Core Viewpoint - Elliott Investment Management has taken a position in Barrick Mining and is advocating for the separation of North American assets from its higher-risk operations in Asia and Africa, which the Barrick board is now exploring [3][9][10]. Company Overview - Barrick Mining, formerly Barrick Gold Corporation, is a global mining company primarily focused on gold and copper production, with operations in various countries including Argentina, Canada, and the Democratic Republic of Congo [1][4]. - The company operates 14 gold mines and three copper mines, with significant assets in North America, particularly the Nevada Gold Mines joint venture with Newmont [4]. Recent Performance - Barrick's stock has more than doubled in the past six months, yet it trades at a price to net asset value ratio of 0.9, which is below its North American peers [5]. - The price of gold has increased by over 70%, contributing to Barrick's stock appreciation of more than 100% [10]. Management Changes - The abrupt departure of Barrick's CEO in September led to the appointment of Mark Hill as interim CEO, creating opportunities for activist investors like Elliott to influence the selection of a new CEO [6][7]. - The interim CEO status allows for the exploration of strategic alternatives, including the potential breakup of the company [8]. Strategic Considerations - Separating North American operations from higher-risk regions could help close the valuation gap between Barrick and its peers, such as Agnico Eagle, which trades at approximately 1.5 times its net asset value [9][10]. - Management has indicated that applying a peer-like multiple to Barrick's North American assets could unlock up to 49% of unrealized value [10]. Activist Investor Dynamics - Elliott Investment Management is known for its thorough due diligence and has likely held a position in Barrick for several months, benefiting from the recent stock appreciation [2][12]. - The presence of Elliott is expected to influence the board's decisions regarding the new CEO and the potential breakup of the company [11].

Core Viewpoint - Kraft Heinz's decision to split into two stand-alone companies is seen by some as a necessary move to unlock value, while others remain skeptical about its effectiveness in addressing underlying issues [1][4]. Group 1: Company Performance - Kraft Heinz has experienced stagnation in sales since the 2015 merger, with organic revenue down approximately 2% year-over-year in the latest quarterly earnings report [4][3]. - The company faces a structural decline rather than cyclical weakness, as consumer preferences shift away from processed foods towards fresher and healthier options [3][4]. - The brand power of Kraft Heinz has weakened, with younger consumers showing indifference towards traditional brands and favoring private-label products [6][7]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - Private-label sales are growing faster than branded packaged foods across major grocery channels, indicating a shift in consumer behavior [7]. - Kraft Heinz's incremental responses, such as cleaner labels and new flavors, are viewed as insufficient to drive innovation and meet changing consumer trends [8]. Group 3: Breakup Implications - The planned breakup will create two public companies, but there are concerns about execution risks and potential "dis-synergies" that could arise from duplicated functions and restructuring costs [9][10]. - While the split aims to improve focus, it may lead to chaos and low market valuations if investors perceive weaknesses in both new entities [10][11]. Group 4: Investment Considerations - Kraft Heinz's current price-to-book (P/B) ratio of 0.7 and a dividend yield of 6.6% may appear attractive, but there are concerns that the stock could be a value trap without real top-line growth [12][13]. - The long-term outlook remains challenging, as the company must innovate and recover market share to avoid declining relevance in a changing market [14][15].

Core Viewpoint - The recent U.S. District Court ruling classifies Alphabet as an illegal monopoly in the digital advertising market, which could have significant implications for the company, particularly since advertising is its main revenue source [1]. Immediate Implications - Alphabet plans to appeal the ruling, making a breakup unlikely in the short term [3]. - The company has previously divested businesses that did not align with its model, indicating a willingness to separate underperforming units [3]. - Digital advertising accounted for 74% of Alphabet's revenue in Q1 2025, highlighting its importance despite management's efforts to diversify revenue streams [4]. Business Structure and Potential Growth - Alphabet consists of various businesses, with Google Cloud contributing 14% of overall revenue in Q1, showing that not all segments are tied to advertising [6]. - Smaller companies may experience faster growth rates compared to larger entities, suggesting that segments like YouTube or Google Network could thrive as independent companies [7]. - Many of Alphabet's businesses do not disclose specific financial results, making it difficult for investors to assess their contributions [8]. Valuation of Subsidiaries - External estimates value Waymo at approximately $45 billion, indicating that it could be a significant independent entity if separated [9]. - Historical breakups, such as Standard Oil and AT&T, have led to the creation of larger entities and increased shareholder value, suggesting a potential benefit for Alphabet's shareholders if a breakup occurs [10][11]. Conclusion on Breakup Potential - While a breakup is not guaranteed, it could ultimately benefit shareholders by allowing them to invest directly in individual businesses like Waymo or CapitalG [13]. - The potential loss of advertising revenue may initially seem detrimental, but the long-term benefits of increased shareholder value from separate entities could outweigh the negatives [14].