Brookfield Explores Buying Luxury Hotel on Dubai's Palm Jumeirah
Save
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. is exploring a deal to buy a luxury hotel on Dubai's Palm Jumeirah, according to people familiar with the matter.
The investment firm is in talks to purchase Sofitel Dubai The Palm in a transaction that could value the property at about 2 billion dirhams ($545 million), the people said, requesting anonymity as the information is private. If completed, the acquisition will mark Brookfield's first hotel investment in Dubai.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Saudis Raise Main Oil Prices for Asia While OPEC+ Boosts Output
Saudi Arabia raised prices for its main crude grade for buyers in Asia next month as demand for oil and fuels holds up. The move, a day after OPEC+ producers agreed to a fourth round of big output hikes, suggests the kingdom is confident about the market. State producer Aramco will raise the price for Arab Light crude, its flagship grade, by $1 a barrel to $2.20 a barrel more than the regional benchmark for Asian customers, according to a price sheet from the company seen by Bloomberg. It was expected to raise Arab Light price by 65 cents a barrel, according to a survey of traders and refiners.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
RTX Thrives Amid Heightened Israeli Defense Measures
Amid the eruption of the Israel-Iran conflict, defense stocks have logically rallied. RTX Corporation (NYSE:RTX) is one of the strongest stocks available to trade on the public market. The Iron Dome is directly co-developed and co-produced by RTX with Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. RTX also works on David's Sling interceptor missiles and the Patriot Missile systems, which are supplied by RTX to Gulf allies threatened by Iran and its proxies. RTX also benefits from consistent U.S. funding and political support, like $500 million annually for missile defense via the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding. Given the current geopolitical condition, RTX stock is well-positioned for substantial near-term upside. However, if diplomacy prevails and the hot conflicts in Iran and Ukraine ease in the medium term, RTX is unlikely to be a high-alpha holding. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 9 Warning Signs with RTX. As U.S. strategic support through annual military aid significantly underpins RTX's missile-defense revenues, and there is strong U.S.-Israel cooperation, RTX shareholders are inevitably well-positioned for financial growth amid the current Israel-Iran conflict. In addition, ongoing bipartisan support in Congress for Israel's missile defense systems further solidifies RTX's long-term revenue visibility. However, China's diplomatic engagements, such as brokering a Saudi-Iran detente, might limit extreme arms procurement, potentially capping RTX's medium-term growth prospects. In my opinion, China's approach thus far to the Iran-Israel conflict has been rational. Even though it did not support the Israeli interests of Iranian nuclear disarmament (which is unfortunate), it hasn't encouraged escalation of the current hot conflict (which is positive). Trump has also vetoed the Israeli assassination of Iran's supreme leader, which does open the door for de-escalation if both parties (particularly Iran) agree to stop conflict and Iran accepts U.S.-Israeli-led limitations on international nuclear proliferation. RTX's missile-defense segment (which is directly involved with supporting Israel) strongly contributes to the company's nearly $100 billion defense backlog and ensures multi-year revenue stability. RTX's operating profit margins are also solidly maintained at about 10% or more due to large-scale production of interceptors (Tamir, GEM-T missiles, Stunner interceptors) lowering per-unit costs, U.S. government co-funding reducing R&D (research and development) costs and improving overall profitability, and recurring maintenance and support contracts that are typically higher-margin than initial production contracts due to lower incremental costs. Understandably, some investors don't want to be exposed to defense stocks, which creates some drag on returns from sentiment, but increasingly companies like RTX are viewed as necessary components of international security in light of hostile adversaries to the U.S.-led world order. Iran's nuclear ambitions are an unequivocal threat to Israel. Iran possesses one of the largest missile forces in the Middle East, including Shahab and Sejjil medium-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and a growing arsenal of cruise missiles. It has also transferred shorter-range missiles and guided rockets to proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Gaza, Syria, and Yemen. For RTX, which is involved in many layers of Israeli defense against such threats, the implication is recurring upgrade contracts and new R&D projects to counter improved Iranian missiles. However, it's worth reiterating that these are likely short-term exacerbated tailwinds, despite a relatively robust long-term growth horizon related to general defense. Once Iran is less of a threat (either through diplomatic resolution or regime collapse), structural growth for RTX will moderate, reinforcing the stock as a macro hedge and low-growth asset rather than an alpha-rich position. With mid-single-digit annual revenue growth over the next five years, steady improvement in operating margins, and using RTX's WACC (weighted average cost of capital) of 6.6% for the discount rate and a terminal growth rate of 2%, the stock appears overvalued. However, this discounted earnings approach does underestimate the importance of market sentiment. RTX can very easily deliver normalized earnings per share ("EPS") of $6.50 in the middle of calendar 2026 in a base case. The company's trailing 12-month ("TTM") P/E non-GAAP ratio is currently about 25, which is up from 20 as a five-year average. This also shows overvaluation, but it is a less pronounced overvaluation than is indicated by the discounted earnings approach. Normalized EPS may only grow at 4% in Fiscal 2025 (in line with consensus estimates) but is on track to rise to 10%+ in Fiscal 2026 due to efficiency gains. In light of this, a higher P/E non-GAAP ratio compared to historical averages is valid. Based on these factors, I am inclined to view RTX stock as only moderately overvalued right now. Based on my valuation analysis, RTX stock will trade at $6.50 in EPS multiplied by about 24 as the P/E ratio. That leads to a 12-month price target of about $155 for RTX. The current stock price is $145, so the implied upside is about 7% in the next year. This is under what I expect from major indices like the S&P 500. As a result, I'm only moderately bullish on RTX right now. I don't consider it an elite investment, but it does work as a macro hedge and secures portfolios with stable long-term returns in light of current geopolitical pressures. The bull case for RTX hinges on a serious escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict or related regional wars. Israel and the U.S. could accelerate missile-defense projects and stockpile interceptors; for instance, Iron Dome interceptor orders could double in a wartime year. In this high-demand scenario, RTX's defense revenues could grow by 2-3% faster annually, with margins increasing by 1% more than in the base case. Under these effects, RTX's stock price could climb as high as $175 in 12 months. Consider that a protracted Israel-Iran skirmish might lead Congress to fund an additional $1-2 billion for missile defense aid, with a significant amount of those funds flowing largely to RTX programs. In a scenario where diplomacy prevailswith Iran's nuclear issue resolving peacefully from here on out, Saudi and Iran maintaining cordial ties, and Israel facing reduced proxy threatsMiddle East defense demand could slow. Ongoing support contracts may continue but few new systems would be acquired. Margins could be slightly pressured if production runs are shorter or if R&D spending on new interceptors is curbed by budget cuts. Under such circumstances, it's conceivable that RTX stock drops to around $140 in 12 months. However, RTX's downside is buffered by its record backlog, which carries it for several years. The de-escalation scenario likely means slower upside rather than a severe contraction for RTX. However, most market participants are hoping for de-escalation for greater macro stability to support broad economic health, allowing sustainable growth for all stocks, RTX included. As we're entering a new age driven by AI and automation, there is a substantial chance for RTX to fall behind amid technological disruption. However, RTX is being proactive with its integration and investment in AI, so this is more of a long-term structural concern and doesn't affect the near-term return thesis. This long-term disruption risk is not only acutely related to AI advancements but also due to significant domestic competition from Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT), Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC), and international competition. If China shifts toward more cooperative and democratic political principles, its companies could also pose significant defense alternatives to Western allies. However, such integration is currently not on the table and requires deep structural and political reform within China for its defense services to be accepted by democratic economies. As examples of the growing AI competition, consider how RTX is vying with Lockheed and Northrop on a hypersonic missile interceptor program where algorithmic targeting speed will be key. If RTX captures less of the DoD's (Department of Defense) around $1.8 billion annual AI funding pool, its defense revenue growth could dip by a percentage point or more. Over a 5-10 year horizon, AI could significantly reshape defense market share. The military AI market is projected to quadruple by 2028 to $39 billion at about a 33% CAGR (compound annual growth rate). The bear-case scenario where RTX lags in automation technology and new AI-centric startups begin taking market share aggressively would weigh substantially on RTX's shareholder returns. At this time, I think it's important to treat RTX stock cautiously despite short-term momentum factors; AI disruption and medium-term geopolitical stabilization could moderate growth substantially. Lots of gurus have recently been reducing their RTX stakes, including Jeremy Grantham (Trades, Portfolio), who reduced by nearly 12% as of 2025-03-31, and Robert Olstein (Trades, Portfolio), who reduced by nearly 37% as of the same date. For the same period, Renaissance Technologies (Trades, Portfolio) increased its position by nearly 79%. Renaissance has one of the best track records in investing historyits Medallion Fund generated 39% net annualized returns after fees (66% annual gross return) from 1988 to 2018, which is among the highest sustained returns ever recorded in finance. The fact that Renaissance is buying RTX tells you something counter to my independent outlook; this is currently an elite investment in specific high-alpha portfolio strategies. RTX is also held by legendary value investor Joel Greenblatt (Trades, Portfolio) of Gotham Asset Management, with about 87,000 shares. In my opinion, while the valuation is slightly high right now, the near-term structural growth related to geopolitical tensions creates sentiment tailwinds that are difficult to ignore, which is why many gurus are keen on the stock, in my opinion. To the contrary, insiders have not been buying the stock right now. Over three years, 598,000 shares have been sold by insiders, with only 300 bought. This shows that management is reaping rewards from the business rather than doubling down on equity growth for now. That's understandable if many of the team have been with the company for decades and are looking to cash in now that the stock is sustainably trading at all-time highs. However, RTX's story doesn't end here, so the general market is certainly valid in buying RTX stock as Western defense practices become increasingly important amid a revitalized global alliance protecting from current geopolitical threats. In total, the unfortunate IsraelIran conflict provides short-term tailwinds for RTX stock, but once geopolitical tensions ease sustainably (which I deem inevitable, and is already indicated), I expect substantial moderation in returns. Even amid the current geopolitical climate, I anticipate only about a 7% price return for the stock over the next 12 months. Once there is less defense demand, we're looking at 5% annual price returns or lower per year. Therefore, I think it's important for investors to have tempered expectations with this stock. It's more of a hedge than an alpha engine, which is why I do not own it. Despite my independent outlook, many market-leading investors own the stock, leading to the logical conclusion that there is resilient and potentially under-appreciated upside to come, largely from momentum related to current geopolitical conditions. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Israel on the brink of a golden age?
Benjamin Netanyahu was in favour. So, too, was Ehud Barak, his defence minister at the time in 2011. But Israel's top generals and intelligence chiefs were aghast. An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they feared, could result in tens of thousands of Israeli civilian deaths. Months after retiring as Mossad chief that year, Meir Dagan – one of Israel's most revered spymasters – even went as far as to call the idea 'the stupidest I've ever heard'. Yet 14 years later, despite widespread opposition at home and abroad, Mr Netanyahu's boldest gamble appears to have paid off. In just 12 days, he humbled Iran at a cost much lower than even Israel's most optimistic military planners would have dared hope. When he walks into the White House on Monday, the Israeli prime minister's meeting with Donald Trump will therefore have the feel of a Roman triumph. Both men will portray their battlefield success as vindication over the wishy-washiness of their critics. But they are also thinking beyond victory laps. Mr Trump hopes to burnish his peacemaking credentials by brokering another ceasefire in Gaza. His guest will aim higher still, arguing that he has helped birth a new regional order – one that could mark the dawn of a golden era for Israel. Since the horrors of Oct 7 2023, Israel has made a Herculean effort to sever the limbs of the Iranian Hydra – Hamas and Hezbollah – before going for the head itself as it launched its first direct war with a foreign state since 1973. Mr Netanyahu now believes a legacy-defining peace dividend is within reach: new alliances with Arab states, containment of Iran and the isolation – perhaps even the marginalisation – of the Palestinians. Several Arab states are seriously considering the Abraham Accords, says Gen Yossi Kuperwasser, former director-general of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs, referring to the 2020 deal that normalised relations with Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Sudan. 'There is a golden opportunity,' he said. 'Iran is weakened. The Iranian threat feared by many countries in the Middle East is much decreased. We are even talking about countries like Syria and Lebanon hopefully joining the Abraham Accords. Who would ever have dreamed that?' But while Mr Netanyahu may have won the war, there is scepticism over whether he is the man to win the peace. Much depends on whether he can reverse Carl von Clausewitz's famous dictum and pursue diplomacy 'as the continuation of war by other means', says Col Eran Lerman, a former deputy national security adviser. That Mr Netanyahu is even in a position to consider reshaping the Middle East would once have seemed miraculous. In 2010 and again in 2012, as he edged towards war with Iran, senior military and intelligence officials were so anxious they took to privately briefing The Telegraph and other Western media on the risks. Iran's Lebanese proxy Hezbollah had amassed such a vast missile arsenal they estimated retaliatory strikes could kill up to 50,000 people. Entire neighbourhoods of Tel Aviv would be reduced to rubble. The political cost – a possible rupture with Barack Obama, then US president – was also deemed too great. In hindsight, Israel may have overestimated the potency of Iran's proxies. By 2024, Israeli missile defences and battlefield intelligence had dramatically improved, allowing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to defeat Hezbollah in eight weeks last year and Iran itself in under a fortnight. But this was not simply a 12-day campaign of air strikes and covert hits. It was the culmination of 46 years of hostility, dating back to 1979, when Israel made peace with Egypt, formerly its greatest foe, and lost Iran – once its closest regional ally – to revolution. From the outset, the Islamic Republic waged an undeclared war on Israel, pledging its destruction and founding Hezbollah to fight Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. But for years Israeli strategists focused more on Palestinian militants than the Iranian threat – so much so that during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Israel secretly sold arms to Tehran through the Iran-Contra Affair. After the first Lebanon war, Israel redoubled its efforts to penetrate Hezbollah. But in 2006, when Israeli troops re-entered southern Lebanon, the results were sobering. The 34-day war ended in stalemate. Gen Assaf Orion, the IDF's former head of strategic planning, calls it 'not the brightest campaign we've run'. Few understood that better than Gen Mickey Edelstein, then commander of the Nahal Brigade, who recalls how unprepared his troops were. Accustomed to small operations against Palestinian groups, they struggled with full-scale warfare. Tactical goals were vague. Air support was inconsistent. Orders were sometimes contradictory. 'My brigade was shifted between three different divisions over the war,' he recalled. 'We would go into Lebanon, be pulled back into Israel and sent out again with a different division. A lot of mistakes were made.' After the war, senior commanders privately acknowledged failures in planning, command and intelligence – and lessons were learnt. Soldiers were retrained for major warfare. When Gen Edelstein returned to battle in Gaza in 2014, the forces he led were significantly more capable. Intelligence also underwent wholesale reform, said Col Lerman. 'Intelligence in 2006 was clearly insufficient for the conduct of successful operations. After the war, there was serious self-questioning about how well intelligence was collected and how well it was distributed to forces on the ground.' Amos Yadlin, then head of military intelligence, led sweeping changes that continue to shape Israeli warfare. From 2006 on, Israel grasped the full extent of the Iran-Hezbollah nexus. Of the 121 Israeli soldiers killed in 2006, many died from Iranian-made weapons – some fired by Iranian troops embedded with Hezbollah, according to Israeli officials. In the following years, Iran poured resources into Hezbollah, providing cash, training and ever more sophisticated rockets, missiles and drones. The goal was clear: build a deterrent so fearsome it would stop Israel from ever striking Iran's nuclear programme. But that scale became a vulnerability. 'From a nimble guerrilla organisation, it became an established army, requiring greater management,' said Gen Orion. 'And with that came the exposures and weaknesses of larger organisations.' Israeli intelligence infiltrated Hezbollah deeply. It even sold the group the explosive-laden pagers and walkie-talkies that maimed thousands of Hezbollah operatives over two days last September. Most of Hezbollah's senior leadership, including its overall commander Hassan Nasrallah, was also assassinated thanks to what Col Lerman describes as a 'deeply penetrating, co-ordinated effort stretching back decades'. It wasn't just personnel. Israeli planners had mapped Hezbollah and Iranian missile sites with such precision that they destroyed most launch capabilities before the first volleys were fired. As a result, Israel was able to strike Iran, kill much of its leadership and damage its nuclear programme – and face far more muted retaliation than once feared. Although 28 Israelis were killed and 15,000 lost their homes, neither Hezbollah nor Hamas launched a single rocket in Iran's defence. 'Really the most dramatic aspect of all this is that the organisation exclusively built for one purpose – to punish Israel horrendously if it dared attack Iran – did not fire a single shot during 12 days of war,' said Col Lerman. Israel has therefore emerged as the dominant military force in the region, with Mr Netanyahu's allies believing they can dictate a new dispensation for the region. Yet how the Israeli prime minister uses that dominance is now a central question. Since a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah in November, Israel has killed some 300 members of its fighters in targeted strikes – reportedly with the tacit consent of pasts of the Lebanese government, which may now be looking to disarm the group entirely. Covert action in Iran is also expected to continue. Military action beyond Israel's borders aside, however, what kind of future Mr Netanyahu envisions is up for debate. There are three possible paths, says Eran Etzion, a former deputy head of Israel's National Security Council and a critic of Mr Netanyahu. One is to 'live by the sword', fighting a 'forever war', a view, he said, preferred by elements on the Right of Mr Netanyahu's coalition, who argue Israel will never be accepted in the region. Another is 'conflict management' – continuing low-intensity fighting with Hamas, expanding West Bank settlements and perhaps trying to remove Palestinians from Gaza even while seeking friendship with Arab states. 'It's a vision of perpetual war with the Palestinians while striking normalisation agreements with other Arab countries,' says Mr Etzion, who believes this is the strategy Mr Netanyahu is most likely to adopt. The third option – long-term peace-building – is, in Mr Etzion's view, off the table under the present government. Critics warn that Mr Netanyahu's vision of victory risks being both fragile and short-lived if it depends solely on violence. The idea that Israel can indefinitely deter aggression without addressing Palestinian aspirations may prove illusory. Saudi Arabia, the biggest prize of all, insists that any Abraham Accords-style agreement requires progress towards a two-state solution. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is thought to be eager for a deal, but without movement on a Palestinian state, his hands may be tied by public opinion, inflamed by the devastation inflicted on Gaza. Lebanon and Syria may also see advantage in rapprochement with Israel. But public sentiment remains volatile in both countries, too. Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syria's new president, appears conducive to the idea of better ties, particularly as he seeks to rebuild relations with the West. But many members of his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), are deeply hostile to Israel. A splinter faction recently claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in a Damascus church that killed 25 people last month. Mr Sharaa may fear pushing his hardliners too far. Israel, for all its strengths, may overreach. It is 'still numerically and materially inferior to the sum of all its potential enemies', said Gen Orion. 'Which is why it must retain its qualitative military edge and creative diplomacy.' Meanwhile, unless a robust diplomatic agreement emerges, Iran is likely to attempt to rebuild the triad of threats that once made it so formidable: its nuclear programme, ballistic missile arsenal and regional proxy network. 'The regional landscape is shifting dramatically,' said Shai Agmon, a fellow at New College, Oxford and academic director of Molad, a liberal Israeli think tank. 'Israel can reshape it to serve its own security interests and create a thriving regional order – or it can squander it. 'Israel is the strongest force around for now. But in the absence of a stable diplomatic resolution, Iran and its proxies will regroup and try to escalate the situation again. 'And unless the government is willing to consider a path towards regional peace – which necessarily entails some form of two-state solution, an idea it has so far refused even to entertain – it is hard to see how lasting stability will be achieved.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
