Bill Ackman is plotting a major two-pronged move: raise $5 billion for a new U.S.-listed closed-end fund while taking his hedge-fund firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, public.

People familiar with the plan told Reuters the two listings are intended to launch together, a synchronization meant to give investors simultaneous exposure to the new vehicle and to the firm itself.

The closed-end fund is being structured to mirror Ackman’s hedge-fund strategy but with two important differences designed to broaden its appeal: lower fees and faster access to capital than traditional hedge funds typically allow. That combination is intended to attract a wider array of investors — from large pensions and endowments to retail buyers who normally cannot get into hedge funds. Pershing’s people have discussed offering existing investors a sweetener: recipients of shares in the closed-end vehicle would also receive free shares of Pershing Square itself as part of the launch package.

Pershing Square’s management first contemplated a U.S. closed-end listing in 2024 and even moved to list Pershing Square USA, only to pull the IPO days before it was due to begin trading in July of that year. Ackman pared back earlier, much larger ambitions, plans that once targeted as much as $25 billion in capital, and the relaunch appears to be more modest and surgical by comparison. The earlier withdrawal remains a cautionary backdrop: the new effort is smaller, more targeted, and tied to an IPO of the management firm itself.

Pershing Square manages roughly $21 billion in assets today, largely through Pershing Square Holdings, the London-listed closed-end fund that has been the public bellwether for Ackman’s strategy. That vehicle has delivered double-digit returns in recent years, performance that underpins the pitch to U.S. investors who might otherwise be wary of a hedge-fund-style product.

Pershing’s recent balance-sheet moves, including a series of high-profile equity stakes and an expanded footprint in publicly traded and private assets, feed into the narrative that the firm has scale and an investable track record.

People briefed on the plan say the new closed-end fund will aim to bring in cornerstone institutional investors to anchor the deal; Bloomberg reported that about $2 billion could come from well-known institutional backers. That anchor demand would be intended to provide confidence to broader retail and wealth-management distribution at launch, and to help the new vehicle hit scale quickly — a critical factor for a fund that seeks to replicate the concentrated, activist style of a flagship hedge fund while still offering daily navigability.

Ackman has repeatedly said he wants to convert parts of his business to more permanent, institutionally accessible formats. The rationale is straightforward: converting a large, closed investor base into publicly tradable instruments can lower funding friction, reduce redemptions, and monetize the firm’s brand and investment track record. For investors, the pitch is also mechanical and attractive — easier liquidity than private hedge funds, lower headline fees than bespoke hedge funds, and a direct line to Ackman’s concentrated investing playbook.

The plan still faces material hurdles. Market windows matter for IPOs, and people familiar with the offering warned that the structure and timing could change with market conditions. The dual-listing strategy raises complex regulatory and governance questions: how to price the incentive shares, how to align the interests of public shareholders with those who will remain in the firm’s private partnerships, and how to manage conflicts that can arise when an activist manager runs both a public vehicle and a firm with separate private clients.

Pershing has been testing many of these ideas in the London market through Pershing Square Holdings, but the U.S. listing will invite a different set of investor expectations and regulatory scrutiny.

Corporate moves earlier this year show the firm’s appetite for large, concentrated wagers. Pershing Square has pushed heavily into Howard Hughes — increasing its stake substantially via cash investments and proposals to reshape the company — a reminder that Ackman still prefers to run big, concentrated positions and, when necessary, to assume active roles in management. Those deals demonstrate the kind of assets the closed-end fund might hold, and they also explain why some investors see Pershing as a hybrid between a public investment trust and an activist merchant bank.

The public reaction to the revived IPO idea will likely hinge on three things. First, the credibility of Pershing’s track record: the London vehicle has produced strong returns in recent years, and Pershing’s managers will lean on that performance to win investor commitment. Second, fee structure and governance: investors will scrutinize whether the “lower fees” pitch is genuinely meaningful after carried interest and performance fees are baked in. And third, the optics of selling free shares of the management company: regulators and long-term investors will want to see clear disclosure on dilution, voting rights, and how management incentives align with outside shareholders.

Ackman’s public personality is also part of the calculus. He is as well known for his activist campaigns as for his social media presence, a platform he uses regularly to shape market narratives and to spotlight investments. That visibility can help distribution — he has a large following on X and other platforms — but it also brings scrutiny and magnifies reputational risk if an investment goes wrong.

If the plan proceeds, it would represent one of the higher-profile attempts in recent years to bring hedge-fund alpha to a broader investor base without the classic liquidity and fee constraints. It would also mark a rare simultaneous public offering of both a fund vehicle and the management company — an arrangement that, if successful, could reset how prominent activist managers package and monetize their businesses.

For now, Pershing Square’s spokesperson declined to comment publicly, and those familiar with the plans cautioned that the numbers and timing could shift. Sources told reporters that early-2026 remains the target window for both the closed-end fund IPO and a listing of Pershing Square Capital — provided market conditions remain favorable.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has launched a probe into Jefferies’ involvement with the bankrupt auto parts manufacturer First Brands Group, the Financial Times reported Thursday.

The investigation, which is still in its early stages, is focused on whether Jefferies provided investors with sufficient disclosure regarding the Point Bonita fund’s exposure to First Brands’ debt, and whether internal controls at the bank were adequate to prevent conflicts of interest.

An SEC spokesperson, consistent with standard protocol, declined to comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation. But sources told the Financial Times that it remains unclear whether the probe will lead to formal allegations of wrongdoing.

First Brands’ Debt Web

First Brands Group, a significant supplier in the automotive sector, financed its operations through a highly leveraged and complex debt structure. The company relied on a mix of senior secured loans, subordinated notes, and high-yield credit facilities. Its capital stack included multiple layers of collateralized obligations, intercompany loans, and guarantees between subsidiaries, which created substantial opacity for investors and lenders.

In mid-2024, First Brands began experiencing cash flow pressures due to a combination of supply chain disruptions and lower-than-expected revenue from key auto clients. These operational issues, combined with a debt maturity schedule heavily concentrated in late 2024 and early 2025, triggered cascading defaults across several debt tranches. Senior secured lenders were partially repaid from collateral liquidation, but subordinated noteholders and other unsecured creditors suffered significant losses.

Jefferies’ Point Bonita fund had invested heavily in these instruments, particularly the subordinated and high-yield notes. Market analysts note that the fund’s exposure to these high-risk tranches may not have been fully appreciated by investors, raising questions about whether the bank adequately communicated the intricacies and vulnerabilities of First Brands’ debt structure.

Timeline of Key Events

• Early 2024: Jefferies initiates exposure to First Brands’ debt via Point Bonita fund.
• Mid-2024: First Brands begins to experience operational strain; early signs of missed payments emerge.
• July 2024: Investors report concerns regarding the fund’s exposure, as market rumors about First Brands’ debt struggles circulate.
• Late 2024: Multiple debt tranches begin defaulting; Jefferies’ fund faces significant mark-to-market losses.
• Early 2025: First Brands officially files for bankruptcy; Jefferies and other creditors attempt to recover collateral and restructure remaining debt.
• November 2025: SEC begins inquiry into Jefferies’ disclosures and internal controls related to Point Bonita fund exposure.

Market Impact and Investor Concerns

The collapse of First Brands has reverberated across the auto parts sector and the broader high-yield lending market. Investors are increasingly cautious about complex, layered debt structures that obscure true exposure, particularly when market conditions tighten or operational risks materialize. Jefferies’ share price has suffered, dropping over 12 percent this quarter and 27 percent year-to-date, reflecting heightened investor apprehension.

Analysts suggest that the SEC’s inquiry could have broader implications for hedge funds and asset managers invested in highly leveraged corporate borrowers. It may prompt heightened scrutiny of disclosure practices, especially for funds holding complex or opaque debt instruments. The outcome could influence market perceptions of risk and governance standards, particularly in the high-yield credit space.

While the investigation is still preliminary, Jefferies faces potential reputational and regulatory risks. The SEC’s inquiry may also influence broader regulatory thinking on how banks and investment funds manage and communicate risks associated with highly structured corporate debt, with potential repercussions across Wall Street’s high-yield and structured finance markets.

Alibaba on Thursday introduced its new Quark artificial intelligence glasses in China, marking a fresh push by the company to carve out space in a wearables market that global players like Meta currently dominate.

The headset starts at 1,899 yuan ($268.25) and is powered by Alibaba’s in-house Qwen AI model and app. Alibaba has opted for a familiar, everyday look instead of the more conspicuous visor-style designs that have defined Western rivals.

The Quark glasses resemble regular eyewear with a black plastic frame, a design choice that appears aimed at helping the device blend more seamlessly into daily use rather than calling attention to itself.

Alibaba said the glasses will be tightly woven into its ecosystem, including Alipay and its e-commerce platform Taobao. Wearers will be able to use them for functions like on-the-go translation and instant price recognition, positioning the device as an extension of tools consumers already use throughout the Alibaba universe.

Li Chengdong, a Beijing-based electronics industry analyst, said Alibaba’s strength lies in its shopping, payments, and navigation services, and that the Quark headset is designed to work more like a life assistant rather than a purely entertainment or gaming device. He added that the company is moving aggressively into consumer-focused AI after lagging competitors in the space for years.

Earlier this month, Alibaba rolled out a major upgrade to its AI chatbot.

Li said the strategy behind the glasses also reflects the company’s long-term attempt to defend its territory in an increasingly competitive e-commerce sector.

“Alibaba is not a monopoly in e-commerce,” he said. “It hopes AI can help it secure the next-generation traffic gateway.”

The new Quark glasses are available on major Chinese e-commerce platforms, including Tmall, JD.com, and Douyin. Sales numbers have not yet been made public, as the product only officially launched on Thursday.

The release drops Alibaba into a global race that is intensifying as tech companies hunt for the next device category that combines entertainment, communication, and computing underpinned by AI. Meta currently dominates the VR headset market with around 80 percent of global share through its Quest line. Apple’s Vision Pro is also in play, while Samsung, working with Google, introduced its Galaxy XR extended-reality headset in October, incorporating AI features built on Alphabet’s technology.

Alibaba is not alone in China’s AI-wearables experimentation. Xiaomi released its own AI-powered glasses in June, while Baidu has had a comparable product on the market already. The overlapping timelines underline a broader shift within China’s tech sector, where companies are racing to capture new hardware entry points as consumers migrate toward AI-driven interfaces.

Although Alibaba has historically been known for its core e-commerce and cloud operations, the Quark glasses signal the company’s attempt to embed AI more directly into personal devices. It is an area where it has been considered a step behind rivals. The company is now trying to reposition itself as a frontrunner in consumer AI, using its sprawling ecosystem of payment, shopping, and lifestyle services as its leverage.

The headset’s launch comes amid renewed pressure across China’s tech industry to find fresh sources of growth. With the battle for online retail intensifying and user attention fragmenting across platforms, major firms are seeking new hardware that could serve as the next major entry point for digital services. Alibaba is betting that AI glasses—lightweight, functional, and integrated into everyday habits—might become that gateway.

The company’s move signals that the wearables fight in China is only getting started, though it’s not clear yet whether consumers will embrace the device at scale.