Tag Archives: Saddle

‘1923’ review: Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren saddle up for another ‘Yellowstone’ prequel



CNN
 — 

The growing “Yellowstone” universe has developed a pretty clear formula, which starts with an older movie star espousing square-jawed western values, surrounding them with a younger cast and the trappings of a soap opera. With Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren saddling up “1923” takes the star quality to the next level, putting a shiny bow on a pretty basic package.

Prolific writer-producer Taylor Sheridan opens the Paramount+ series with a literal bang, framing this chapter of the Dutton family saga – joining the even-earlier prequel “1883” – with ominous narration that says, “Violence has always haunted this family. … And where it doesn’t follow, we hunt it down. We seek it.”

Ford’s patriarch Jacob Dutton isn’t looking for trouble, but he still appears destined to find it, running a massive Montana cattle ranch in the period a few years after World War I and during Prohibition, a time when cowboys ride horses into town and tether them next to parked cars.

Dutton has a problem, though, with locusts having ravaged grazing land, and cattle and sheep ranchers vying for what’s left. If there’s going to be a range war, the main culprit will be an ill-tempered sheep owner (“Game of Thrones’” Jerome Flynn), who doesn’t respect Dutton’s fences or welcome suggestions that he sell part of his flock.

At home, meanwhile, Dutton’s wife Cara, an Irish immigrant allowing Mirren to rock that accent, presides over the ranch, which includes schooling a young woman that when it comes to priorities, cattle come before her wedding plans.

“You have to want more than the boy,” Cara explains. “You have to want the life too.”

More than “1883,” “1923” represents an intriguing period, with post-war economics, the recent memory of a pandemic and the looming prospect of the Depression a few years down the road all adding to the intrigue, as touches of modernity collide with cowboy values.

Yet as with Sheridan’s other shows, while the pioneer spirit can be stirring mileage varies in terms of the peripheral players and detours. Here, those include a way-out-in-left-field subplot involving a Dutton scion, Spencer (Brandon Sklenar), spending his post-war years hunting in Africa; and a young Native-American woman (Aminah Nieves) enduring abuse at a Catholic school.

To say the series might benefit from a more focused approach ignores the way Sheridan has constructed his shows, populating Paramount’s mountain with the dreary “The Mayor of Kingstown” and more recently “Tulsa King.” The multifaceted storytelling serves the added bonus of lightening the load on his veteran stars, who provide marquee sizzle without having to be in every scene. (The durable Ford will be wearing another hat in the next Indiana Jones sequel, but his gruff character actually brings to mind his supporting role in “Cowboys & Aliens.”)

“Yellowstone’s” popularity frankly seems somewhat out of whack with its modest charms, and Paramount and Sheridan’s willingness to vigorously mine that fertile vein is going to yield diminishing returns eventually.

Just by landing Ford and Mirren, “1923” has already struck the mother lode from a promotional standpoint. And even if not all the subplots click, it’s the kind of combination that ought to keep them down on the farm for a while.

“1923” premieres December 18 on Paramount+ in the US and Canada, and December 19 in the UK and Australia.

Read original article here

Elon Musk’s Revived Twitter Deal Could Saddle Banks With Big Losses

Banks that agreed to fund

Elon Musk’s

takeover of

Twitter Inc.

TWTR -3.72%

are facing the possibility of big losses now that the billionaire has shifted course and indicated a willingness to follow through with the deal, in the latest sign of trouble for debt markets that are crucial for funding takeovers.

As is typical in leveraged buyouts, the banks planned to unload the debt rather than hold it on their books, but a decline in markets since April means that if they did so now they would be on the hook for losses that could run into the hundreds of millions, according to people familiar with the matter.

Banks are presently looking at an estimated $500 million in losses if they tried to unload all the debt to third-party investors, according to 9fin, a leveraged-finance analytics firm.

Representatives of Mr. Musk and Twitter had been trying to hash out terms of a settlement that would enable the stalled deal to proceed, grappling with issues including whether it would be contingent on Mr. Musk receiving the necessary debt financing, as he is now requesting. On Thursday, a judge put an impending trial over the deal on hold, effectively ending those talks and giving Mr. Musk until Oct. 28 to close the transaction.

The debt package includes $6.5 billion in term loans, a $500 million revolving line of credit, $3 billion in secured bonds and $3 billion in unsecured bonds, according to public disclosures. To pay for the deal, Mr. Musk also needs to come up with roughly $34 billion in equity. To help with that, he received commitment letters in May for over $7 billion in financing from 19 investors including

Oracle Corp.

co-founder and

Tesla Inc.

then-board member

Larry Ellison

and venture firm Sequoia Capital Fund LP.

Twitter will become a private company if Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover bid is approved. The move would allow Musk to make changes to the site. WSJ’s Dan Gallagher explains Musk’s proposed changes and the challenges he might face enacting them. Illustration: Jordan Kranse

The Twitter debt would be the latest to hit the market while high-yield credit is effectively unavailable to many borrowers, as buyers of corporate debt are demanding better terms and bargain prices over concerns about an economic slowdown.

That has dealt a significant blow to a business that represents an important source of revenue for Wall Street banks and has already suffered more than $1 billion in collective losses this year.

The biggest chunk of that came last month, when banks including Bank of America,

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

and

Credit Suisse Group AG

sold debt associated with the $16.5 billion leveraged buyout of Citrix Systems Inc. Banks collectively lost more than $500 million on the purchase, the Journal reported.

Banks had to buy around $6 billion of Citrix’s debt themselves after it became clear that investors’ interest in the total debt package was muted.

“The recent Citrix deal suggests the market would struggle to digest the billions of loans and bonds contemplated by the original Twitter financing plan,” said Steven Hunter, chief executive at 9fin.

People familiar with Twitter’s debt-financing package said the banks built “flex” into the deal, which can help them reduce their losses. It enables them to raise the interest rates on the debt, meaning the company would be on the hook for higher interest costs, to try to attract more investors to buy it.

However, that flex is usually capped, and if investors still aren’t interested in the debt at higher interest rates, banks could eventually have to sell at a discount and absorb losses, or choose to hold the borrowings on their books.

Elon Musk has offered to close his acquisition of Twitter on the terms he originally agreed to.



Photo:

Mike Blake/REUTERS

The leveraged loans and bonds for Twitter are part of $46 billion of debt still waiting to be split up and sold by banks for buyout deals, according to Goldman data. That includes debt associated with deals including the roughly $16 billion purchase of

Nielsen Holdings

PLC, the $7 billion acquisition of automotive-products company

Tenneco

and the $8.6 billion takeover of media company

Tegna Inc.

Private-equity firms rely on leveraged loans and high-yield bonds to help pay for their largest deals. Banks generally parcel out leveraged loans to institutional investors such as mutual funds and collateralized-loan-obligation managers.

When banks can’t sell debt, that usually winds up costing them even if they choose not to sell at a loss. Holding loans and bonds can force them to add more regulatory capital to protect their balance sheets and limit the credit banks are willing to provide to others.

In past downturns, losses from leveraged finance have led to layoffs, and banks took years to rebuild their high-yield departments. Leveraged-loan and high-yield-bond volumes plummeted after the 2008 financial crisis as banks weren’t willing to add on more risk.

Indeed, many of Wall Street’s major banks are expected to trim the ranks of their leveraged-finance groups in the coming months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Still, experts say that banks look much better positioned to weather a downturn now, thanks to postcrisis regulations requiring more capital on balance sheets and better liquidity.

“Overall, the level of risk within the banking system now is just not the same as it was pre-financial crisis,” said Greg Hertrich, head of U.S. depository strategy at Nomura.

Last year was a banner year for private-equity deal making, with some $146 billion of loans issued for buyouts—the most since 2007.

However, continued losses from deals such as Citrix and potentially Twitter may continue to cool bank lending for M&A, as well as for companies that have low credit ratings in general.

“There’s going to be a period of risk aversion as the industry thinks through what are acceptable terms for new deals,” said Richard Ramsden, an analyst at Goldman covering the banking industry. “Until there’s clarity over that, there won’t be many new debt commitments.”

Write to Alexander Saeedy at alexander.saeedy@wsj.com, Laura Cooper at laura.cooper@wsj.com and Ben Dummett at ben.dummett@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here