Saba Capital: The investment trust saga that refuses to end
The campaign by Saba Capital to overturn Edinburgh Worldwide’s board resumed with near NAV exit proposals and a renewed push for governance changes.
The dispute sits at the intersection of activist investing and fund governance, with the latest disclosures outlining a near NAV exit plan and questions about the implications for discounts to NAV, as well as the appropriateness of the current governance framework. In the previous exchange, a majority backed the board, while a substantial minority opposed, though voting exclusions for Saba’s shares altered the dynamics of the tally. The episode underlines the intensity of governance battles within UK-listed vehicles and draws regulatory attention to how votes are conducted and how communications are framed to shareholders. Analysts emphasise that the outcome will hinge on shareholder turnout and the clarity of alternate proposals.
The broader implication for investors is a warning about how quickly governance narratives can tilt sentiment and affect discount/premium dynamics. If activist campaigns gain traction, there may be greater pressure on issuers to publish more transparent strategic updates and to demonstrate how governance processes are aligned with shareholder value. Bri ng in Baillie Gifford’s stewardship, Edinburgh Worldwide’s response will shape how other investment trusts weigh activist approaches and the potential for board refreshes in the near term. If the next vote tilts in favour of change, markets might price in higher governance premiums or discounts depending on perceived risk to stability and strategy execution. Where this goes next is uncertain, and confirmation will come only with the actual voting results and any subsequent shareholder communications.
The dialogue also raises questions about the regulatory lens. The FCA has signposted a continuing focus on stewardship and governance in the asset-management sphere, and any clarifications around voting mechanics or share-exclusion rules could have ripple effects beyond this single vehicle. For now, the outcome remains contingent on investor turnout, the degree to which Baillie Gifford and Edinburgh Worldwide engage with dissenting holders, and the broader appetite for governance-led reassessment in UK-listed trusts. In short, the Edinburgh Worldwide episode is being read as a signpost for how activist investors operate within the current regulatory and market environment.
Market watchers say the episode could influence how managers frame strategic communications during periods of underperformance. Clear articulation of strategy, governance processes, and the potential paths to NAV recovery will be critical if investors demand stronger assurances. The near-term trigger remains the forthcoming general meeting and any formal statements from the board or major shareholders that signal the direction of travel. If governance concerns intensify, the sector could see heightened scrutiny of disclosure practices and an increased tempo of investor relations activity across UK-listed investment trusts.
As with many governance confrontations, the most telling signals will be tangible actions: a refreshed slate of director nominees, a reshaped remuneration framework, or a public reaffirmation of strategic priorities that align with NAV restoration. Until the voting dynamics resolve, the debate will be dominated by questions of governance, accountability, and the balance between activist influence and long-term strategic stewardship. The path forward remains data-driven and contingent on the next vote and subsequent communications.
The stakes extend to perceptions of market fairness and the alignment of incentives among asset managers, boards, and shareholders. If Saba succeeds in pushing change, it could embolden similar campaigns in other UK listed trusts. If not, the episode may reinforce the status quo but raise ongoing questions about how those with meaningful stake in a fund’s future are listened to. In either outcome, the governance discourse will be shaped by the forthcoming vote results and the narratives crafted by all major stakeholders.
Alberta Separated: Push for referendum after Trump meeting
A petition drive in Alberta seeks a binding referendum on independence, funded by a target of signatures and framed by energy policy tensions with Ottawa.
Organisers want roughly 177,000 signatures by May 2 to trigger a citizen-led referendum on independence, with observers noting that a formal vote could follow in October 2026 if the thresholds are met. Polls cited in coverage show about 29 percent of Albertans favour leaving, while around 65 percent want to remain part of Canada. The energy policy dimension-especially oil flows, cross-border pipelines, and tax arrangements-underpins the debate and adds a layer of constitutional tension to the provincial momentum. Edgy dynamics around federation and energy markets have become a focal point for policy discussions in both provinces and federal forums.
Energy considerations frame a larger regional recalibration. Albertans argue that autonomy over resource management would streamline policy and investment, potentially altering energy flows to international markets and impacting price formation across North American energy systems. The cross-border energy architecture, including pipelines and interprovincial trade, would face renegotiation under an independent Alberta scenario, with costs and transition risks for workers, communities, and investors. Critics warn that secession carries legal, economic, and currency implications that would require lengthy negotiations and complex financial arrangements.
Analysts watching the petition reckon that the path to a referendum hinges on signature validity, regulatory compliance, and political consensus within Alberta’s governing landscape. The federal response would be closely observed for signals about how Ottawa might recalibrate energy policy or negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid abrupt disruption to Canadian markets. Some observers emphasise the potential for new energy deal structures with the United States or other partners as a factor in the broader energy-security calculus. Near-term indicators will include signature tallies, public polling shifts, and how provincial lawmakers frame the referendum dialogue.
The international angle also colours the discourse. Supporters argue that an independent Alberta could secure more direct energy-market access and tailor policies to resource development, while opponents stress risks to national cohesion and credit markets. The momentum seen in political conversations is matched by anxiety among industry players who worry about investment cycles and project planning under constitutional uncertainty. Stakeholders will be looking for clarity on timelines, constitutional feasibility, and the practicalities of policy transitions in the weeks ahead.
Watchers will track signature counts as the May deadline approaches and any shifts in energy policy discourse at the provincial level. If the petition sustains momentum, there could be renewed attention on Western Canadian energy markets and a rebalancing of cross-border trade considerations. A formal referendum, should it progress, would carry profound implications for Canada’s federation and North American energy dynamics, with consequences that would extend well beyond Alberta.
When is a fund manager truly finished? The skill investors need most
A perspective piece argues that fund managers should be judged by adherence to strategy, not by short-term style cycles, as macro regimes shift.
The argument notes that quality-growth styles have underperformed recently, while mirrors of Buffett’s evolution show ongoing adjustments. Investors are urged to distinguish between temporary underperformance and fundamental obsolescence, particularly as the MSCI ACWI has nearly doubled since 2020. The emphasis is on disciplined evaluation, transparent communications about strategy tweaks, and manager adaptability over the next 12 to 24 months. The piece cautions against mis-selling when style rot is mistaken for lasting change.
The core claim is that managers who articulate a clear, consistent framework for allocation and risk management are better positioned to weather regime shifts than those who chase short-term fashion. Investors are encouraged to scrutinise how portfolios translate strategy into holdings, how managers communicate shifts in approach, and how performance cycles align with explicit incentives. The discussion highlights the need for ongoing governance oversight and robust disclosures to avoid confusion during times of transition.
Critics of the view might argue that market leadership can hinge on nimble responses to evolving macro signals, making flexibility essential. Still, the piece maintains that strategy-driven evaluation reduces the risk of mis-selling when performance cycles become volatile. The author points to broad benchmarks and diversified exposure as safeguards, suggesting that a disciplined, strategy-first approach remains a prudent framework for monitoring fund managers.
Looking forward, the piece contends that observers should focus on 12 to 24 month horizons for evaluating strategy coherence, manager adaptability, and the severity of any performance drawdowns that might signal deeper obsolescence. Transparent communication about any strategic adjustments will be critical for investor confidence. In a shifting macro environment, the claim is that the best guardrails are a tried-and-tested framework for assessing consistency, rather than chasing the latest stylistic fad.
Analysts emphasise that the discipline of ongoing evaluation matters as regimes change. The debate underscores a broader question about how to distinguish legitimate strategic evolution from complacent drift. Ultimately, the test for fund managers will be whether they can navigate a world where macro conditions are in flux while maintaining a credible, well-communicated plan.
How Deep Fission is Slashing Nuclear Costs by 80 Percent
A Deep Fission financing round aims to fund a gravity reactor model placing a 15-MWe PWR in a mile-deep borehole, claiming large cost reductions and potential for AI-driven baseload power.
The company has raised about $80 million to advance its gravity reactor concept, asserting that burying a reactor deep underground with gravity-assisted pressure can cut construction costs by roughly 70-80 percent compared with traditional plants. The core technical appeal rests on using a mile-deep borehole to provide natural pressure, reducing the need for costly surface pressure vessels and enabling a modular deployment approach. Proponents argue that this could enable scalable, low-carbon baseload power for data-centric economies and AI workloads.
Supporters emphasise the potential to accelerate deployment timelines and improve safety profiles by leveraging the geophysical environment. The claim is that gravity-driven pressure and subterranean siting could simplify waste-management strategies by co-locating storage with the reactor, addressing a long-standing barrier in some microreactor designs. If validated at scale, the concept could reshape how nuclear capacity is added and where plants are located, with implications for grid resilience and energy security.
Sceptics caution that underground nuclear implementations face technical, regulatory, and environmental hurdles that may offset claimed cost savings. They point to the need for long-term licensing, waste management, and containment challenges that can offset perceived efficiencies. Regulators will assess siting, safety, and environmental impact with a level of scrutiny uncommon in conventional reactor projects. Independent validation and pilot deployments will be key near-term indicators of credibility.
Financing dynamics will also matter. The current round signals investor interest in novel nuclear architectures, but a credible timeline for regulatory approval and grid connection remains essential. Watchers will look for pilot deployments, regulatory milestones, and independent assessments of the gravity reactor’s performance and waste-handling plans. If the approach proves durable, it could attract further funding and partnerships with data-centre operators and industrial users seeking stable, low-carbon energy.
Industry observers emphasise that the energy transition may tilt toward a broader mix of next-generation technologies, including small modular reactors and alternative concepts. The gravity reactor idea, if it matures, would add to the portfolio of options for meeting AI-driven electricity demand. As with any high-concept technology, early-stage funding signals optimism, while the real test will be regulatory acceptance, public-perception considerations, and demonstrable performance in real-world conditions.
The near-term milestones to watch include regulatory dialogue, environmental impact assessments, and any formal pilot agreements. A successful validation could lead to a broader deployment roadmap and long-term commercial collaborations with data-centre operators and industrial-scale electricity consumers. Until then, the gravity reactor narrative remains conditional and contingent on subsequent corroboration from independent reviews and regulatory sign-offs.
Lithuania Could Break EU Ranks Over Critical Minerals Deal
Lithuania signals it may strike a standalone critical minerals pact with the US if the EU stalls on a bloc-wide agreement, aiming to secure rare earth magnets and battery metals.
The move would be the first time an EU member contemplates bypassing Brussels to pursue a direct arrangement with Washington, driven by concerns over China’s refining dominance and new US alignments. While Lithuania argues that reliability and security demand a rapid arrangement, Brussels is expected to resist unilateral deals that could fragment the EU’s internal market and complicate shared policy. The broader implication is a potential acceleration of Western diversification of critical minerals supply chains, with consequences for European industrial policy and defence supply chains.
If the Lithuanian approach gains traction, it could prompt a domino effect among Eastern European states and others seeking faster access to critical inputs such as rare earth magnets, battery metals, gallium and germanium. A standalone pact could reshape how the EU negotiates with third countries and how it coordinates with the US on strategic minerals policy. China’s response would be watched closely, particularly given its refining dominance and the global sensitivity around processing capacity.
Brussels would likely respond with a mix of formal diplomacy and competitive policy measures to safeguard the single market. The likelihood of a formal EU-wide framework could slow if member states move ahead unilaterally, potentially triggering debates about reciprocity, tariffs, and processing capacity investments within the EU. For investors, the central question is how swiftly such a move could alter supply chains, pricing, and the timeline for diversification away from China.
Lithuania emphasises security and resilience as core rationales for direct US engagement. The objective is to secure transparent, reliable access to inputs that underpin electronics, defence, and energy technologies. Observers caution that a unilateral move could provoke a drawn-out negotiation with Brussels and slow the momentum needed to counter China’s influence in refining and processing. The next weeks will reveal whether Lithuania keeps to its directional stance or recalibrates to align with EU-wide diplomacy.
Watch for any formal EU validation of new bilateral deals, and for any statements from Brussels regarding the feasibility and legal implications of parallel pacts. A formal move toward a standalone US-Lithuania minerals framework would represent a notable shift in Western policy and could trigger similar discussions in other member states seeking to diversify away from China. Market participants will monitor the evolution of this story as a test case for Europe’s ability to co-ordinate a resilient supply chain in a contested global landscape.
Baker Hughes Explores $1.5B Sale of Waygate Unit
Baker Hughes is examining a sale of Waygate Technologies, with advisers evaluating a process that could attract interest from private equity and strategic buyers, targeting around $1.5 billion.
The possible divestment comes as Baker Hughes sharpens its capital allocation following the Chart Industries acquisition, signalling a shift to streamline assets and concentrate on core businesses. Waygate is a long-standing supplier of radiographic testing systems, industrial CT scanners, remote visual inspection equipment and ultrasonic devices, operating in more than 80 countries under brands such as Krautkramer and Seifert.
Market chatter frames the sale as part of a broader consolidation in industrial equipment, where buyers are seeking scale, advanced testing capabilities and global reach. A sale would affect the company’s portfolio mix and could influence how Baker Hughes funds new technology investments or debt reduction. Potential bidders are expected to weigh strategic fit, cost synergies, and the timetable for a process that could start in the coming months.
Industry observers note that Waygate’s niche position in non-destructive testing remains attractive to buyers focused on reliability, qualification and safety-critical industries. The outcome could influence Baker Hughes’ overall capital structure, including leverage targets and return of capital to shareholders. The absence of a formal timetable leaves open questions about whether a deal will proceed and at what value.
If a sale advances, the announcement could have ripple effects on downstream customers and suppliers who rely on Waygate’s equipment for inspection regimes in energy, aerospace and manufacturing. The deal would also test Baker Hughes’ ability to reallocate capital toward higher-growth segments and maintain investments in core platforms amid sector-wide volatility. Markets will watch for an official process launch, indicative bid interest and any subsequent asset repositioning.
Analysts emphasise that divestitures of this kind carry execution risk, including stakeholder alignment and regulatory clearance across jurisdictions. The absence of a firm deal timeline means the market will treat any early chatter as indicative rather than definitive. The next steps will involve confirming adviser engagement, potential bidders, and any formal sale process leadership announcements.
Reliance Gets USA License to Directly Buy VEN Crude
Indian refiner Reliance Industries has obtained a US general licence enabling direct purchases of Venezuelan crude, reflecting a softening of sanctions policy and a broader shift in India’s oil sourcing strategy.
The licence marks a notable shift in sourcing flexibility for Reliance as it balances traditional imports with more US and Venezuelan crude options, albeit with Venezuela unlikely to supply large volumes in the near term. The licensing move signals evolving dynamics in the US-Venezuela relationship and in India’s approach to energy security amid broader sanctions policy and regional energy realignments. The long-term trajectory will depend on how flows materialise and whether licensing updates accompany broader policy changes.
Analysts caution that actual cargo movements may still lag due to logistical, contractual and political constraints. Venezuela’s output levels and contractual terms with India remain uncertain, and the near-term impact on India’s crude slate may be modest. The broader geopolitics of sanctions policy and the way Washington calibrates exemptions will influence the pace and scale of any further diversification. Monitoring will focus on actual shipments and any shifts in licensing regimes that may signal greater openness or tighter controls.
India has long pursued a diverse sourcing strategy to manage energy security and price risk. The US licence aligns with broader efforts to recalibrate sanctions policy in line with strategic energy interests and posturing in the Atlantic basin. The market will watch for any new licensing updates and for data on Venezuelan cargoes reaching India, alongside any statements from government or industry stakeholders on policy direction.
For Reliance, the licence expands its options at a time when global oil flows are adjusting to changing sanctions and diplomacy. The near-term signal is cautious optimism about greater flexibility; the medium-term test will be how volumes and terms align with market realities and regulatory risk. The development could influence India’s relative exposure to Western sanctions policy and its own energy-import mix going into 2026 and beyond.
EIA Raises 2026 WTI Forecast, Lowers 2027 Projection
The EIA’s February STEO raises the 2026 WTI forecast to $53.42 per barrel and trims 2027 to $49.34, with quarterly signals showing a peak in Q1 2026 before a gradual decline.
This revision sits alongside a spread of expectations from banks showing mid-50s to mid-60s for near-term prices, highlighting divergent views on shale, OPEC+ strategy, and macro risk. The STEO path informs near-term pricing conversations and feeds into policy dialogue around supply, demand, and inflation dynamics in 2026. Market participants will be watching revisions to the STEO as fresh data arrive and as real-time prices interact with forecast trajectories.
The forecast has implications for investment decisions in upstream projects, refining margins, and energy-equity pricing, particularly for producers sensitive to price regimes. It also interacts with broader macro expectations around Fed policy, inflation, and currency dynamics, given the sensitivity of energy prices to macro drivers. Traders and forecasters will compare STEO outputs with other institutions’ projections to gauge consensus around the price path through 2026 and into 2027.
Observers note that STEO projections are inherently uncertain and sensitive to policy shifts, supply disruptions, and demand surprises. The EIA path provides a reference point for budgeting, hedging strategies and investment planning, but actual prices will hinge on evolving geopolitical developments and market sentiment. Analysts will monitor subsequent STEO revisions for signs of persistent strength or renewed weakness in crude prices.
Market readers will also pay attention to the STEO’s assumptions about OPEC+ behaviour, U.S. shale activity and potential demand shifts in China and other major economies. If WTI tracks the forecast, near-term volatility could persist as markets digest competing signals from policymakers and industry players. Close attention to inventory data, rig counts, and geopolitical headlines will help calibrate expectations against the EIA baseline.
In sum, the February STEO maintains a cautious but constructive view for 2026 while tamping expectations for a sharp rebound in 2027. The oil complex will remain sensitive to macro risk, supply constraints and policy shifts that could tilt the path away from the baseline. Traders and policymakers will anchor their decisions to new data as 2026 unfolds.
Some OPEC+ Members See Scope to Resume Hikes in April
OPEC+ delegates indicate that output increases could resume in April, following a year in which the group added around 2.6 million barrels per day and paused previously.
The discussions come as markets weigh demand growth against coordinated supply management, with roughly 1.2 million bpd left to restore to pre-hike levels. The implications for price trajectories and geopolitical risk premia remain a focal point for energy markets. March 1 discussions are anticipated to formalise any decisions, with observers awaiting clarity on pace and scale of potential increases.
Analysts caution that any move will need to balance price stability with member countries’ fiscal needs and the health of domestic economies. The timing and exact volume of any announced increases could influence short-term price dynamics, currency flows, and associated risk premia in the oil complex. Markets will watch for administrative details such as quota allocations and the sequencing of production increases across different members.
Observers stress that the broader demand outlook will shape the feasibility of resuming hikes. If demand continues to disappoint, the case for increases weakens, potentially prompting more cautious volumes or a negotiated phase-in. Conversely, robust demand signals could push prices higher, particularly if fears of supply constraints re-emerge alongside geopolitical tensions. March meetings will be telling for the next phase of OPEC+ policy.
The potential for April hikes also interacts with macroeconomic uncertainty in major consuming regions and with the evolving stance of non-OPEC producers. The net effect on prices will depend on how the market integrates supply, demand, and policy signals as the year progresses. Timely communication from OPEC+ and clear guidance on expected output levels will be critical to reducing price volatility.
Markets remain sensitive to the possibility of policy-driven shifts and the strategic calculus behind coordination among members. The April decision, if taken, could reassert price discipline and influence global energy security considerations for the balance of 2026. The trade-off between sustaining revenue and ensuring affordability will be central to the conversation among policymakers, industry players and investors.
Adobe stock hype questioned as AI fears weigh on valuation
Analysts and market chatter question whether large institutions are driving downside in Adobe despite solid fundamentals, reflecting AI narratives and sector rotation.
The discussion underscores concerns about AI-centric sentiment and the risk of mispricing or panic selling in software peers. Investors are watching price action, earnings commentary, and any revisions to AI narratives that could shape consensus expectations for software incumbents. The tension between AI hype and fundamentals remains a critical theme for technology equities and sector rotation.
Observers note that AI rhetoric can distort valuations when sentiment outruns earnings quality or product differentiation. Adobe’s price action will likely hinge on how management communicates strategy around AI-enabled products and how investors interpret growth opportunities against competitive dynamics. Analysts warn that valuations ought to reflect sustainable earnings power rather than mere narrative momentum, especially in a market rotating through slower growth or higher volatility.
The debate also touches on portfolio positioning and hedging strategies. If AI expectations cool, software equities could re-rate, while companies with robust cash flows and diversified product lines could outperform again. The market will monitor Adobe’s guidance, product refresh cycles, and AI-driven monetisation milestones to assess whether the pullback is a temporary mispricing or the start of a broader re-rating of software valuations. Near-term price impulses will reflect earnings commentary and external AI sentiment.
Investors should watch for any changes in capital allocation, buyback activity, and commentary on competitive positioning in cloud, creative software and enterprise offerings. The narrative around AI remains a powerful driver of expectations, but it must be grounded in executable strategy and concrete performance. Adobe’s trajectory will therefore be a litmus test for how market participants reconcile AI optimism with disciplined valuation.