On Monday, the Trump administration stopped the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the biggest project of its nature in the U.S., along with four additional projects that were underway along the East Coast, delivering a severe setback to the wind sector.

Stocks of Dominion Energy, the company behind the Virginia project, saw nearly a 4% decline following this announcement.

The administration also put on hold leases for Vineyard Wind 1 near Massachusetts, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island, Sunrise Wind off Long Island and New England, and Empire Wind 1 located south of Long Island.

Together, the projects are projected to generate enough power to supply more than 2 million homes, as per the developers’ statements.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum indicated that the leases for these projects were paused due to national security issues raised by the Pentagon.

Shares of Denmark’s Orsted, managing the Revolution and Sunrise initiatives, dropped by 11%. Norway’s Equinor, responsible for Empire Wind 1, decreased by about 1%.

Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is a project involving 176 turbines that would generate sufficient power for over 600,000 homes, according to Dominion. The completion of the project was anticipated for next year.

Dominion remarked that the substantial project is vital for U.S. national security and the significant energy demands of Virginia. Northern Virginia stands as the leading center for data centers globally. The increasing demand from artificial intelligence is driving electricity costs higher within the state.

“Halting CVOW for any duration will jeopardize grid reliability for some of the nation’s most critical military, AI, and civilian assets,” Dominion stated in a release.

“It will also lead to rising energy costs and put thousands of jobs in jeopardy,” the utility added.

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, endorses the initiative. Incoming Governor Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, secured victory in November’s gubernatorial election on a commitment to tackle rising electricity costs partly by promoting renewable energy.

The Interior Department mentioned in a release that the pause will allow the federal government to “collaborate with leaseholders and state partners to evaluate the potential to alleviate the national security threats posed by these projects.”

Interior disclosed that the U.S. government determined that turbine blades and “highly reflective towers” pose a radar interference risk.

“The congestion caused by offshore wind initiatives obscures legitimate moving targets and produces false targets within the area of the wind projects,” the Interior stated.

President Donald Trump has been critical of the U.S. wind sector since his start in office. On January 20, Trump ordered a freeze on all new leases and permits for both onshore and offshore wind pending federal evaluation.

Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., denounced Trump’s actions against wind initiatives as “irrational.” The senate minority leader claimed that the Interior’s decision would escalate energy expenses.

“Trump’s fixation on dismantling offshore wind projects is erratic, irrational, and unwarranted,” Schumer expressed in a Monday statement. “During a period of rising energy prices, this latest choice from DOI represents a step backward that will further increase energy bills.”

Trump’s campaign against the wind sector has met with court challenges. Judge Patti Saris from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled on December 8 that Trump’s order was “arbitrary, capricious, and against the law.”

Just hours prior to Warner Bros. Discovery consenting to sell its studio and streaming properties to Netflix, Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, reached out to WBD’s CEO David Zaslav to notify him that Netflix would not be increasing its bid.

WBD shareholders now have an opportunity to challenge Sarandos’ assertion.

WBD shareholders must act by Jan. 21 if they wish to submit their shares to Paramount for $30 in cash, although this timeline may be flexible. Paramount can prolong it right up until WBD’s upcoming annual meeting, which is still to be scheduled but occurred on June 2 this year.

Should Paramount secure 51% of the outstanding shares of WBD, it would assume control of the company, even if the WBD board has already consented to transfer the studio and streaming properties to Netflix. Over the forthcoming days and weeks, both Netflix and Paramount can engage with WBD shareholders to determine their preferences regarding Paramount’s offer versus the board’s recommendation to sell to Netflix.

To submit or not to submit, that remains the query. There are compelling cases on both sides. This choice also involves a strategic element for shareholders who might prefer a bidding conflict rather than fixating on the most suitable buyer.

There are two primary motives for a shareholder to tender their stakes to Paramount.

The first reason applies if the investor deems Paramount’s $30-per-share all-cash proposition for all of WBD is superior to Netflix’s $27.75-per-share offer limited to the Warner Bros. film studio and HBO Max streaming venture. The second reason reflects the belief that tendering shares could effectively initiate a bidding contest between Netflix and Paramount.

A shareholder might conclude that Paramount’s existing proposition is more advantageous than Netflix’s if they perceive it to have a greater probability of receiving regulatory approval, or if they believe Discovery Global — the collection of linear cable networks that includes CNN, TNT, Discovery, HGTV, and TBS, which is set for a separation — will have little value once publicly traded.

David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance, mentioned to CNBC earlier this month that he estimates Discovery Global’s worth at $1 per share, based on his forecast of the likely multiple (two times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) for its trading, tied to the current valuations of equivalent linear cable networks. If WBD opts not to cede the entire firm to Paramount, they plan to establish Discovery Global as an independent publicly traded entity in mid-2026.

Paramount contends that $30 per share already surpasses Netflix’s $27.75-per-share bid plus $1 per share for Discovery Global.

Paramount’s proposition is entirely in cash, while Netflix’s bid incorporates 16% equity with a so-called collar, implying that shareholders will be uncertain of the exact quantity of Netflix shares they will ultimately receive until the transaction finalizes.

Regarding regulatory approvals, Paramount has emphasized points asserting that a combined streaming venture of Netflix and HBO Max would be anti-competitive. Netflix boasts over 300 million paying subscribers worldwide. The prospect of the leading streamer acquiring HBO Max has already triggered apprehensions among politicians, including President Donald Trump, who mentioned potential “market share” concerns with a Netflix acquisition.

While Paramount would merge Paramount+ with HBO Max, Paramount+ currently has close to 80 million subscribers, posing a reduced risk to competition.

The second, more intricate rationale for submitting is to enhance potential benefits even if the assets eventually go to Netflix.

Ellison has previously acknowledged that Paramount’s $30-per-share offer isn’t the ultimate and final proposition. Tendering could encourage Netflix to present a higher offer, which might subsequently spur Paramount to elevate its bid too.

GAMCO Investors chairman and CEO Mario Gabelli stated to CNBC earlier this month that “the idea of Company A and Company B engaging in a bidding war — that’s what we appreciate as part of the free market framework.”

He added last week that while he was previously inclined to tender his shares to Paramount, “the most critical aspect is to maintain the competition.”

Conversely, some shareholders may feel that refraining from tendering is the optimal strategy to stimulate a bidding conflict. If Paramount observes fading shareholder interest as the annual meeting approaches, it might elevate its proposal to attract more shareholders.

There are further motivations to abstain from tendering. Shareholders might wish to retain the equity share in Netflix and Discovery Global that is part of Netflix’s offer.

In a WBD filing from the previous week, the company disclosed that an unidentified “Company C” suggested acquiring Discovery Global along with its 20% interest in WBD’s streaming and studios operations for $25 billion in cash. This proposal was dismissed by the WBD board as “not actionable.”

Nevertheless, this unidentified offer hints at the existence of a prospective buyer for all of Discovery Global should it be spun off, potentially yielding a value significantly higher than $1 per share, according to Rich Greenfield, an analyst at LightShed Partners. This reasoning strengthens the case against tendering, as it positions the Netflix offer as considerably more favorable than Paramount’s.

Furthermore, ensuring WBD separates Discovery Global emerges as the prudent choice for shareholders, should regulators impede a Paramount-WBD merger, Greenfield stated. Given that the Paramount acquisition targets all of WBD, including CNN, Ellison’s bid — which comprises approximately $24 billion from Middle Eastern sovereign funds — may encounter regulatory and political challenges, Greenfield pointed out.

“It’s imperative to facilitate the split,” Greenfield remarked in an interview. “If the Paramount acquisition fails to obtain regulatory clearance, you risk obstructing the split. You could find yourself in 2027 with declining cable networks, without having spun them off. Is it the U.S. intention to have a company substantially funded by foreign sovereign wealth capital owning CNN?”

WBD’s board has expressed that one rationale for declining Paramount’s $30-per-share proposal was its worries regarding funding, noting a larger percentage of financing seemed to originate from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds compared to the Ellison family, which has allocated about $12 billion.

Paramount modified the terms of its agreement on Monday to alleviate funding concerns. Oracle founder Larry Ellison, father to David and one of the wealthiest individuals globally, pledged to provide “an irrevocable personal guarantee of $40.4 billion of the equity financing for the offer and any damages claims against Paramount,” in the event the current financing fails, Paramount announced in a statement.

Additionally, Paramount stated on Monday it would release records confirming the Ellison family trust “possesses roughly 1.16 billion shares of Oracle common stock and that all substantial liabilities of the Ellison family trust are publicly disclosed.” Paramount has indicated that the family trust will secure the financing. WBD’s board earlier stated that the trust is an “opaque entity,” preferring a direct investment from the Ellisons.

Significantly, even after the Monday announcement, the Ellisons have not augmented their personal equity investment, which remains at $12 billion. Internally, some WBD executives have reportedly invoked the 1970 Carl Reiner film “Where’s Poppa?” when discussing the acquisition attempt, according to a source familiar with the situation. WBD has sought further personal financial commitment from the Ellisons for the deal.

Ultimately, a WBD shareholder may not prioritize the source of the funding as long as it is assured. The three sovereign wealth funds involved in the transaction include the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, Abu Dhabi’s L’imad Holding Co., and the Qatar Investment Authority. The PIF and QIA, particularly, are well-known institutions that have poured billions into other U.S.-based transactions.

The latest artificial intelligence listings in China are achieving remarkable increases.

Shares of chipmaker MetaX Integrated Circuits surged nearly 700% during their debut in the Shanghai market last week, while Moore Threads soared over 400% on its first trading day earlier this month.

As domestic investors seek to capitalize on noteworthy Chinese tech listings, international investors find themselves largely excluded from these blockbuster offerings.

Particularly, foreign retail investors are unable to participate in mainland China IPOs: “It’s not even possible. Unless they register an account with a Chinese broker,” stated Chris Zhang, executive director at China Fortune Securities Company.

Opening an onshore brokerage account with a Chinese securities firm necessitates a linked Chinese bank account, which generally requires proof of residency in China or a Chinese visa with adequate validity. Additionally, foreigners need to already possess other mainland-listed shares to qualify for IPO lotteries.

Many foreign banks lack the necessary partnerships with Chinese brokers to facilitate account openings, according to Zhang, rendering the process unfeasible for the overwhelming majority of overseas retail investors.

Official guidance from Shanghai’s city government indicates that only a limited group of foreign individuals are permitted to directly open brokerage accounts for A-shares — stocks listed in mainland China. For instance, foreigners holding permanent resident status, employed in China, or those working overseas with equity incentive plans in A-share listed firms.

For numerous global investors, Stock Connect, a scheme allowing reciprocal access between Hong Kong and mainland Chinese exchanges, serves as the most convenient method to gain exposure to Chinese equities.

It enables international investors to purchase A-shares through their Hong Kong brokers without requiring an onshore account or special licenses — but the initiative offers minimal assistance regarding IPOs or newly listed stocks. Access also relies on eligibility criteria set by Hong Kong brokers, including minimum account balances and risk disclosures.

“Stock Connect is ineffective because newly listed stocks are not yet included in Stock Connect. Typically, it takes several weeks to months for the stocks to qualify,” remarked Theodore Shou, chief investment officer at Skybound Capital.

The inclusion of companies in the Stock Connect program is contingent upon a stock fulfilling eligibility criteria such as sufficient trading volume and market capitalization, often necessitating a trading period and data history for qualification.

Northbound trading, which refers to overseas and Hong Kong investors acquiring mainland Chinese stocks through Stock Connect and other initiatives, will typically not be accessible until “several months after any listing,” noted Shou. Moreover, it’s not assured that Moore Threads and MetaX will be included.

International retail investors can gain limited access through offshore funds that invest in A-shares.

Foreign retail investors interested in STAR Market IPOs, such as Moore Threads and MetaX, can consider investing in non-China domiciled funds that target A-shares, which generally participate in IPOs, according to Shou.

China’s STAR Market operates as a Nasdaq-style tech board in Shanghai, focusing on strategic sectors such as semiconductors, AI, and biotech, with more relaxed profitability criteria and restricted access for foreign retail investors.

“Nevertheless, such participation will be indirect, quite restricted, and largely insignificant,” he cautioned, as IPO allocations may be minimal relative to the fund’s total assets.

While foreign retail investors face significant barriers to accessing mainland Chinese IPOs, some large institutions retain the ability to engage in them.

A program designed for qualified foreign institutional investors, or QFIIs, permits approved global institutions to directly invest in onshore Chinese stocks, including IPOs. However, it is tailored for significant asset managers, sovereign funds, and banks, rather than individual investors.

QFIIs include investment banks like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, along with central banks, among numerous other entities.

The QFII and renminbi QFII frameworks allow authorized institutional investors to trade onshore A-shares and engage in IPOs, though they must receive approval from the China Securities Regulatory Commission, with foreign-exchange registration and settlement managed by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, or SAFE.

While the QFII and RQFII systems in China do not impose explicit asset size or operating history requirements, applicants must be institutions that demonstrate solid financial stability, pertinent investment experience, strong governance, compliance frameworks, and an unblemished regulatory record.

Additionally, they must appoint an onshore custodian and finalize foreign-exchange registration with SAFE.

The CSI 300 Information Technology Index, which tracks the performance of information-technology firms within China’s CSI 300, has risen 32% year to date, in contrast with the benchmark CSI 300, which is up 17%, and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Tech Index, which has achieved a 24% increase thus far this year.