Indie Semiconductor ( INDI -23.67% ) stock is falling fast in Tuesday's trading. The chip specialist's share price was down by 20.7% as of 2:45 p.m. ET. The sell-off came in reaction to the company's announcement after the market closed Monday that it plans to sell up to $175 million in convertible senior debt notes. The company will sell those debt notes in a private offering. In addition, management left the door open for an additional $26.25 million in debt-note sales. The notes are slated to mature on Dec. 15, 2029, although the company has laid out provisions that would allow for the notes to be redeemed for cash on or after Dec. 20, 2027. What's next for Indie Semiconductor? If Indie Semiconductor stock performs well over the next several years, it's reasonable to expect that holders of the convertible notes will redeem them for shares of new common stock. That would increase the chip company's shares outstanding, diluting the value of the shares held by current investors. Based on Indie's market cap of roughly $852 million, the creation of new stock at corresponding levels would work out to a roughly 24% increase over the company's current share count (assuming the additional $26.25 million worth of notes are also sold). On the other hand, the company's stock has already pulled back substantially in response to the new debt offering, so there's not much additional reason to be concerned about whether or not the notes eventually get converted into common stock at this point. Indie's recent move highlights the company's profitability and funding concerns. Depending on how effectively it utilizes the funds raised through this new convertible debt offering, the capital-raising move could be either beneficial or deleterious to long-term shareholders.Rich countries' promise of $300 billion a year in climate finance brought fury at talks in Baku from poor nations that found it too paltry, but it also shows a shift in global political realities. The two-week marathon COP29 climate conference opened days after the decisive victory in the US presidential election of Donald Trump, a sceptic both of climate change and foreign aid. In the new year, Germany, Canada and Australia all hold elections in which conservatives less supportive of green policies stand chances of victory. Britain is an exception, with the new Labour government putting climate high back on the agenda, but in much of the West, concerns about inflation and budgetary shocks from Russia's invasion of Ukraine have dented enthusiasm for aggressive climate measures. At COP29, Germany and the European Union maintained their roles championing climate but also advocated a noticeably practical approach on how much money historical polluters should give poorer countries. "We live in a time of truly challenging geopolitics, and we should simply not have the illusion" otherwise, European climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told bleary-eyed delegates at COP29's pre-dawn closing session Sunday, as activists in the back loudly coughed to drown him out. But he vowed leadership by Europe, hailing COP29 as "the start of a new era for climate finance". German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, a Green party member and longtime climate advocate, called for flexibility on ways to provide funding. Europe should "live up to its responsibilities, but in a way that it doesn't make promises it can't keep", she said. Avinash Persaud, special advisor on climate change to the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, called the final deal "the boundary between what is politically achievable today in developed countries and what would make a difference in developing countries". Activists say that climate funding is a duty, not choice, for wealthy nations whose decades of greenhouse gas emissions most contributed to the crisis that most hits the poorest. This year is again set to be the hottest on record on the planet. Just since COP29, deadly storms have battered the Philippines and Honduras, and Ecuador declared a national emergency due to drought and forest fires. Wealthy historic emitters' promise of $300 billion a year by 2035 is a step up from an expiring commitment of $100 billion annually, but all sides acknowledge it is not enough. The COP29 agreement cites the need for $1.3 trillion per year, meaning a whopping $1 trillion a year needs to come from elsewhere. Even within the $300 billion commitment, some activists see too much wiggle room. "It is, to some extent, almost an empty promise," said Mariana Paoli, the global advocacy lead at London-based development group Christian Aid. She described the target as "creative accounting", saying there was not enough clarity on how much money would come from public funds and in grants rather than loans. She acknowledged the politics of the moment but said that wealthy nations had options such as taxation on fossil fuel companies. "There is a backlash because there is no political will," she said. In one closely scrutinised part of the Baku deal, countries will be able to count climate finance through international financial institutions toward the $300 billion goal. The text states that it is "voluntary" -- potentially opening the way to include China, which is the world's largest emitter but refuses to have requirements like long-developed countries. In a joint statement at COP29, multilateral development banks led by the Washington-based World Bank Group but also including the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank -- which has long faced US criticism -- expected that they together can provide $120 billion annually in climate financing and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Melanie Robinson, director of the global climate program at the World Resources Institute, said there were good reasons to rely on multinational development banks, including how much capital they can leverage and their tools to advance green policies. "They are the most effective way to turn each dollar of finance into impact on the ground," she said. She agreed that the $300 billion was insufficient but added, "It's a down payment on what we need." Beyond the debate on dollar figures, she pointed to an initiative within the G20 by Brazil, which holds COP30 next year, to reform financial institutions so as to incorporate debtor nations as well as climate concerns. "There is really a much bigger opportunity for us -- which is shifting the whole financial system," she said. sct/giv
Climate finance’s ‘new era’ shows new political realities
Royals and Diplomacy: King Charles and Qatar's Emir Forge Stronger Ties
I knew it – I just knew it. “Boxing hasn’t been good since the ’90s...” “The sport is a joke nowadays...” “That was a waste of time...” Those are the kinds of statements I’ve been hearing for seven days, and I can’t tell you how much they’ve been bothering me. Let’s start from the beginning. Last Friday, a 58-year-old Mike Tyson fought Jake Paul, a YouTuber, on Netflix. Yes, that was a real sentence and, yes, the fight actually happened. As soon as the fight was announced – months and months ago – I knew it was going to be a letdown. Want to know why? Because, no one cares. Now, look, I’m a massive boxing fan. I’ve never denied it, and I spend a lot of my weekends watching the sport at 2 a.m. when my eyes want nothing more than to shut. That’s how much I love it. On a side note, is there anything better than live boxing? I was lucky enough to watch James Perkins, of Lynn, fight at The Palladium in Worcester last year. I’ve also taken a train to New York City to watch Callum Walsh – a young fighter out of Ireland – fight at the Madison Square Garden Theater. Back to the stupid Netflix fight. Let me ask you a question: Would you pay to watch Bronny James play a retired Larry Bird one-on-one? Because, if you think about it, that’s really what this was. It’s not a boxing problem. It’s people choosing to watch this fight instead of the real fights that happen every other weekend. I know. I know. You wanted a “Rocky Balboa” scenario. I’m referring to the sixth movie, in case you didn’t know. In the film, an older, sore, beat up Balboa comes out of retirement to fight the heavyweight champion of the world. The Italian Stallion goes the distance and nearly wins the fight. Man, I love those movies. Even you, “Rocky V” with Tommy Morrison. But last Friday was real – not a fictional fantasy. You chose to watch it; I didn’t tell you to watch it. I guess I’m writing to say this: Outside of the clownfights between YouTubers and celebrities, boxing is still great. Watch Terence Crawford. Watch Canelo Álvarez. Watch Artur Beterbiev. Watch Shakur Stevenson. Watch Devin Haney. Better yet, the Tyson Fury-Oleksandr Usyk rematch is next month. The first fight was a down-to-the-wire thriller for the heavyweight championship. I’m not saying you have to buy the $79.99 pay-per-view fights every month, but find a favorite fighter or two and go from there. I’ll go. I can’t get enough of Gervonta “Tank” Davis and “King” Ryan Garcia. They have enough power in their left hooks to light up Las Vegas, as boxing broadcaster Mauro Ranallo would say. But hey, this is all just my opinion. I think the sport of boxing is in a great spot, if you’re watching the right fights.