 2022, when the S&P tumbled 19 per cent, was the stuff of start-up nightmares then 2023’s 24 per cent rally despite fears of a recession (still yet to materialise), plainly caught them off-guard.

That left 2024, curtailed by the November election, to prepare for a listing. There is probably a handful of companies that rue not being ready sooner: strong markets between March and June this year could probably have supported more deals than landed. 

The IPO market is a lumpy way to make a living. Take 2014 where Alibaba’s bumper $25bn float skews the numbers. In 1999, when BlackRock and Goldman floated alongside dotcom stars, those names were dwarfed by UPS’s $5.5bn deal — then a record.

Still, the last couple of years have been quiet by any measure. This time, an IPO recovery is more reliant on some predictability, rather than a roaring market. As August’s rout showed, it doesn’t take more than a couple of economic releases to trigger wild moves. The Fed this month made clear that it, too, will react to future data. That leaves listings wannabes attempting to plan for IPOs to fall neatly between mood-altering monthly jobs reports.

Forget about 2024. But the IPO recovery is coming — just perhaps not as quickly as some hope.

jennifer.hughes@ft.com

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — For decades a small, landless tribe in Northern California has been on a mission to get land, open a casino and tap into the gaming market enjoyed by so many other tribes that earn millions of dollars annually.

The Koi Nation’s chances of owning a Las Vegas-style casino seemed impossible until a federal court ruling in 2019 cleared the way for the tiny tribe to find a financial partner to buy land and place it into a trust to make it eligible for a casino.

Now the tribe of 96 members has teamed up with the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, which owns the biggest casino in the world, and is waiting for U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to decide whether the 68-acre (27-hectare) parcel the tribe bought for $12.3 million in Sonoma County in 2021 is put into trust.

Placing the land into trust would allow the Koi to move closer to building a $600 million casino and resort on prime real estate in the heart of Northern California’s wine country.

The decision comes as the U.S. government tries to atone for its history of dispossessing Indigenous people of their land, in part through a federal legal process that goes beyond reinstating ancestral lands and allows a tribe to put land under trust if it can prove “a significant historical connection to the land.”

The Koi Nation, a Southeastern Pomo tribe whose ancestors lived in Northern California for thousands of years, faces mounting opposition from other tribes and even California Gov. Gavin Newsom over its plans for the Shiloh Resort and Casino, which would include a 2,500-slot machine casino and 400-room hotel with spa and pool.

If approved, the casino would be built near Windsor, about 65 miles (105 kilometers) north of San Francisco, near two other Native American casinos a few miles away: Graton Resort and Casino in Rohnert Park and River Rock Casino in Geyserville.

The money generated would allow tribal members a better life in one of the country’s most expensive regions, including educational opportunities for young tribe members, said Dino Beltran, Vice Chairman of the Koi Nation’s Tribal Council.

“It has taken us years to be on the same playing field as every other tribe in the United States and now the same tribes that have established themselves are against us. It’s a very sad thing,” Beltran said.

Among the most vocal critics of the Koi Nation’s project is Greg Sarris, chairman of Graton Rancheria, a federation of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo people with more than 1,500 members. The tribe’s casino is the biggest in the Bay Area and is undergoing a $1 billion expansion.

Sarris, who last year was appointed by Newsom to the University of California Board of Regents, said the Koi Nation are Southeastern Pomo people whose ancestral home is in Lake County, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) northeast of the project site.

The tribe, Sarris said, is not linguistically, culturally or historically connected to Sonoma County and he accused the tribe of cherry-picking land that already draws tourists.

“They are claiming that part of their deep historical connection is they had a family member in the early 20th century who lived in Sonoma County,” Sarris scoffed.

The Indian Gaming Regulation Act, enacted by Congress in 1988, sets rules for how and where Native American tribes can operate casinos, and generally limits them to ancestral lands that have been returned to the tribe.

But the law also makes a “restored lands” exception for federally recognized tribes that do not have a reservation — or rancheria, as they are called in California — to build a casino outside their ancestral land if the tribe can show historical and modern connections to the area where the gambling facility will be located. The land also has to be near where a significant number of tribal members reside.

“Generally speaking, tribes cannot game on any land that is taken into trust after 1988 but there are important exceptions to that general prohibition that are meant to be fair to tribes that did not have land in 1988,” said Kathryn Rand, an expert on tribal gaming law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’s International Center for Gaming Regulation.

Before white colonizers arrived in California, Koi Nation’s ancestors lived on an island in Lake County and traded with other tribes in Northern California, according to the tribe’s website.

In 1916, the U.S. government approved land in Lake County for Koi Nation’s rancheria about 28 miles (45 kilometers) north of the proposed casino site. The land was eventually declared uninhabitable by the Bureau of Indian Affairs because of its rocky terrain and many Koi families moved south to neighboring Sonoma County, mainly to Sebastopol and Santa Rosa, where the tribe is now headquartered.

Four decades later, the federal government took that land and sold it for an airport, leaving the tribe landless. After a lengthy court battle, a federal judge in 2019 ruled the Koi Nation had the right to pursue buying land for a casino.

Michael Anderson, a Koi Nation attorney, said a historic trail used by the tribe from the Clear Lake basin to Bodega Bay, on Sonoma County’s Pacific Coast, runs through a portion of the property, which supports the legal requirement of having a “significant historical connection to the land.”

Anderson said their legal case is strong. But, “the politics is a whole different thing,” he added.

Sarris, whose casino gives millions to small, non-gaming tribes and has become a major donor to California politicians, said the Koi Nation has previously tried to get land under trust to open a casino in Solano and Alameda Counties — both in the San Francisco Bay Area — and accused the tribe of “reservation shopping.”

Anderson said the term was offensive and Sarris is simply trying to protect his lucrative casino from competition.

“This is about market protection, that’s the heart of it,” Anderson said.

Newsom and local politicians also oppose the project along with the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians, which operates River Rock Casino.

Newsom’s office sent a letter last month to Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Bryan Newland urging him not to move forward with the Shiloh casino project and another proposed casino in the Bay Area, saying the governor is concerned the department is not considering other sites for the casinos and approving them would “stretch the limits of the ‘restored lands’ exception.”

The department is weighing three other land trust applications under the “restored lands” exception, including one by the Scotts Valley Tribe that wants to build a casino in Solano County. In Oregon, the Coquille Indian Tribe wants to open a casino in Medford, about 170 miles (273 kilometers) south of its tribal headquarters and closer to the California border.

Casino-owning tribes are pushing back on both. The Guidiville Rancheria tribe in Northern California has applied but has not yet identified land for their project, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Haaland will consider several factors in making her decision, including opposition to the casinos, said Steve Light, an expert on tribal gaming policy at the UNLV International Center for Gaming Regulation.

But the secretary also will take into account whether the casino will help with “tribal self-determination, tribal self-governance, and tribal economic development, job creation and resources for the tribe,” he said.

Of the 574 federally recognized tribes, 110 are in California. According to the American Gaming Association, there are 87 tribal casinos in the state, making California the largest tribal gaming market in the country.

“With 40 million people in California, this is presumably still an untapped market, but one that is increasingly competitive,” Light said.

A PIRATES of the Caribbean theme park could be set to open on a very stunning tropical island.

The island of Saint Vincent has revealed the plans, after it was used as as filming location for the films.

4

4

Advertisement

Since 2003, the Pirates of the Caribbean films have become family favourites, with Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley’s adventures on the high seas spanning five movies.

Carlos James, minister for tourism for the government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, has promised the park will provide a huge boost to the popularity of the island nation.

He told Planet Attractions: “We’re looking at scouting lands closest to the beach to accommodate a state-of-the-art theme park, which will include a restaurant, pool, and more.

“This year, we will also explore and conceptualise designs for a Pirates of the Caribbean-themed park at Wallilabou.

“It is important that we look at how we can further develop our tourism product offering.

“We have to ensure that we have all of the right services and sites that meet quality standards to ensure that people who come to the destination can really see the true benefit of our product.”

The plans are set to be put in place in 2025, although not a lot is known about what the park would actually feature, in terms of rides and attractions.

However, it will offer a new way for fans of the films to get a taste of the pirates’ lives, with other attractions already showing off the swashbuckling side of Saint Vincent.

One such tour invites visitors to head to the actual set of the popular movie.

On the tour, they can “see an abundance of props and costumes that remain onsite” while also dressing up to look like a real pirate.

Other tour stops include Fort Charlotte, the fishing village of Layou, Barrouallie, Wallilabou Recreational Park, and Buccama Beach.

The tour is described by Viator as “a must-do for fans of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies”.

However, there’s plenty to do on Saint Vincent for people who haven’t heard of Jack Sparrow as well.

In addition to its many stunning beaches, the island has sights like the Dark View Waterfalls – two spectacular falls, one above the other, that tumble down sheer cliff faces and plunge into natural pools.

4

Sea kayaking, volcano hiking and nature trails are also available for those looking for adventure.

Virgin Atlantic has flights from the UK to the island, taking around 11 hours with a stop in Barbados.

They also offer holiday packages, with return flights and seven nights from £,1,078pp.

It’s not the only Caribbean island with a huge theme park.

Perfect Day at CoCo Cay, a Bahamas island owned by Royal Caribbean, has its own theme park and water attraction on it.

Meanwhile, these eight real life Disney locations can be found in the UK.

And these are the Indiana Jones filming locations you can visit.

4

1K

A much-publicized United Nations goal to end deforestation by 2030 is unlikely to be achieved, according to an independent assessment, as Olivia Rosane reported for Common Dreams in October 2023.

The problem is money and where it’s directed, according to the latest Forest Declaration Assessment, released in October 2023. “We are investing in activities that are harmful for forests at far higher rates than we are investing in activities that are beneficial for forests,” said Erin Matson, senior consultant at Climate Focus and coordinator of the report.

Specifically, $675 billion a year is invested in exploiting forests versus the mere $2.2 billion a year committed to protecting them, a discrepancy of 307 to 1. To effectively prevent deforestation, the annual sum invested should be $460 billion, more than 200 times the current amount, according to the report.

The latest Forest Declaration Assessment, the work of “a strong and diverse group of research organizations, think tanks, NGOs, and advocacy groups spanning the globe,” is sure to add fuel to complaints that UN climate summits generate more headlines than substance. The goal of 2030 was set in 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland, at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP26.

Even so, not all countries are failing their forests. More than 50 countries still have the potential to halt deforestation by 2030, and they have laid the groundwork for everyone else to follow, according to the assessment. “The report offered several recommendations for governments, private institutions, and civil society, including protecting and securing Indigenous land rights, boosting finance, and channeling subsidies away from industries and activities that harm forests and towards those that help,” Common Dreams reported.

Simultaneously with the Forest Declaration Assessment, the World Wildlife Fund shared its first Forest Pathways Report, which emphasized four key components to protecting forests. As summarized by Common Dreams, they are: “Accelerating the recognition of Indigenous land rights; Mobilizing finance; Reforming global trade so that supply chains don’t rely on commodities tied to deforestation; and Shifting the economy to value nature.”

In contrast to the celebrity-studded, TV-friendly events of the UN summit in Glasgow, these major reports on deforestation and how to combat it have received scant attention from corporate media.

Source: Olivia Rosane, “‘The World Is Failing Forests’: Report Finds Leaders Way Off Track From Halting Deforestation by 2030,” Common Dreams, October 24, 2023.

Student Researcher: Sophie Cramer (Frostburg State University)

Faculty Evaluator: Andy Duncan (Frostburg State University)

(To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.)

This Climate Week, I did something crazy. In the middle of a packed week of panels, roundtables, and interviews in New York, I hopped on a plane across the country and spent a day at the MINExpo conference in Las Vegas for a forthcoming story. In the giant halls, alongside trucks the size of jet planes, companies gathered at the mining equipment conference promised to decrease their customers’ carbon footprints and allow them to operate their mines more sustainably.

The public narrative around private sector climate action is one of deep skepticism. Many advocates have decried it as greenwashing, claiming that companies are using climate goals as a branding exercise. Many companies have pulled back their commitments, saying they no longer feel they are feasible. And businesses have grown reluctant to talk about their environmental work—fearful that it might cause backlash in conservative states and with a potential future Republican president.

In Vegas, where the target audience was the sea of men in suits and company polo shirts who buy mining equipment, I couldn’t help but think something has shifted. For a variety of reasons, just outside of the public eye, the private sector continues to move forward on decarbonization. Corporate customers across sectors and geographies are demanding lower-carbon solutions, and the promise of continued regulatory pressure has not dissipated. Instead of focusing on splashy commitments, many companies are taking a grounded approach to chart an actual decarbonization roadmap.

“Business is now really taking a very pragmatic approach, not giving up on the goal of where we need to go, but really managing it step by step,” Peter Bakker, who heads the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, told me in New York.

Over the course of the week, I heard similar messages over and over again from executives. George Oliver, CEO of HVAC giant Johnson Controls, said that emissions reduction had “become a core initiative” for many of the company’s customers, advancing its business making buildings more energy efficient. Pedro Pizarro, the CEO of utility giant Edison International, touted demand for the company’s advisory business, which just ahead of Climate Week launched a partnership with auto giants to help decarbonize their supply chains. “They’re seeing a lot of continued client interest,” he said.

And, over and over again, executives told me that the European Union’s climate disclosure rule—known in shorthand as CSRD—would act as a game changer. The regulation , which took effect this year for some firms already and will expand to more in the coming years, requires companies that do substantial business in Europe to disclose not only financially material information about how climate change affects their operations but also the ways that their operations materially affect the environment. While many remain up in arms over the various reporting demands, which require time and resources, they expressed a sense that the standards would create new momentum when the dust settles. “You hear some businesses complain about the effort it takes to get those frameworks done,” says Bakker. “But once that transparency emerges, then it becomes a tool that puts sustainability at the core of competitiveness.”

All of these conversations in New York contributed to the sense that the transition is indeed moving—no matter the public narrative. At a TIME100 panel I moderated on Monday, Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, described that progress as “irreversible.”

To be clear, none of this is enough. Away from the corporate folks, inside the security perimeter of the United Nations, some government leaders pushed the need for countries to amp up their policy agendas. In the first days of Climate Week, which coincides with the United Nations General Assembly, countries agreed to a Pact for the Future which calls for continued efforts to phase out fossil fuels with the ambition of keeping global temperature rise well below 2°C.

To get there, countries are supposed to create new climate action plans in the coming months to drive a climate policy step change. Movement in the private sector is heartening, but it could also use a step change.