Bankrupt retailer Big Lots said Friday it struck an 11th-hour deal to save hundreds of its stores via a sale to Gordon Brothers and Variety Wholesalers.
Why it matters: The Columbus, Ohio-based company had about 27,700 employees and more than 1,300 stores in 48 states when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September.
Last Friday, the company said its restructuring plans had collapsed and it would have to liquidate all its stores.
Zoom out: Big Lots said Variety Wholesalers would take over somewhere between 200 and 400 locations, which will keep the Big Lots name; and up to two distribution centers.
Variety operates chains including Roses, Maxway and Bargain Town.
Yes, but: The deal that saves stores gives no guarantee on jobs.
In a statement, Big Lots said Variety "may" employ current associates at the saved facilities.
The deal still has to be approved by the bankruptcy court.
Honda and Nissan face a litany of difficult decisions about their competing vehicles and overlapping U.S. manufacturing jobs if they move forward with a merger.
Why it matters: A combination of Honda and Nissan — formerly fierce competitors — would create the world's third-largest automaker by vehicle sales behind Toyota and Volkswagen.
It would also raise concerns about plant consolidation for two companies that have invested heavily in U.S. manufacturing.
Driving the news: The Japanese automakers confirmed Monday that they are aiming for a merger via a joint holding company.
They plan to sign an agreement by June 2025 and get shareholder approval by April 2026.
Between the lines: Honda is the bigger and healthier of the two and would appoint a majority of the holding company's board, the automakers said.
The proposal comes as Nissan is urgently cutting costs, having fallen behind in the global EV race, while both companies are struggling in the bruising Chinese automotive market.
The companies said in a statement they expect to standardize their vehicle platforms, "optimize" their manufacturing footprints, "create stronger products, reduce costs, enhance development efficiencies, and improve investment efficiencies."
The intrigue: In a press conference in Japan, Honda's CEO was forced to fend off suggestions his company "was being railroaded into a deal by Japanese officials concerned about the survival of Nissan," the Wall Street Journal wrote.
"This is not a rescue," Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe said, though the WSJ said he "struggled when asked what attracted him to Nissan as a partner."
Reality check: A deal, no matter the terms, poses vexing questions.
Which vehicles will survive? Their vehicle lineups are not complimentary — indeed, there's significant overlap. In the U.S., for example, the Honda Accord competes with the Nissan Altima in the sedan segment, while the Honda CR-V competes with the Nissan Rogue in the crossover category.
Will they cut jobs in the U.S.? Honda has more than 23,000 workers at 12 factories in the U.S., while Nissan has some 15,000 workers at three plants here. The companies said they "anticipate ... optimizing their manufacturing plants." Honda's factories are heavily concentrated in Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama, while Nissan's are located in Tennessee and Mississippi.
How will a merger help them compete in China? Chinese automakers are exerting extraordinary pressure on their competitors in the EV space. A combined Honda-Nissan would have greater scale to compete in China, but Mibe reportedly said at the press conference there wouldn't be any significant merger benefits until 2030.
Can they avoid culture clash? Honda is known for its high quality standards and commands higher prices than Nissan, which has shown more willingness to discount vehicles in the past.
The bottom line: Making this a good fit will require some heavy lifting.
If Elon Musk can effectively veto a congressional budget deal, imagine how much influence he might wield over more arcane policy issues affecting his pantheon of business interests.
Why it matters: The incoming Trump administration and Congress could soon take action on a litany of regulatory matters and spending affecting the self-proclaimed First Buddy's business empire, including self-driving cars, space and AI.
Catch up quick: Musk on Wednesday played a central role in scuttling a bipartisan House spending bill meant to avoid a government shutdown.
Axios' Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen called it "a breathtaking preview of the new power centers that will rewire Washington."
The move came after Trump already appointed Musk to jointly lead the informal Department of Government Efficiency, which is promising to slash federal spending and regulations.
The big picture: The reality that Musk is capable of turning his political influence into action suggests that investors have been right to believe that his companies will benefit from a Trump administration and Republican Congress.
Musk's net worth has climbed by nearly $200 billion since Election Day to $458 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
What to watch for: His influence could play out in a variety of ways:
Tesla — and other autonomous vehicle companies — would benefit from a national regulatory framework for self-driving cars, rather than the patchwork of rules that currently exists.
SpaceX would benefit from a continued flow — or perhaps even an increase — in federal funding for its interstellar endeavors.
xAI, Musk's increasingly valuable startup, could be affected by any Congressional action — or, perhaps more significantly, inaction — on AI regulation.
Musk's attorney also claimed last week in a letter that the agency has "reopened" a probe into Neuralink, Musk's neurotechnology startup.
The bottom line: After Musk wielded a cudgel with the federal budget, there's no reason to believe he won't deploy a pencil and eraser to federal regulations.
Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan are reportedly in talks about a merger in a deal that would combine two household names.
Why it matters: Nissan is urgently cutting costs, while both companies are struggling to compete on electric vehicles and in the bruising Chinese automotive market.
Driving the news: Honda and Nissan are weighing a deal in which they would both be placed into a holding company, Japanese newspaper Nikkei reported.
The two companies would be "joining their resources to better compete against Tesla and Chinese electric vehicle makers in a rapidly changing automobile industry," according to Nikkei.
What they're saying: Representatives of Nissan and Honda issued nearly identical statements in response to Axios' request for comment.
Neither company denied the news, saying that they had not announced anything but that they are "exploring various possibilities for future collaboration," as first announced in March.
The companies are already working together on EV technologies including batteries.
Zoom in: Such a deal could be aimed at stopping the bleeding at Nissan, which recently announced 9,000 global job cuts and plans to shed a fifth of its global production capacity.
Nissan described the cuts as "urgent measures" in a bid to return to profitability.
Nissan has struggled to regain momentum following the dramatic ouster of Carlos Ghosn, who became an international fugitive after his escape from custody in Japan five years ago.
Honda's troubles are not as immediate as Nissan's, but the company faces the same competition that's confronting Nissan and the rest of the global auto industry in China.
Known for its high-quality production and resistance to discounts, Honda recently announced plans to collaborate with General Motors on vehicle development.
The bottom line: "This marks the end of an era," Dunne Insights auto analyst Michael Dunne said on X. "A forever fiercely independent Honda bends to hard new realities. Not because they want to but because they have to."
The Biden camp is scrambling to finalize new business regulations, including rules affecting ticket sellers, automakers and banks.
Why it matters: With barely over a month to go before leaving office, the administration is aiming to follow through on a litany of policy promises.
The latest: A rule banning junk fees was finalized Tuesday after a 4-1 vote by the FTC.
A rule finalized Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires automakers to implement a new back-seat seat belt warning system by September 2027, and to strengthen front-seat warnings.
And the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week finalized a new rule capping overdraft fees at large banks.
And don't chalk this up to procrastination. Through October 2024 — meaning before this lame-duck session of rules — the Biden administration had published 292 "economically significant" rules, according to George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center.
What we're watching: That's a large number facing the incoming Trump administration, which has promised to roll back many of the rules implemented over the last four years.
For example, Tuesday's junk fees ban — which forces companies to disclose previously hidden fees upfront when consumers are making purchase decisions — has "overwhelming, bipartisan support," according to pollster Morning Consult.
The bottom line: Once new rules are finalized, it becomes politically complicated to reverse them — but that doesn't mean the Trump administration won't try.
Driving the news: UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty — who was Thompson's boss — wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Friday that the company recognizes "the health system does not work as well as it should, and we understand people's frustrations with it."
"No one would design a system like the one we have. And no one did. It's a patchwork built over decades. Our mission is to help make it work better," Witty wrote.
He added: "We are willing to partner with anyone ... to find ways to deliver high-quality care and lower costs."
UnitedHealthcare is a division of UnitedHealth Group.
The op-ed marks Witty's first public comments about the nation's reaction to Thompson's death.
Luigi Mangione, 26, was charged with shooting and killing Thompson outside a Hilton hotel in midtown Manhattan.
In his op-ed, Witty said UnitedHealth Group is "struggling to make sense of this unconscionable act and the vitriol that has been directed at our colleagues who have been barraged by threats."
"No employees — be they the people who answer customer calls or nurses who visit patients in their homes — should have to fear for their and their loved ones' safety," he wrote.
Thompson, he said, "pushed us to build dedicated teams to help the sickest people navigate the health system" and "fought for preventive health and quality health outcomes rather than simply adding ever more tests and procedures."
General Motors CEO Mary Barra said Wednesday the automaker is aligned with President-elect Trump's goal of boosting American manufacturing, despite tensions with him when he was first in the White House.
Why it matters: Trump is expected to pursue a wide range of policies that would directly affect the auto industry.
Driving the news: In an interview with Axios' Joann Muller at an Automotive Press Association event in Detroit, Barra addressed several policy issues:
She said there's "ample room" to streamline the environmental permitting process, which Trump has pledged to do.
On the Biden administration's vehicle emissions targets — which Trump is expected to roll back — she said that "getting to some of the standards that are set right now are going to be challenging."
She said a federal regulatory framework for self-driving cars — which advocates hope the Trump administration will pursue at Elon Musk's suggestion — would be better than a state-by-state patchwork of regulations.
"I'm actually looking forward to working with with the president and with the administration, because I think we can grow the importance of the auto industry and manufacturing, and so I think there's a lot that we have in common," Barra said.
"It could have a very substantial impact" on GM, Barra said.
But she said she heard that conversations between Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican officials have been productive: "I think they're understanding the implications."
She emphasized Wednesday that the company is still pursuing autonomous vehicle technology but doesn't want to operate a fleet of robotaxi vehicles, especially considering that "this is one of the biggest technological challenges" of our time.
"We're taking a different path," she said. "I hope you see we're being proactive in making decisions."
Flashback: During his first term, Trump blasted GM for a wide assortment of reasons, including the company's job cuts, plant closures and China strategy.
Corporate America is poised to get more reclusive following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, shielding their executives from the spotlight based on concerns over physical and digital threats.
The big picture: Thompson's murder illustrates the serious dangers facing business leaders who find themselves regularly enveloped in public scorn over their company's actions.
State of play: Since Thompson was shot by a masked man outside a Hilton hotel in New York City on Wednesday morning, companies are bulking up on executive security and scrubbing their websites of executive names.
UnitedHealthcare "removed a page from its website listing the rest of its executive leadership, and several other health insurance companies have done the same, hiding the names and photos of their executives from easy public access," technology journalism site 404 Media reported.
Others that have made similar moves include Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. Anthem had come under scrutiny as critics assailed its recent decision to limit coverage of anesthesia — a move it reversed on Thursday.
And Centene Friday scrapped its planned in-person investor day next week in New York in favor of a virtual event.
Yale management expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who runs an annual summit called the Chief Executive Leadership Institute, told the NYT he has been deluged with calls about safety at the next edition of his event this month.
At Premier, a $2 billion market-cap health care company in North Carolina, executives are formulating plans to bolster security: "Where it makes sense," chairman Rich Statuto said, responding to a question at its annual shareholder meeting Friday. "I don't think we want to overreact, but we do want to make sure all our senior executives and any of our employees are kept safe."
Threat level: Part of the challenge of protectingexecutives for publicly traded companies is that their public appearances are often known in advance.
Disclosure rules require publicly traded companies to provide certain details about their public events, including investor conferences like the one Thompson was headed for when he was killed.
It was not a secret that Thompson would be there — but he had no bodyguard when he was shot repeatedly in the back and leg.
Context: Fearing for the safety of their leaders, S&P 500 companies had already been boosting security before the Thompson shooting.
S&P 500 companies spent a median of $98,069 on executive security benefits in 2023, up from $47,643 in 2021, compensation tracker Equilar tells Axios.
"From the left and the right we've seen the frightening, uncanny conversion of angry and deranged people," Sonnenfeld told NYT. "Leaders in the corporate world are convenient targets."
Expect that spending growth to continue.Thompson's murder was "a very difficult wake-up call . . . a lot of security leaders in these organizations are getting attention on things that they were talking about for a while," Brian Stephens, senior managing director with consultancy Teneo's security risk advisory practice, told FT.
What to watch for: Whether companies begin to more actively track and respond to threats that pop up on social media.
"We expect in the future for executive protection and digital executive protection to play a larger role in safeguarding the leadership and their families at prominent companies," Chris Pierson, CEO of security services firm BlackCloak, tells Axios.
Firms that provide security to executives are bracing for an influx of calls after the head of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot and killed yesterday in what appeared to be a targeted attack in midtown Manhattan.
Why it matters: It's not uncommon for high-profile executives to hire security guards. Thompson, however, was a relative unknown and had no protection.
"I'm just shocked the guy didn't have a protective detail," says Michael Julian, CEO of MPS Security & Protection.
Thompson's wife told NBC News that he had received threats, but it was unclear if they were related to the incident.
No executives at UnitedHealth received any personal security or protection benefits, per Bloomberg.
By the numbers: Nearly 28% of S&P 500 firms disclosed spending on security for at least one top executive from 2021 to 2023, per Equilar data cited by Bloomberg.
Zoom in: Other experts said it wasn't that surprising Thompson was unguarded. Not all companies want to pay for protection, particularly if the executive isn't a widely recognized person.
Famous billionaire CEO types, like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, pay millions for security coverage — or, rather, their companies do.
Top execs are walking around Manhattan all day long unprotected, Glen Kucera, president of Enhanced Protection Services at Allied Universal, tells Axios.
After an incident like this, he typically gets flooded with requests (and said the calls had already started coming in).
If a year goes by without incident, companies will typically call off the guards.
How it works: Security can mean 24/7 protection from an armed detail that extends to family members, or a more targeted approach where an executive is accompanied on travel to more dangerous locations or high-profile events.
About 95% of what these firms do is provide "visual deterrence," says Kucera. Just the sight of armed bodyguards near an executive is enough to scare away potential attackers.
Although sometimes it doesn't work. When Bill Gates was hit in the face with a pie back in 1998, he was accompanied by security guards.
Threat level: Threats against corporate executives are especially common with consumer-facing companies in areas like travel, transportation and retail, Chris Pierson, CEO of security firm BlackCloak, tells Axios.
These are areas where people have deep personal connections and grievances. Certainly, health care is in that club. The sector has grown increasingly troubled by violent incidents in recent years — though these episodes typically occur at hospitals or other medical settings.
Threats are also common in controversial sectors. For example, the CEO of a weapons manufacturer hired Julian's firm during the height of the Afghanistan war.
"The CEO, who gets the coffee every morning at Starbucks at the exact same time, started seeing the same exact vehicle at the same time, and then he followed her, and she freaked," he says. They covered her 24/7 after that, driving the CEO everywhere she went.
Adding to the challenge of protecting corporate executives is that publicly traded companies are required to disclose certain details about their public events, including investor conferences where leaders will make appearances, Pierson says.
The bottom line: Even the best security isn't foolproof. If someone is intent on causing harm, it's not always possible to stop them.
The CEO of insurance company UnitedHealthcare was shot and killed in a broad daylight attack in New York City early Wednesday.
What's happening: Brian Thompson, 50, who led the insurance division of UnitedHealth Group, died after a masked man fired at him repeatedly outside of a midtown Manhattan Hilton around 6:40 a.m.
The NYPD confirmed Thompson was shot and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. No arrests have been made, and the investigation is continuing.
Thompson's wife told NBC News he had been receiving threats, possibly related to health-care coverage.
NYPD released these images of the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The photo on the left shows the gunman aiming at Thompson and the photo on the right shows him fleeing on an electric bike. Photos: NYPD
What they're saying: "We are deeply saddened and shocked at the passing of our dear friend and colleague Brian Thompson," UnitedHealth Group said in a statement.
"Brian was a highly respected colleague and friend to all who worked with him. We are working closely with the New York Police Department and ask for your patience and understanding during this difficult time. Our hearts go out to Brian's family and all who were close to him."
Thompson was in New York to participate in a UnitedHealth Group investor conference at the Hilton hotel.
He left his hotel across the street without a security guard and was heading to the investor conference when the gunman approached him and shot him in the back, NYPD chief of detectives Joseph Kenny said at a news conference.
After the shooting, the suspect fled on foot, hopped on an electric Citi Bike and rode into Central Park, Kenny said.
The NYPD is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the suspect's arrest.
"It does appear that the victim was specifically targeted," Kenny said. "This does not appear to be a random act of violence."
Thompson led UnitedHealthcare, which is part of UnitedHealth Group, whose CEO is Andrew Witty.
UnitedHealth Group is the country's largest health insurer by market share, and UnitedHealthcare made up about 54% of the parent company's revenue in its most recent quarter.
The investor conference was suspended after the shooting.
Thompson joined UnitedHealth Group in 2004 and gradually climbed the ranks at the company, becoming CEO of UnitedHealthcare in April 2021, according to his LinkedIn account.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with details on Thompson's killing.
A Delaware judge's ruling rejecting Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package— for the second time — is but a small setback for his finances as his net worth soars in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's electoral triumph.
Why it matters: Musk was already the world's richest person before the election, and now his pocketbook and his power are getting even bigger.
His net worth is now estimated at $353 billion, up $91 billion over the last month, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
The big picture: Conveniently seen as the First Buddy to Trump after opening his personal coffers for campaign purposes, Musk is positioned to directly influence federal spending and regulation.
And as investors have signaled, that's likely to benefit Musk and his expansive business empire.
Case in point: Tesla — which would benefit from a federal regulatory framework for self-driving cars — has seen its share price jump about $100, or 40%, since the election.
SpaceX — which needs to maintain a steady flow of federal contracts — is reportedly poised to sell shares in a deal that would value the company at $350 billion, up nearly $100 billion in a month.
On a personal level, Musk would benefit from getting the Securities and Exchange Commission off his back after years of tussling with the agency.
And he's co-leading a government-slashing effort alongside Vivek Ramaswamy dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, giving him influence over what is and is NOT excised from the federal budget.
The Tesla pay ruling is a setback for Musk's finances, however — at least in the near term.
Catch up quick: Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled Monday that a recent Tesla shareholder vote endorsing Musk's pay package — originally valued at $56 billion and now worth some $100 billion — does not change her original ruling invalidating it.
She had initially dismissed the compensation deal in January, saying Musk had failed to prove it was fair and properly disclosed to shareholders when it was first announced in 2018.
Tesla on Monday night vowed to appeal, saying "this ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners – the shareholders."
Musk Tuesday called McCormick "a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge."
What's next: The ruling means the pay package ceases to exist for now.
Tesla will almost surely attempt to replace it if it can't get the package reinstated on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
But creating a new compensation plan could come with unintended ramifications such as "higher costs," "greater dilution" of shares and "tax consequences," University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School business law professor Jill E. Fisch tells Axios.
Zoom out: Don't expect Musk to take a big financial hit, no matter how this works out.
The Tesla board has shown it'll do whatever it takes to keep Musk happy.
SpaceX's whopping valuation jump in recent weeks suggests that investors believe the company is poised for a windfall in federal business.
The bottom line: Trump's victory has been a phenomenal development for Elon Musk's finances.
A Delaware judge ruled Monday that a Tesla shareholder vote endorsing a $56 billion pay package for Elon Musk does not change her original ruling invalidating the compensation plan.
Why it matters: Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick dismissed the compensation deal in January, saying Musk had failed to prove it was fair and properly disclosed to shareholders when it was first announced in 2018.
Driving the news: McCormick on Monday rejected Tesla's request to authorize the package after the company's shareholders formally endorsed it in a non-binding vote in June.
She said Musk's attorneys made an argument with multiple "fatal flaws," including their argument that the shareholder vote was enough to validate the pay package after the fact.
"The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law," McCormick said in her ruling.
The other side: Musk did not respond to a request seeking comment, but he has repeatedly ripped Delaware since the original ruling.
"Companies should get the hell out of Delaware," he said on his platform X in August.
Zoom in: The judge also ordered Tesla to pay $345 million in fees and fund reimbursement to shareholder attorneys.
"We hope that the Chancellor's well-reasoned decision will end this matter for the shareholders of Tesla," the plaintiff's attorneys at law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann said in a statement. "However, if defendants choose to further delay implementation of this judgment by appealing it, we look forward to the privilege of defending the Court's thoughtful and well-grounded opinions on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court."
What to watch for: Whether Tesla appeals or decides to arrange a new compensation plan for Musk.
Walmart is on a roll, reeling in shoppers who previously spurned the retailer, pounding rival Target and mounting a serious challenge to Amazon's digital turf.
Why it matters: Already the world's biggest company by revenue, Walmart is nonetheless growing and transcending its previously down-market reputation.
And the holiday shopping season — including the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend — poses an opportunity for the company to capitalize further on its rip-roaring momentum.
The big picture: The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer is expanding its appeal beyond middle America, mirroring the same sort of realignment sweeping through American politics and culture.
In the same way that more educated, blue-state Americans gave Donald Trump a second look during the 2024 election, many high-income shoppers — who previously might've shopped elsewhere — are flocking to Walmart's 4,600 U.S. stores.
75% of Walmart's market share gains in the last quarter came from households earning more than $100,000 a year, the company said.
The "sniffiness" with which many in the "chattering class" once treated Walmart has faded, as GlobalData retail analyst Neil Saunders put it to Axios.
State of play: Faced with soaring prices in recent years, many shoppers have been deal hunting — including wealthier folks.
During the inflation crisis, the company wielded its size and savvy to keep a lid on prices — and now that inflation is back to normal, the retailer is still winning over shoppers who are seeking out affordable groceries and sharp general merchandise.
Between the lines: It doesn't hurt that rival Target is flailing, having posted same-store sales declines in four of the last six quarters. The Wall Street Journal wrote Tuesday about Target's "slide from cheap chic to dull chore."
At the same time, Walmart's increasingly competitive e-commerce division is making it more appealing to higher-income buyers, CFRA Research analyst Arun Sundaram tells Axios in an email. And its stronger assortment of general merchandise is making a dent as well.
"Walmart sells more groceries and everyday essentials, while Target sells more discretionary goods," Sundaram says. "In this environment, consumers are shifting more of their budget to needs rather than wants."
And in another rich-get-richer development, Walmart is suddenly reaping meaningful revenue from advertising on its website, with product sellers eager to sponsor listings to snatch buyers — a page directly out of Amazon's playbook.
"These are much higher margin revenue streams than the goods Walmart sells inside its stores and online," Sundaram says.
The intrigue: Walmart said Monday it will pull back on diversity initiatives and remove some LGBTQ merchandise from its website, CNBC reported, a move that could have repercussions for that blue-state growth.
The bottom line: Walmart's stock was up 68% for the year through Monday, while Amazon was up 34% and Target was down 9%.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with details on Walmart's DEI initiatives.
Spirit Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday after the budget airline's merger efforts collapsed and its losses spiraled out of control.
Why it matters: The company's yellow planes became a symbol of ultra-low-cost travel, but it lost hundreds of millions of dollars struggling to make that strategy work.
Driving the news: Spirit plunged into bankruptcy after a $3.8 billion deal to sell itself to JetBlue was blocked by a federal judge and after previous efforts to combine with rival Frontier Airlines fell apart.
The ultra-low-cost carrier is hoping to survive bankruptcy as a more sustainable company, just as American Airlines and United Airlines did in the past.
The company said its reorganization plan had the support of a super-majority of bondholders and that it expects to emerge from bankruptcy quickly.
Tickets, credits and loyalty points can be used as normal, and customers can continue to book future flights, the company said.
What they're saying: "There is a good chance Spirit emerges in better financial health and could attract private equity investment to help along the way," PitchBook senior analyst for industrials Jim Corridore wrote Monday.
The big picture: Spirit has been bleeding cash for years.
The company lost money in 17 of its last 18 quarters, including about $336 million in the first half of 2024.
It racked up $3.6 billion in debt, which it plans to restructure $1.64 billion and cut nearly $800 million.
Zoom out: With more than 21,000 employees and contractors — including 3,400 pilots and 5,800 flight attendants — Spirit has offered cheap fares by squeezing passengers together via "high-density seating," CFO Fred Cromer said in a court filing.
The company operates a fleet of 213 Airbus aircraft — all in the A320 family of jets — of which 162 are leased, according to a court filing.
Between the lines: Spirit added market share in the aftermath of the pandemic by "aggressively adding to capacity" but the move was fueled by debt, and operating costs increased, Peter McNally, an analyst at market research firm Third Bridge, wrote in a research note.
At the same time, other carriers added capacity as well, leading to excess capacity throughout the industry, he added.
The added capacity, coupled with increased labor costs, led to a downward spiral as Spirit fell behind its mainline competitors.
In recent years, competitors have been swiping customers from Spirit by offering cheaper fares, while inflation has taken a toll on Spirit's margins.
"With excess capacity in the domestic market, the major carriers can offer more competitive fares," McNally added.
The intrigue: The bankruptcy comes after the Biden administration hailed the demise in March of Spirit's deal to sell itself to JetBlue.
Attorney General Merrick Garland argued at the time that the deal would lead to "higher fares and fewer choices" for customers — and a federal judge agreed.
Spirit CEO Ted Christie argued at the time that the deal "would save hundreds of millions for consumers and create a real challenger to the dominant Big 4 U.S. airlines."
What we're watching: Whether Spirit attempts to revive a deal with JetBlue or Frontier once President-elect Trump takes office.
Why it matters: The richest person in the world has devoted considerable time lately to his newfound alliance with President-elect Trump, but in the meantime, his companies are attracting a deluge of capital.
Driving the news: Musk's artificial intelligence startup xAI, maker of the chatbot Grok, is raising up to $6 billion at a $50 billion valuation, CNBC reported today.
The fund-raise, which kicked off before the election, would double the valuation received in a separate round earlier this year.
Musk's SpaceX, meanwhile, is prepping a tender offer that would value the rocket company at more than $250 billion, up from $210 billion earlier this year, the Financial Times reported.
The public markets have been kind too.
Tesla stock has been on a roll since Trump was reelected, jumping more than 25% since closing at $251.44 on Nov. 5, adding around $225 billion of market value.
At least one analyst has suggested that Tesla take advantage of the post-election exuberance by selling new shares.
💭 Nathan's thought bubble: The Musk-Trump alliance is likely giving investors confidence that the government won't get in the way of the growth ambitions of Musk's business empire.
Yes, but: X is a lone exception. Since Musk bought it two years ago, one existing investor, Fidelity, has marked its value down by 79% amid an advertiser exodus.
The bottom line: Investors don't seem concerned about whether Musk might be stretched too thin — quite the opposite.
The Trump administration is reportedly expected to pursue the demolition of electric vehicle tax credits that provide discounts of up to $7,500 on new EVs.
Why it matters: Those incentives have encouraged EV adoption at a time when climate advocates say it's critical to transition away from fossil fuels. But Trump has bashed the credits, which were included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Driving the news: Trump wants to kill the credits as "part of broader tax-reform legislation," Reuters reported Thursday, citing Trump transition team sources.
Analysts say Tesla is best positioned to thrive in an environment without incentives because it's already making EVs profitably and its competitors are more reliant on the credits.
"Some may think Tesla CEO Elon Musk serving as a Trump advisor will help keep EV credits, but we think Elon wants the government out of EVs as much as possible," Morningstar analyst David Whiston wrote after the election.
"EV tax credits getting pulled" would be "a negative for the industry" but "bullish for Tesla," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives writes. "Tesla has the scale and scope that is unmatched in the EV industry and this dynamic could give Musk and Tesla a clear competitive advantage."
Musk and a Trump transition spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
What to watch: Many Republicans on Capitol Hill are skeptical of EVs, and some Republican members confirmed to Axios Pro that the EV tax credit is a top repeal target.
Yes, but: A wholesale repeal of the EV credit — which has spawned industry commitments to build factories, battery plants and mineral facilities in GOP districts — could be precarious.
Rep. Buddy Carter, a Georgia Republican with a Hyundai EV plant in his district, acknowledged to Axios' Nick Sobczyk that the automaker probably wants the credit to remain.
Carter was one of 18 House Republicans (most of whom will still be serving next year) who signed a letter to leadership arguing to keep the IRA's energy incentives.
What to watch for: Whether prospective buyers rush to make EV purchases before the credits go away.
Buyers under specific income limits currently qualify for discounts of up to $7,500 on new EVs and up to $4,000 on used EVs.
"EV interest will likely increase over the next few months," Edmunds analyst Jessica Caldwell tells Axios Generate co-author Ben Geman in an email. "President Trump has been vocal about potentially eliminating EV tax credits, so his victory could kick fence-sitters into action."
