BlackRock makes Oman foray with indirect stake acquisition in Hutchison Ports
MUSCAT, MARCH 9
Global asset manager BlackRock is set to make its debut in the Sultanate of Oman with the indirect acquisition of a major stake in Hutchison Ports Sohar, the owner and operator of Sohar Port's container terminal.
It follows last week's announcement by the consortium of BlackRock and Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), a subsidiary of Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), that it has reached in-principle agreements to acquire an 80 per cent controlling interest in Hong Kong based global multinational conglomerate CK Hutchison. Hutchison Ports Holdings (HPH), a global operator of ports and terminals (including Hutchison Ports Sohar), is a subsidiary of CK Hutchison.
Under the provisional agreements, the BlackRock — TiL consortium will acquire 80 per cent of CK Hutchison's interests in a vast portfolio of subsidiary and associated companies owning, operating and developing a total of 43 ports comprising 199 berths in 23 countries. Included in this list is Hutchison Ports Sohar (previously known as Oman International Container Terminal — OICT).
Collectively dubbed the 'HPH Ports Sale Perimeter' transaction, the aggregate enterprise value of this global deal (which includes Panama Ports in Panama) has been agreed at $22.8 billion. The parties have set an April 2, 2025 deadline for the formalisation of the transaction, pending regulatory approvals where applicable.
Significantly, Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is the world's 6th largest global container terminals group, with a portfolio of terminals located on the key trades served by the world's largest shipping line, the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). TiL is part of the portfolio of Global Investment Partners (GIP), a leading global infrastructure investor with around $170 billion in assets under management. These assets are distribution across the energy, transport, digital infrastructure, decarbonisation, and water and waste management sectors. Just last October, GIP was formally acquired by BlackRock.
Summing up the beneficial implications of these transactions for maritime assets served by TiL and MSC, GIP Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bayo Ogunlesi said: 'We are delighted to partner with Terminal Investment Limited and MSC, with whom we have a longstanding and productive relationship, to make an offer for certain interests in ports owned and operated by Hutchison Ports Holdings. Given GIP's substantial expertise in owning and operating ports, together with our partners, we can focus on our joint ambition for these assets to continue to be world-class ports operators which are competitive, efficient, commercial and service-focused.'
While specific details about BlackRock's direct or indirect investments in Oman are not publicly disclosed, the American investment giant has been actively expanding its presence in the Gulf region. Last June, BlackRock appointed Mohammad al Fahim as Managing Director and Head of the UAE, Oman and Bahrain, aiming to strengthen client relationships and deliver diversified investment solutions across these countries.
Hutchison Ports Sohar is a joint venture between Hutchison Ports, Rakiza (Oman Infrastructure Investment Management — part of Oman Investment Authority) and other Omani investors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Syria completes first global SWIFT transfer since war, governor says
Syria has carried out its first international bank transaction via the SWIFT system since the outbreak of its 14-year civil war, its central bank governor said on Thursday, a milestone in Syria's push to reintegrate into the global financial system. Central bank governor Abdelkader Husriyeh told Reuters in Damascus that a direct commercial transaction had been carried out from a Syrian to an Italian bank on Sunday, and that transactions with U.S. banks could begin within weeks. "The door is now open to more such transactions," he said. Syrian banks were largely cut off from the world during the civil war after a crackdown by Bashar al-Assad on anti-government protests in 2011 led Western states to impose sanctions, including on Syria's central bank. Syria needs to make transfers with Western financial institutions in order to bring in huge sums for reconstruction and to kickstart a war-ravaged economy that has left nine out of 10 people poor, according to the United Nations. Husriyeh chaired a high-level virtual meeting on Wednesday bringing together Syrian banks, several U.S. banks and U.S. officials, including Washington's Syria envoy Thomas Barrack. The aim of the meeting was to accelerate the reconnection of Syria's banking system to the global financial system and Husriyeh extended a formal invitation to U.S. banks to re-establish correspondent banking ties. "We have two clear targets: have U.S. banks set up representative offices in Syria and have transactions resume between Syrian and American banks. I think the latter can happen in a matter of weeks," Husriyeh told Reuters.
Observer
4 days ago
- Observer
Israel's war with Iran may last weeks, not days
When Israel and Iran clashed last year, they fought in short and contained bursts that usually ended within hours, and both sides looked for off-ramps that allowed tensions to ebb. Since Israel started a new round of fighting on Friday, the two countries have said they will continue for as long as necessary, broadening the scope of their attacks and leading to much higher casualty counts in both countries. This time, the conflict appears set to last for at least a week, with both Israel and Iran ignoring routes toward de-confliction. FORCED TALKS Israel seems motivated to continue until the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme, either by force or renewed negotiations. Yet Iran has shown no sign of voluntarily ending enrichment, a process crucial to building a nuclear bomb, and Israel has no known ability to destroy a pivotal enrichment site that is buried deep underground. 'We're weeks rather than days away from this ending,' said Daniel B. Shapiro, who oversaw Middle Eastern affairs at the Pentagon until January. 'Israel will keep going until, one way or another, Iran no longer retains an enrichment capability,' added Shapiro, now a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research group. 'It's now clear that if Israel leaves this unaddressed, its campaign will have failed.' Want to stay updated on what's happening in Iran and Israel? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we'll send our latest coverage to your inbox. While Israel has easily struck Iran's main enrichment site at Natanz, central Iran, it lacks the American-made 'bunker-buster' bombs needed to destroy a smaller subterranean site dug deep into a mountain near Fordo, northern Iran. Israeli officials hope that their strikes on other targets — including Iran's top military commanders, nuclear scientists and its energy industry — will inflict enough pain to encourage Iran to willingly end operations at Fordo. For now, Iran seems far from such a capitulation, even if Israel has shown increasing dominance in Iranian airspace, according to Sanam Vakil, who leads analysis of the Middle East at Chatham House, a London-based research group. Though Israel hopes to prompt its collapse, the Iranian government remains in full control of Iran and still has substantial stocks of ballistic missiles, even if Israel has limited its ability to fire some of them. 'I don't see any surrender coming from Tehran right now — there are no white flags being waved,' said Dr Vakil. 'It's very hard to see Iran walking back its enrichment rights while Iran's programme still looks operational and Iran is intact as a state,' she added. 'Their goal is to survive, to inflict damage and show their resilience.' TRUMP's STAND Much depends on how President Trump reacts. Unlike Israel, the US has the munitions and the aircraft to destroy Fordo. Analysts like Shapiro say that Trump could consider such an approach if Iran chooses to accelerate its efforts to build a nuclear bomb instead of reaching a compromise. 'That will create a critical decision point for Trump, about whether the United States should intervene,' Shapiro said. It may also now be easier for Trump to intervene without serious security consequences, given that Israel's attacks have already degraded Iran's defensive abilities. Others say that Trump is likelier to avoid direct confrontation with Iran unless the Iranian military shifts its attacks from Israel to US interests and personnel in the Middle East, narrowing Trump's room for manoeuvre. Since Friday, Iran has avoided providing such a pretext for US involvement. The president's statements since Friday indicate that his current preference is to use Israel's military gains as leverage for renewed talks with Tehran. Trump has overseen negotiations with Iran, hoping that Tehran would agree to end its enrichment programme without Israel's military intervention. Those talks stumbled after Iran refused to back down. In comments over the weekend, Trump suggested that Iran, chastened by Israel's attacks, might finally make compromises that it had not previously considered. As a result, some analysts say that Trump could press Israel to end its attacks — when and if he judges that Iran has become more malleable. 'This will end when Trump decides to end it, which will probably happen when he thinks Iran is ready to compromise,' said Yoel Guzansky, an expert on Iran at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. IRAN U_TURN? Such a U-turn has historical precedent, even if it feels unlikely for now, experts said. The Iranian leadership made a similarly unexpected compromise at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, according to Meir Javedanfar, who teaches Iranian studies at Reichman University in Israel. After rejecting numerous offers to end the war, Ayatollah Khomeini eventually agreed to a deal after the costs of the war became too great, Dr Javedanfar said. 'Khomeini made a 180-degree change,' he said. 'This is again what Israel is hoping for.' But history also suggests this may take time. The deal that ended the Iran-Iraq war took eight years to reach.
Observer
09-06-2025
- Observer
The EU can play it cool with Trump's trade threats
Other governments have so far taken three main approaches to dealing with Donald Trump's trade threats. China hit back hard at the US president's tariffs and got him to back down partly. Canada also retaliated and avoided some of the pain Trump inflicted on other countries. Meanwhile, Britain cut a quick deal that favoured the United States. None of these is a model for the European Union. The 27-member group is not China. Though its bilateral goods trade with the United States last year was worth 70% more than between the US and the People's Republic, the EU is not an autocracy that can outpunch Trump. If it antagonises the US president, he might up the stakes by pulling the rug from under Ukraine and undermining the EU's defences. American hard power gives it what geopolitical strategists call 'escalation dominance'. The EU is not Canada either. Ottawa was able to hang tough because its people were infuriated that Trump was trying to blackmail Canada into becoming part of the United States. While anti-Trump sentiment is high in the EU, politicians who are sympathetic to him, such as Poland's new president, can still get elected. On the other hand, the EU is not the United Kingdom. Both are at risk from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the EU trades seven times more goods with the United States than Britain does - so Washington has more to lose if economic relations break down. There is another way for the EU to handle Trump's threats: play it cool. That is more or less what the bloc is doing. It involves neither escalating the conflict nor accepting a bad deal. It means being open to a good agreement if the US lowers its demands, but willing to play the long game if it does not. One reason to buy time is to help Kyiv. The longer the EU has to prepare its own support package for Ukraine, which should include getting it a lot of cash, the less the damage if Trump ultimately cuts off all US aid to the country. The president's own vulnerabilities may also increase over time. Just look at the spectacular end of his alliance with Tesla boss Elon Musk. The fragile US trade truce with China may break down causing more financial turmoil, making Trump less keen to pick a fight with the EU. If the Supreme Court stops him using emergency powers to impose tariffs, his negotiating position will be weaker. And tariffs could hurt the US more than its supposed victims, by pushing up inflation and crimping growth. A QUICK DEAL? Trump has zig-zagged in his trade threats and actions against the EU. The current state of play is that there are 50% tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium from the bloc, a 25% tariff on cars and 10% so-called reciprocal tariffs on most other goods. And so they're trying to be the first and the best to get there, which is why everybody's throwing so much money at it without any clear sense of, you know, The US president has threatened to jack up these reciprocal tariffs to 50% if there is no deal by July 9. He is also looking at more 'sectoral tariffs', including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. While the EU has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has delayed its own retaliation. Its negotiators accept that they are unlikely to overturn the reciprocal tariffs, the Financial Times has reported. The bloc still aims to avoid the sectoral ones. Those on cars and any on pharmaceuticals would hurt it the most. It has dangled the possibility of buying more US equipment and natural gas to get a deal. An agreement on those lines could be good for the EU. It needs to beef up its defences and eliminate its purchases of Russian gas. While it would be best to have its own arms and energy supplies, buying more from the US makes sense as an interim measure. An important nuance, though, is that the EU should reserve the right to take action against the reciprocal tariffs after the WTO issues its verdict, says Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former senior EU trade official. Such a pact would involve quite a climbdown by Trump. True, arms and gas purchases would narrow the US goods deficit with the EU, which was $236 billion last year. But his administration has a host of other complaints including the bloc's value-added tax and food safety standards as well the digital taxes that some of its members impose on tech giants. It is hard to see the bloc agreeing anything in those areas, says Simon Evenett, professor of geopolitics and strategy at IMD. BACK TO WAR? Although the US side described last week's trade talks with the EU as 'very constructive', discussions could easily break down. The question then is how the bloc would react if Trump imposed higher reciprocal tariffs. The EU has so far imposed no countermeasures. Though it has agreed to tax 21 billion euros of US imports in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs, it has delayed these until July 14 to try to get a deal. The European Commission, its executive arm, is also consulting on taxing a further 95 billion euros of US imports in response to the car tariffs and the reciprocal ones. But added together, these tit-for-tat measures would be equivalent to only a third of the 379 billion euros of EU imports subject to Trump's tariffs. Some analysts think the bloc needs to be tougher. One idea is to crack down on American services, where the US had a 109 billion euro surplus with the EU in 2023. Another is to activate its 'anti-coercion instrument ', which would allow retaliation against US companies operating in the bloc. Yet another is to threaten to ban exports of critical goods, such as the lithographic equipment necessary to make semiconductors. Extreme events may require extreme responses. But for now, the EU should keep its cool. It should not kid itself that it is stronger or more united than it is. It should remember that Trump may get weaker with time. And it should never forget Ukraine. — Reuters Hugo Dixon The writer is Commentator-at-Large for Reuters. He was the founding chair and editor-in-chief of Breakingviews.
