Latest News
See the latest news and get GPT analysis of articles
Labour’s ‘new deal for workers’ will not fully ban zero-hours contracts 2024-05-01 19:21:00+00:00 - Labour is facing criticism over plans for a loophole that would allow employees to work under zero-hours contracts, despite the party having pledged to ban them entirely. Keir Starmer’s party is preparing to announce details of its promise to overhaul workers’ rights if it gets into power – a centrepiece of its early plans for government, but subject to fierce lobbying from businesses. Labour has repeatedly promised to ban zero-hours contracts, under which an employer is not obliged to provide any minimum number of working hours. But as part of its revised plans, although employers would be required to offer a contract based on regular hours worked, workers could opt to stay on zero hours. The move has triggered fears of a power imbalance that employers could exploit to pressure workers into accepting insecurity around pay and working hours. The IWGB union, which represents gig economy workers, said they feared anything less than an outright ban on the practice would leave scope for exploitation. “Workers are often forced to accept poor conditions and precarious contracts across sectors due to desperation and extreme power imbalances between employers and employees in the UK,” the union’s general secretary, Henry Chango Lopez, said. “This power imbalance would persist under these new proposals.” Labour’s “new deal for working people” was first announced by Starmer’s deputy, Angela Rayner. But Starmer and his chief of staff, Sue Gray, have come under pressure internally to drop the commitment to begin legislating for it within 100 days – including from some senior party figures – in order to give more time to consult on the different and complex definitions of employment status. The Unite union said Labour should “explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged”, including legislating within 100 days of power. View image in fullscreen Sharon Graham, head of the Unite union, said ‘a red line would be crossed’ if Labour did not recommit to its existing proposals. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images A Labour spokesperson said: “We see this as a central plank of the election campaign and what we hope to do when we get into government. The updates to the green paper [published in 2022] have been agreed by the National Policy Forum. That is what we will be sticking with and implementing in government. “If you choose to carry on with a zero-hours contract, you can do so. It is a right [employees will have] to have that contract, and it would not be able to be abused … The law will set out the minimum standards that are expected and that will be enforced in the way all employment law is enforced.” Other trade unions, and the TUC, are prepared to embrace the current iteration of the new deal, which Starmer has promised will not be “watered down”. But officials said they would not tolerate any further weakening of the proposals, which some business groups have been lobbying for. The TUC’s Paul Nowak said the new deal was urgently needed, adding: “We expect Labour to deliver it with an employment bill in the first 100 days.” Unison, the UK’s biggest trade union, said it was only “exploitative bosses that have anything to fear” from the changes. “Consolidating the promised measures is fine, but any watering-down of the contents won’t be,” a spokesperson said. Labour is understood to be finalising a dossier for the implementation of the new deal, combining the original proposals in the green paper and the changes that were agreed at the National Policy Forum (NPF), including on zero hours. Affiliated trade unions have signed off the proposals, apart from Unite, which abstained at the NPF vote. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said: “If Labour do not explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged, namely that the new deal for workers will be delivered in full within the first 100 days of office, then a red line will be crossed. “Labour’s vow to deliver a straightforward right of access for trade unions, and a much-simplified route to recognition and therefore the right to negotiate, is the litmus test for Unite. It’s a political non-negotiable.” Labour sources defended the changes and said “zero hours” had been difficult to define in law. “This is about how you implement the headline commitment to tackle these exploitative practices so that it works in practice and guards against loopholes,” one official said. Another party source said they recognised there could be “risks” involving unscrupulous employers, but said the legislation would also tackle that concern by creating a new single enforcement body which would mean these would not just be “paper rights”. The party is also planning to do further consulting on the legislation that will be required for its most ambitious plan, to create a “single status” of worker. Under the current proposals, the need to serve a qualifying period before gaining basic rights such as sick pay, parental leave and protection against unfair dismissal would no longer apply. However, Labour is expected to clarify that probationary periods for performance will still apply, even where workers are given day-one rights to sick pay and parental leave. The party will also acknowledge that seasonal workers will be a “different category” when it comes to the reforms. The party has held a flurry of meetings with business groups over the proposals, but the clarifications could revive criticism from the left that the party is watering down some of its more radical policies, months after it dropped its promise to spend £28bn a year on green investment. View image in fullscreen Peter Mandelson has urged Starmer not to remove flexibility in the Labour market at a time of technological change. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA However, other trade union officials said they believed the party had seen off some of the more aggressive attempts by some business groups to weaken the proposals. “We do see this as a delivering an effective ban [on zero hours],” one official said. Starmer told delegates at the Usdaw trade union’s conference on Tuesday that he was not weakening any of his proposals. “We will embark on the biggest levelling up of worker rights this country has seen for a generation,” he told the conference. “That’s what our new deal for working people will achieve.” Asked if the plans were being watered down, he said “no” and added: “We’ve got the draft legislation, it’s ready to go, and I look forward to that moment when Angela Rayner stands at the dispatch box to introduce the legislation on the new deal that this movement so desperately needed and fought for for so many years.” Both Starmer and the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have been subject to intensive lobbying efforts from business groups, including the CBI, on some of the policies. The former New Labour cabinet minister Peter Mandelson is among those who had been urging a rethink of many of the proposals, telling a dinner last year that the party should not abandon flexibility in the labour market at a time of technological change. The details come after a series of meetings between senior Labour figures and the “B5” panel of business trade groups – the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, Make UK, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Institute of Directors – as part of the party’s preparations for government. One senior source from one of the employers’ groups said: “We’re not trying to change the grain of what they want to do. We’re just trying to say, if you do this, let’s work through the consequences together so you go in collectively eyes open.”
Union Pacific undermined regulators’ efforts to assess safety, US agency says 2024-05-01 19:12:04+00:00 - OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Union Pacific managers undermined the U.S. government’s efforts to assess safety at the railroad in the wake of several high profile derailments across the industry by coaching employees on how to respond and suggesting they might be disciplined, federal regulators say. The meddling was so widespread across Union Pacific’s 23-state network that the Federal Railroad Administration had no choice but to suspend its safety assessment of the company, the agency’s chief safety officer, Karl Alexy, told Union Pacific executives in a letter dated last week that labor groups posted online Tuesday. The company indicated Wednesday that the issue was limited to one department. Its president told FRA in a response letter that Union Pacific“did not intend to influence or impede the assessment in any way.” The agency launched safety assessments of all major railroads in the U.S. at the urging of congressional leaders after Norfolk Southern’s disastrous February 2023 derailment in eastern Ohio, and the episode with Union Pacific may prompt lawmakers to finally act on stalled railroad safety reforms. “FRA has discovered that numerous employees were coached to provide specific responses to FRA questions if they were approached for a safety culture interview,” Alexy wrote. “Reports of this coaching span the UPRR (Union Pacific railroad) system and railroad crafts. FRA has also encountered reluctance to participate in field interviews from employees who cite intimidation or fear of retaliation.” The chief of safety at the nation’s largest rail union, Jared Cassity, noted that the FRA is so small that it must rely on the railroads to police themselves and report safety issues. “To think that a company the size of a Union Pacific is willing to go to great lengths to intimidate and harass their employees, so that they’re not honest in their assessment of a company’s safety culture. That begs the question of what else are you covering up?” said Cassity, who is with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers’ Transportation Division, also known as SMART-TD. A Union Pacific spokeswoman said the railroad believes regulators’ concerns center on a message that one manager sent out to employees in his department across the railroad with a copy of the questions FRA planned to ask to help prepare them for an interview. “The steps we took were intended to help, not hinder, and were taken to educate and prepare our team for the assessment ethically and compliantly,” Union Pacific President Beth Whited said in a response letter to the FRA on Tuesday. “We apologize for any confusion those efforts caused.” Last year, the FRA found a slew of defects in Union Pacific’s locomotives and railcars after sending out a team of inspectors, and the agency is still working to nail down what caused a railcar to explode in the railroad’s massive railyard in western Nebraska. Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who cosponsored the bipartisan railroad safety bill after the East Palestine derailment, called Union Pacific’s meddling “unacceptable.” “The big railroads keep fighting efforts to improve safety,” Brown said. “We need much stronger tools to stop railroad executives from putting their own profits and greed ahead of basic safety.” Brown pledged to fight for a vote in the Senate soon on the bill that would set standards for trackside detectors and inspections that are supposed to catch problems before they can cause a derailment along with other changes. The House has yet to take up a railroad safety bill because Republican leaders wanted to wait until after the National Transportation Safety Board’s final report on the East Palestine derailment that’s expected in late June. Whited told the Federal Railroad Administration that Union Pacific plans to launch an internal safety assessment this month, as the agency suggested, because “our goal is to be the safest railroad in North America, a place we know we can get to even more quickly with the FRA’s assistance. ” But Cassity said he doubts an internal survey would be accurate because many Union Pacific workers are afraid to speak out about safety concerns. He said the prevailing attitude seems to be “move the freight at any cost,” making another major derailment all the more likely.
Nearly half of Smith & Nephew investors revolt against CEO pay rise 2024-05-01 19:00:00+00:00 - Smith & Nephew had a shareholder revolt on Wednesday when nearly half of voting investors rejected the medical device manufacturer’s plans to raise its chief executive’s pay packet to $11.8m (£9.5m). But the company’s pay policy, which will increase the maximum payout for Deepak Nath – who is based in Texas – by nearly a third, was narrowly approved, despite 43% of votes cast against the proposals at its annual general meeting in Watford. The firm is among a growing number of companies that have been arguing for an increase in executive pay to match US peers. Smith & Nephew’s chair, Rupert Soames, who is also chair of the business lobby group the CBI, has said that the proportion of revenues a company makes overseas should be taken into consideration, meaning it should not be benchmarked against UK-listed rivals. Smith & Nephew is now promising to hold discussions with aggrieved shareholders in the coming months in hopes of easing tensions over pay demands. “The board is grateful for the engagement of shareholders and proxy agencies in our extensive consultation exercise ahead of the AGM and is pleased that all resolutions were passed at today’s annual general meeting,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “We will continue to engage with shareholders and proxy advisers, and provide an update on further consultations within six months of today’s AGM in accordance with the UK corporate governance code.” Under the pay proposal passed on Wednesday, its chief executive’s pay will hit $11.8m next year if all targets are met, which would be a 29% increase from his current maximum pay packet of $9.2m. Luke Hildyard, director of the High Pay Centre thinktank, said: “The arguments for executive pay hikes on this scale imply quite a depressing view of how wealth is created – namely that it’s all down to superstar CEOs and there’s a fixed supply of them, necessitating a bidding war over recruitment and an escalation in top pay. We ought to be a bit more sceptical of some of these claims.” The revolt follows a damning report by the proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which called the policy “excessive” and said shareholders should reject the pay proposals. ISS said it had “material concerns” about the size of the rise and the structure of the new policy as it handed US-based executives more shares in the company irrespective of their performance. However, Glass Lewis, another proxy adviser, supported the remuneration deal, saying there was a “compelling rationale” for increasing pay for its US-based leaders. skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Business Today Free daily newsletter Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion The revolt took place just weeks after a shareholder rebellion at AstraZeneca’s annual meeting in April, where 35.5% rejected the company’s remuneration policy, which included a maximum £18.7m pay packet for the pharmaceutical company’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot. Hildyard said: “When companies succeed, it’s through the efforts of the workforce as a whole, not to mention the wider socioeconomic context. The people who reach executive roles do so in large part because they’ve been imbued with the education, networks and confidence that other people haven’t. It follows that businesses should invest a bit more in their wider workforce rather than lavishing such disproportionate resources on individual executives.”
Biden's effort to reclassify marijuana is a smart move 2024-05-01 18:59:17+00:00 - For over half a century, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. That designation places it in the most strictly regulated category of drugs under federal rules, and means that a drug has “high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” Marijuana’s Schedule I classification puts it in the same class of drugs as heroin. The Biden administration will finally be putting an end to this ludicrous designation, according to four sources with knowledge of the decision who tell NBC News that the Drug Enforcement Administration is expected to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug. That category is far less strictly regulated, and it acknowledges a drug’s potential medical utility. It places marijuana in the same category as drugs such as steroids and Tylenol with codeine. It speaks to how much attitudes toward marijuana have changed in the U.S. in recent years that this change could be a political win for Biden. This move is way, way overdue, but I’ll take it. It’s a rare moment of rational drug policy at the federal level, and it should help pave the path for safer, more informed marijuana use. It speaks to how much attitudes toward marijuana have changed in the U.S. in recent years and could be a political win for Biden. The Biden administration’s expected reclassification of marijuana will have a major impact on the status of the drug in the U.S. Due to its Schedule I classification, marijuana has been extremely difficult to study. The restrictions were justified in part by the absurd circular reasoning of Schedule I classification: since marijuana is officially deemed medically useless, the high regulatory bar for research has blocked the capacity of scientists to ascertain many of its medical benefits. Given that marijuana has already been legalized or made available for medical purposes in many states, we desperately need more science-backed information about safe usage, short-term risks and long-term risks as legalization increases usage. (Marijuana is far, far safer than commonly depicted in the reactionary war on drugs hysteria — no adult has ever overdosed on the drug, for example — but that doesn’t mean its effects on cognition, motor skills, lung health, mental health and so on should not be studied extensively.) Now it will finally be easier to conduct research on the drug. As NBC News reports, the rescheduling of marijuana also means “opening the door for pharmaceutical companies to get involved with the sale and distribution of medical marijuana in states where it is legal.” That could mean far more sophisticated medical marijuana products will emerge in the future. And the reclassification will also help reshape the legal market for marijuana. Currently, marijuana businesses are limited in their ability to make ordinary tax deductions because of the Schedule I classification. The reclassification will remove that restriction, meaning that marijuana businesses will be able to reduce their tax burden and operate more nimbly. That, in turn, could make them more competitive against black market operators. Some 20 years ago, a Democratic president rescheduling marijuana would’ve been received as a radical policy decision. Republicans — and many Democrats — would've hammered the president for being soft in the war on drugs and poisoning America’s youth. Today, the rescheduling of marijuana looks overdue and reasonable — and likely consistutes a minor political win. Polling indicates an overwhelming majority of Americans favor the legalization of marijuana for recreational or medical use, and this step is more modest than federal legalization. It marks an incremental acknowledgment that marijuana isn’t the hard-core drug it’s been vilified as, opens up the path for understanding more of its medical benefits, and improves the business climate for a burgeoning industry. Marijuana policy isn't a top tier issue for the public these days, but Biden's move is still likely to register with many as sensible, and a reminder of how drug policy is growing more serious in this country, even if at a glacial pace.
Trump wants to run out the clock on abortion 2024-05-01 18:54:58+00:00 - Figuring out what a second term for Donald Trump would mean for reproductive rights hasn’t been easy. He began with implausible and cryptic promises to make a deal on abortion that would lead to “peace on that issue,” then flirted with endorsing a 15-week ban. More recently, the former president pivoted again, suggesting that a single idea encompassed his thinking on the issue: states’ rights, letting red states do what they liked but doing nothing to criminalize abortion at the federal level. But in a wide-ranging recent interview with Time magazine, he provided the most revealing glimpse yet of where he actually stands — both in what he was willing to say and what remained unspoken. First, he seems to have no position on state-level restrictions, no matter how extreme. Second, and just as important, he still stubbornly refused to say anything at all when it comes to reviving the Comstock Act, a 19th-century obscenity law, as an abortion ban. It seems he wants to obscure his stance until it is too late for voters to decide what to make of his position. It seems dystopian — and difficult — for states to effectively monitor every single person who could become pregnant. Trump’s interview first makes clear that his idea of states’ rights is a kind of no-holds barred reality in conservative states. When pressed about whether states could surveil every pregnancy within its borders, he responded in the affirmative. When asked whether states could choose to punish women, he saw no reason that they couldn’t. Some of these hypotheticals may never come to pass. It seems dystopian — and difficult — for states to effectively monitor every single person who could become pregnant. Even laws punishing abortion seekers — which are now being championed by so-called “abolitionists” — seem unlikely to pass in the near term. Leading antiabortion groups reject them, even as abolitionists argue that anything less but punishing women cannot be reconciled with the idea of fetal personhood. What is revealing about Trump’s answer is that as far as red states are concerned, he thinks anything goes. That hardly means Trump will leave it to states to set their own policies. Trump’s interviewer, Time reporter Eric Cortellessa, asked the former president whether he agreed with the Life at Conception Act, a personhood-adjacent bill sponsored by some of the most antiabortion members of Congress. When Trump repeated that “I’m leaving everything up to the states,” Cortellessa asked him whether he would veto such a measure if it landed on his desk. Trump refused to answer the question, insisting that such a bill would never get through Congress. That diagnosis seems correct, but Cortellessa pointed out that for months, veterans of the first Trump administration have promised that the former president would transform the Comstock Act, an 1873 obscenity law that is already on the books, into a de facto ban on all abortions. A coalition of more than 100 conservative groups espoused this theory, contending that the Comstock Act makes it a crime to send or receive information, pills or paraphernalia related to abortion in the mail. This argument overrides nearly a century of federal precedent, but it appears to have already convinced Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who echoed these ideas about Comstock in recent oral arguments in a case involving mifepristone, a drug used in more than half of U.S. abortions. To make the Comstock strategy work, antiabortion leaders would not need to convince voters or even Congress. They would need to persuade the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority to accept their interpretation of Comstock — and would need a Trump Justice Department to enforce it. It’s not hard to see why Trump prefers to hide behind the states and avoid questions about a Comstock-based ban. Trump has dodged questions about the Comstock Act for months. In the first part of his interview with Time, conducted April 12, he pledged to issue a major statement about it within the next two weeks. That, of course, was more than two weeks ago. In the second part, conducted Saturday, Trump swore that his announcement would come “over the next week or two.” It’s not hard to see why Trump prefers to hide behind the states and avoid questions about a Comstock-based ban. If a state decides to recognize fetal personhood (and thereby functionally prohibit IVF), Trump can disclaim responsibility. Meanwhile, his campaign has been having it both ways with Comstock. While the former president beats the drum about states’ rights, his allies and proxies promise antiabortion voters that he will give them the abortion ban they have always wanted. Trump may never issue that statement about the Comstock Act, but it is clear that some voters have fundamentally misunderstood what he will do if he wins a second term. He cannot both enforce the Comstock Act against doctors, patients and drug companies in progressive states and keep the federal government out of the abortion issue. But if his campaign is successful, we will not find out which road he plans to take until after he is sworn into office — when it’s already too late.
In Latest Stunt, Airbnb Lists the ‘Up’ House. It Floats. 2024-05-01 18:54:43+00:00 - The sleek mansion in the hills overlooking Las Vegas could have been featured on MTV’s “Cribs.” But the highlight of Aubrey Garza’s weekend stay there wasn’t the palatial rooms or the marble fireplace. It was meeting her Airbnb host: Christina Aguilera. “It just felt like a dream,” Ms. Garza, 26, said. When she was growing up, her bedroom was decorated with posters of the pop star. Ms. Garza had nabbed one of the “once-in-a-lifetime” promotional stays that Airbnb has occasionally listed in recent years. The popular, if rare, listings have included not only private hangouts with celebrities but also stays in a Barbie mansion modeled on the one from the hit movie and a replica of Shrek’s swamp dwelling in the Scottish Highlands. On Wednesday, Airbnb announced that it was expanding stunt promotions like these under a new permanent category called “Icons,” featuring unusual and ambitious partnerships with brands and celebrities
Johnson & Johnson offers to pay $6.5 billion to settle talc ovarian cancer lawsuits 2024-05-01 18:51:00+00:00 - Johnson & Johnson said Wednesday it has offered to pay $6.5 billion to settle allegations that its talc products caused cancer, a key step in the pharmaceutical giant potentially resolving decades of litigation over what was once one of the most widely used consumer products in the U.S. The proposal is aimed at ending a protracted legal battle stemming from thousands of lawsuits that accused J&J of selling products that allegedly led women to develop ovarian cancer, in some cases causing their death. J&J maintains that its talc products are safe. But the company stopped selling talc-based items in 2020, and two years later announced plans to cease sales of the product worldwide. The company said the proposal would settle 99.75% of the pending talc lawsuits in the U.S. The legal actions not covered by the proposal relate to mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects the lungs and other organs. The company said it would address those suits outside the proposed settlement. "The Plan is the culmination of our consensual resolution strategy that we announced last October," Erik Haas, worldwide vice president of litigation for J&J, said in a statement Wednesday. "Since then, the Company has worked with counsel representing the overwhelming majority of talc claimants to bring this litigation to a close, which we expect to do through this plan." Johnson & Johnson made its settlement offer as part of a bankruptcy reorganization plan for a subsidiary, LLT Management, that J&J said would give ovarian claimants three months to vote for or against the plan. Attorneys for the plaintiffs dismissed the settlement offer, saying "would cheat victims legitimately harmed by talc." "We believe any bankruptcy based on this solicitation and vote will be found fraudulent and filed in bad faith under the Bankruptcy Code," Andy Birchfield, head of the Mass Torts Section at the Beasley Allen Law Firm, said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. "On behalf of our clients who deserve better, we are blowing the whistle on this cynical legal tactic and will resist it at every turn."
Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds using external tools 2024-05-01 18:47:15+00:00 - AP Technology Writer (AP) — Do social media users have the right to control what they see — or don’t see — on their feeds? A lawsuit filed against Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is arguing that a federal law often used to shield internet companies from liability also allows people to use external tools to take control of their feed — even if that means shutting it off entirely. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Meta Platforms on behalf of an Amherst professor who wants to release a tool that enables users to unfollow all the content fed to them by Facebook’s algorithm. The tool, called Unfollow Everything 2.0, is a browser extension that would let Facebook users unfollow friends, groups and pages and empty their newsfeed — the stream of posts, photos and videos that can keep them scrolling endlessly. The idea is that without this constant, addicting stream of content, people might use it less. If the past is any indication, Meta will not be keen on the idea. A U.K. developer, Luis Barclay, released a similar tool, called Unfollow Everything, but he took it down in 2021, fearing a lawsuit after receiving a cease-and-desist letter and a lifetime Facebook ban from Meta, then called Facebook Inc. With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, is trying to beat Meta to the legal punch to avoid getting sued by the social media giant over the browser extension. “The reason it’s worth challenging Facebook on this is that right now we have very little control as users over how we use these networks,” Zuckerman said in an interview. “We basically get whatever controls Facebook wants. And that’s actually pretty different from how the internet has worked historically.” Just think of email, which lets people use different email clients, or different web browsers, or anti-tracking software for people who don’t want to be tracked. Meta did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on Wednesday, The lawsuit filed in federal court in California centers on a provision of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which is often used to protect internet companies from liability for things posted on their sites. A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The lawsuit, in other words, asks the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feed falls into the category of objectionable material that they should be able to filter out in order to enjoy the platform. “Maybe CDA 230 provides us with this right to build tools to make your experience of Facebook or other social networks better and to give you more control over them,” said Zuckerman, who teaches public policy, communication and information at Amherst. “And you know what? If we’re able to establish that, that could really open up a new sphere of research and a new sphere of development. You might see people starting to build tools to make social networks work better for us.” While Facebook does allow users to manually unfollow everything, the process can be cumbersome with hundreds or even thousands of friends, groups and businesses that people often follow. Zuckerman also wants to study how turning off the news feed affects people’s experience on Facebook. Users would have to agree to take part in the study — using the browser tool does not automatically enroll participants. “Social media companies can design their products as they want to, but users have the right to control their experience on social media platforms, including by blocking content they consider to be harmful,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “Users don’t have to accept Facebook as it’s given to them. The same statute that immunizes Meta from liability for the speech of its users gives users the right to decide what they see on the platform.”
Cottage cheese and sour cream are safe amid bird flu outbreak, FDA says 2024-05-01 18:43:00+00:00 - The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday that dairy products including cottage cheese and sour cream are safe to eat amid the outbreak of the bird flu virus in dairy cows. The agency has been conducting tests on 297 pasteurized retail dairy products after findings last week showed that fragments of the virus had gotten into the commercial milk supply. The tests showed that the products didn’t contain live virus that could make people sick, the FDA said Wednesday. The new results, though still preliminary, “affirm the safety of the U.S. commercial milk supply,” Don Prater, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said during the briefing. The samples come from 38 states. In addition, the FDA has tested powdered infant and toddler formulas and found no evidence of bird flu virus. It was unclear how many formula samples were tested. Prater said the latest findings confirm that the pasteurization process inactivates the virus, making it unable to infect people. The FDA is also testing raw milk for live virus, though it strongly advises against drinking raw, unpasteurized milk. Bird flu has now been detected in 36 dairy herds in nine states: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio and Texas. Those cases appear to have all originated among herds in Texas, then spread as cattle were moved across state lines to other farms. In affected herds, about 10% of the cows show symptoms, Dr. Rosemary Sifford, chief veterinary officer at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said during the call. Most recover on their own within about two weeks, she said. Sifford said that it appears the virus spreads between cows through affected raw milk, which contains high levels of the virus. There is no evidence yet that this strain of the bird flu, called H5N1, spreads easily from person to person. But the concern is that the longer the virus spends in mammals, it could mutate into a form that does. For now, Sifford said, that doesn’t seem to be happening. “We are not seeing any changes in the virus that would indicate it is in a position to be more easily spread between people,” Sifford said. The risk to the general public remains low, said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. One person, a dairy worker in Texas, has been diagnosed with the virus since the outbreak was detected in dairy cows. The person’s case was mild and the only symptom was conjunctivitis, or pink eye. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday that more than 100 people have been asked to monitor themselves for symptoms for 10 days after coming into contact with an infected animal. Around 25 have been tested for the virus, Daskalakis said. He said there is no indication of “unusual flu activity in people, and that includes avian influenza.” But there have been reports that other cases may have gone undetected. Multiple dairy workers in Texas were sick with fevers, body aches, upset stomach and eye infections at the same time the bird flu was working its way through cows in Amarillo, Dr. Barb Petersen, the veterinarian who discovered what was making the animals sick, previously told NBC News. No hospitalizations or deaths have been reported.
The Guardian view on the cost of a cashless society: the most vulnerable will pay | Editorial 2024-05-01 18:26:00+00:00 - One of the idiosyncrasies of China’s huge appetite for luxury goods has been the high sales of man bags – a niche item in the west. Their popularity initially reflected not just the fondness of the newly rich for conspicuous consumption, but also the practical need to carry large wodges of banknotes in a country that hadn’t truly embraced credit cards. Early last decade, it was unremarkable to pay a quarter’s rent or buy a car in cash. Yet even vegetable sellers in small markets, or people begging on the streets, now use QR codes. By 2020, 98% of people in a survey said they most commonly paid using smartphone apps. The advantage, for the consumer, is convenience. For the authorities it offers not only efficiency but oversight, in a country which is battling corruption and which closely surveils its citizens. Beijing has also been promoting a “digital yuan” developed by its central bank. Now, however, it has announced measures to support the use of cash, such as ordering local authorities to make sure that markets and stores accept banknotes, aware that the reliance on payment apps makes life harder for both foreign tourists and for poorer, rural and elderly Chinese people struggling to access or adapt to new technology. China’s shift to cashless payment was particularly dramatic. But the transition is happening around the world, accelerated by the pandemic – and is raising similar concerns about exclusion. Last month, campaigners in Australia organised a Draw Out Some Cash Day to show that people still care about access. In 2021, only 15% of UK payments were in notes and coins, with the vast majority on credit or debit cards. A forecast the following year suggested that figure would drop to 6% by 2031. In fact, cash rebounded in 2022 to 19% of transactions, reflecting people’s return to physical stores, but also the impact of the cost of living crisis. Cash can help with budgeting: you can’t spend money you haven’t got. It is also easy to use: cashless parking machines are easier for those collecting revenue, but can be infuriating and alienating for users unaccustomed to them. Cutting out cash hits the vulnerable hardest: according to a 2020 survey by the Financial Conduct Authority, 46% of the digitally excluded, 31% of those without educational qualifications, and 26% of those in poor health rely on it to a “great or very great extent”. Mencap warned the Welsh Senedd that people with learning disabilities can find it hard to manage money without cash. And there are good, as well as nefarious, reasons to value its anonymising quality: women whose abortion rights have been restricted might find it life-saving. Businesses should think carefully before refusing cash payments. Governments must ensure that people reliant on cash can continue to use it: in the UK, where thousands of bank branches and ATMs have vanished, the Financial Conduct Authority now has powers to protect access. But even if the supply of notes and coins can be assured, authorities must also ensure that services accept them. The onward march of digital payments won’t stop, but cash still counts.
At 3-0 to the Brilos, the boardroom pay game has changed for ever 2024-05-01 18:18:00+00:00 - Our performance has been so bad that we must pay our executives more. If this corporate pitch for an increase in top-level rewards strikes you as laughably unconvincing, you’d be surprised. At Smith & Nephew, the FTSE 100 medical devices group whose shares were touching £20 in 2019 but are now £10, 57% of votes on Wednesday were cast in favour of the new remuneration scheme. The rebellion was large, but ultimately the company won. Instead of chasing a potential $9.5m (£7.6m) a year – he actually got $4.7m last time – the chief executive, Deepak Nath, can now shoot for $11.8m. At least the head of the remuneration committee, Angie Risley, didn’t try to disguise the severe limp in the artificial hip-maker’s share price. “We understand that some investors would ideally wish to see the financial performance meeting expectations in advance of increasing LTI [long-term incentives],” she wrote in the annual report. Yes, “ideally” the horse comes before the cart. The board’s argument was that the changes must happen now to “incentivise long-term stability”, a reference to the fact that Nath is the fourth chief executive in five years and every switch has caused what Risley calls “an increase in downstream senior leadership attrition”. So pay up if you don’t want more chaos. In other circumstances, one suspects even pusillanimous City fund managers would have kicked out this proposal. But the clinching factor was that the plan came draped in stars and stripes. Smith & Nephew is “British in listing only” – a Brilo – as the chair, Rupert Soames, puts it, because less than 4% of its revenues are generated in the UK and more than half in the US. Since most of the executives, including Nath, work in the US, home of megabucks rewards, Soames could argue that that’s the hiring pool that matters. It is, one has to concede, a point that can’t simply be ignored. The pay numbers are absurd in the abstract, but there’s no denying that the gap between boardroom pay norms in the UK and US has widened in recent years. Smith & Nephew can also point out that one of its revolving cast of chief executives did indeed quit over pay. And note that the finance director, who will continue to count the numbers from Watford, will stay on a more conventional UK package. None of which makes the sums easier to swallow. But we’ve now had three high-profile votes in which Footsie companies, against a backdrop of panic about defections from London, have played the US card as an ace and they have won every time. At the London Stock Exchange Group last month, 89% were in favour of a scheme to double the boss’s max to £13m. At AstraZeneca, 64% approved a boost for Pascal Soriot to a potential £18.7m, with implied uplifts for US-based research chiefs. At 3-0 to the Brilos (or semi-Brilos as the other two really are), there’s little point in grumbling that the system is a racket and that a chief executive, wherever he works, ought to be able to get out of bed for $9.5m a year. Smith & Nephew approached this vote from a position of extreme weakness, and it still got over the line. The boardroom pay game in the UK has changed for ever.
UnitedHealth CEO tells lawmakers the company paid hackers a $22 million ransom 2024-05-01 17:48:00+00:00 - UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty testifies before the Senate Finance Committee on Capitol Hill on May 1, 2024 in Washington, DC. UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty confirmed for the first time that the company paid a $22 million ransom to hackers who breached its subsidiary Change Healthcare and caused widespread fallout across the health-care sector. Witty's comments were made during a Wednesday hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. Change Healthcare provides payment, revenue management and other solutions like e-prescription software. The company disconnected affected systems when the threat was detected, leaving many doctors temporarily unable to fill prescriptions or get paid for their services. UnitedHealth told CNBC in April that it paid a ransom to try and protect patient data. Earlier reports had discovered a $22 million transfer on Bitcoin's blockchain, but the company had not confirmed the figure until now. "The decision to pay a ransom was mine," Witty said. "This was one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone." UnitedHealth is one of the largest companies in the world, with a roughly $450 billion market cap. Its business unit Optum — which provides care to 103 million customers — and Change Healthcare — which touches one in three patient records — merged in 2022. Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in his opening remarks that the Change Healthcare breach serves as a "dire warning about the consequences of too-big-to-fail mega-corporations." "Companies that are so big have an obligation to protect their customers and to lead on this issue," Wyden said. Witty told the committee that cybercriminals accessed Change Healthcare through a server that was not protected by multi-factor authentication, or MFA, which requires users to verify their identity in at least two different ways. He said UnitedHealth now has MFA in place across all external-facing systems. "As a result of this malicious cyberattack, patients and providers have experienced disruptions and people are worried about their private health data," Witty said. "To all those impacted, let me be very clear: I am deeply, deeply sorry." Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., held up a bright yellow copy of "Hacking for Dummies" during the hearing, saying the breach is UnitedHealth's responsibility to fix. "This is some basic stuff that was missed, so shame on internal audit, external audit and your systems folks tasked with redundancy, they're not doing their job," Tillis said. A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said that UnitedHealth discovered that a cyber threat actor accessed part of Change Healthcare's information technology network in late February. Witty said Change Healthcare's core systems are back online, though some of its secondary support functions are still being restored. UnitedHealth said in February that the ransomware group Blackcat was behind the attack. Blackcat, which also goes by the names Noberus and ALPHV, steals sensitive data from institutions and threatens to publish it unless a ransom is paid, according to a December release from the U.S. Department of Justice. UnitedHealth confirmed in April that files containing protected health information and personally identifiable information were compromised in the breach. The company said a data review is ongoing, so it could be months before the company can notify affected individuals. Witty said Wednesday that UnitedHealth is working with regulators to assess the breach and to inform people if their information has been compromised "as soon as possible." Early in March, UnitedHealth launched a temporary funding assistance program to help support providers that have experienced cash flow disruptions due to the cyberattack. There are no fees, interest or other costs on top of the payments, and providers have 45 days to repay the funds once their standard payment operations resume. During the hearing, Witty said the company has not yet asked anyone for loan repayments, and it will be up to providers to determine when their operations have officially returned to normal. Witty did not directly disclose whether UnitedHealth will provide additional support to providers who may be contending with other loans and interest payments because of the breach. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., pressed Witty to share how UnitedHealth is working to ensure something like the Change Healthcare breach will not happen again. Witty said the company plans to share what it discovers about the breach with others, adding that there's a need to focus on reducing the rate of cyberattacks on the health-care sector. "We are clearly trying to take our responsibility in this attack. We are also trying to learn from it," he said.
Boy Scouts’ police Explorer program has faced over 200 sexual misconduct accusations 2024-05-01 17:40:00+00:00 - This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for their newsletters, and follow them on Instagram, TikTok, Reddit and Facebook. STOUGHTON, Mass. — The last known person to see Sandra Birchmore alive was a police officer. He stopped by her apartment days before the elementary school teacher’s aide, 23 years old and newly pregnant, was found dead in February 2021. The medical examiner later ruled her death a suicide. The officer worked for the Stoughton Police Department, near Boston, where he first met Birchmore about a decade earlier through the agency’s Explorer post — part of a youth mentorship program run by local departments across the country. He acknowledged having sex with her when she was 15, according to a court ruling citing the officer’s text messages. That document indicates that his twin brother — also an officer and Explorer mentor — and a third Stoughton officer, a veteran who ran the program, eventually had sex with her, too. These assertions, disclosed in an internal police investigative report and through an ongoing lawsuit filed by Birchmore’s family, have sparked demonstrations and an online petition asking for further investigation into her death. The three men, who did not respond to requests for comment, have denied any wrongdoing and have not been charged with a crime. Sandra Birchmore sought direction in law enforcement. via Facebook The youth program that introduced Birchmore to the officers is among hundreds of such chapters at police agencies around the country. Created by the Boy Scouts of America decades ago, law enforcement Explorer posts are designed to help teens and young adults learn about policing. Birchmore’s case is among at least 194 allegations that law enforcement personnel, mostly policemen, have groomed, sexually abused or engaged in inappropriate behavior with Explorers since 1974, an ongoing investigation by The Marshall Project has found. The vast majority of those affected were teenage girls — some as young as 13. Lack of oversight was partly responsible for the abuse, The Marshall Project investigation found. In many programs, armed officers were allowed to be alone with teenage Explorers. In a few instances, departments minimized or dismissed the concerns of those who reported troubling behavior, records show. The officers accused of abusing teenagers spanned the ranks, from patrolmen to police chiefs. Some were department veterans cited in news articles for their community work. A handful had served their agencies for barely a year. And some were married men with families of their own. Many cases led to criminal charges. Some officers went to prison, while others received probation or weren’t required to register as sex offenders. A few departments allowed officers to keep their jobs after a reprimand or short suspension. The Marshall Project’s analysis found at least 14 departments, among 111 agencies, that had a history of repeated allegations. The Marshall Project is investigating abuse in police Explorer programs. We want to hear from you. The Boy Scouts, which sets guidelines for Explorer posts, declined a request for an interview, and did not answer questions about how it enforces its rules for police departments. Records from the Stoughton Police Department showed no evidence that Scouting leaders conducted evaluations or made sure officers were trained to spot and report abuse of young people. And the former director of youth protection for the Boy Scouts told The Marshall Project he was alarmed by abuse in police Explorer programs. In a statement, the organization said it is committed to safeguarding youth, including Explorers. “When we are made aware that a leader in one of our programs has abused a position of trust we will take appropriate measures, including removing that leader, and work to ensure that offenders are held accountable.” To track allegations of abuse, reporters examined thousands of pages of documents, including lawsuits, investigative reports, police agency records, academic studies and news articles. They also spoke with lawyers, researchers, and current and former Boy Scout officials. Reporters found abuse allegations in big and small departments spanning much of the country. In Connecticut, an officer first tried to ply a 17-year-old Explorer with compliments and a silver bracelet. After her repeated rejections, he took her into a vacant house, handcuffed her and sexually assaulted her, according to police records and her lawsuit. In South Miami, police records show a detective offered to teach teenagers about sex before he assaulted them — so often that some older Explorers warned new recruits against being alone with him. And in Porterville, California, a sergeant who led his department’s Explorer program took a 17-year-old alone on ride-alongs and complained about his marriage before having sex with her, according to a now-settled lawsuit.
Online gamblers who lose £500 or more a month to face extra checks 2024-05-01 16:16:00+00:00 - Online gamblers who lose £500 or more a month are to face extra checks from August, the regulator has confirmed, as part of a large package of measures aimed at protecting the most vulnerable customers. The extra checks come in from 30 August, and the threshold for qualifying will fall to £150 of online betting losses a month from 28 February next year, the Gambling Commission said. On 17 January, features of online casinos and poker platforms that give players the illusion of control, including “turbo” and “slam stops”, will also be banned, alongside autoplay and sounds and visuals that celebrate returns less than or equal to the stake. A voluntary ban for some features has existed since 2021. The latest checks have been introduced after the government published a white paper on gambling reform last year, which included proposals for a mandatory levy to fund addiction treatment, education and research, as well as the affordability checks and new online slot machine limits. The white paper had proposed a lower cap of £125 on monthly spending to trigger extra checks, a figure deemed “workable” by Charles Ritchie, the co-founder of Gambling with Lives, a charity that supports families bereaved by gambling-related suicide and campaigns for change. Ritchie said: “We know that the onset of addiction can be rapid and that some gambling products harm half the people who use them. So the overwhelming message from people who have been harmed by gambling is that intervention needs to be early and effective.” From August, operators will use publicly available data to identify customers who might be financially vulnerable, including those subject to bankruptcy orders or with a history of unpaid debts, but stopping short of including a customer’s postcode or job title. Using the data, gambling companies could encourage customers deemed to be at risk from harm to set a deposit limit, or in more extreme cases, limit the amount the customer spends or close their account entirely. The regulator also announced a pilot of financial assessments for customers at risk of losing large amounts in a short time. The assessments aim to cut down on instances of rapid financial loss, such as when one betting company enabled a customer to spend £245,000 in three months despite knowing that she was an NHS nurse paid £30,000, or another when a customer lost £70,000 in 10 hours a day after opening the account. Ritchie said the lack of transparency on the trigger levels for these assessments and the format of the financial risk checks was disappointing. The white paper had proposed a trigger of £1,000 in losses over 24 hours or £2,000 in 90 days. Ministers have echoed calls from the Betting and Gaming Council, the industry body for betting shops, for such checks to be “frictionless” for the consumer, using credit reference agency data rather than requesting payslips or bank statements as some operators do now. Stuart Andrew, the minister for gambling policy, said that only 20% of customers would face checks at the proposed limits and that this would take place in the background without the customer knowing. The pilot is expected to last six months. Carolyn Harris, a Labour MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm, said that the proposals were a step in the right direction, but that stronger action was needed on gambling sponsorship and marketing. Andrew Rhodes, the chief executive of the Gambling Commission, said the rules were being introduced after a consultation process with customers and other parties. “We have to get the balance right between protecting people from the potentially life-ruining effects of gambling-related harm and respecting the freedom of adults to engage in an activity that the vast majority do so without experiencing harm,” he said.
Biden forgives $6.1 billion in student debt for 317,000 borrowers. Here's who qualifies for relief. 2024-05-01 15:55:00+00:00 - Who will qualify for debt forgiveness under Biden's new student loan forgiveness plan? The Biden administration is forgiving $6.1 billion in student debt for 317,000 people who attended The Art Institutes, a for-profit chain of schools that shut down last fall amid allegations of fraud. The latest effort represents President Joe Biden's plan to tackle the nation's $1.7 trillion in student debt after the Supreme Court last year blocked his administration's plan for broad-based college loan forgiveness. The Art Institutes, which operated branches in cities including Atlanta, Fort Worth, New York and Tampa, shut down permanently in September after the Department of Education found it had misrepresented its graduates' employment rates and salaries. Hundreds of thousands of students had taken out billions in loans to attend the schools, but "got little but lies in return," U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement on Wednesday. "We must continue to protect borrowers from predatory institutions — and work toward a higher education system that is affordable to students and taxpayers," Cardona added. In a separate statement, Mr. Biden said his administration has forgiven $29 billion in debt for 1.6 million students "whose colleges took advantage of them, closed abruptly or were covered by related court settlements." In conjunction with its previously announced debt relief, the Biden administration said it has forgiven a total of more than $160 billion for nearly 4.6 million borrowers, a number that includes today's announcement. In the case of The Art Institutes, the Education Department's investigation found that the company falsely claimed that 80% of its graduates found jobs in their fields of study within six months of graduation. In reality, the figure never rose above 57%, the department said. The school also allegedly misrepresented its graduates' earnings and annualized the estimated incomes of grads who were in temporary jobs. For example, One campus included the annual income of tennis star Serena Williams, who had attended the Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, in calculating grads' average income, the department said. The Art Institutes closed suddenly in September, impacting 1,700 students, according to the New York Times. The closure came after the organization settled for $95.5 million with federal regulators, who had accused it of fraud. Other campuses operated by the school had shut down in 2019 or earlier, according to the The Art Institutes' website. Who qualifies for this student loan forgiveness? The Education Department said it is automatically forgiving $6.1 billion in student debt for 317,000 people who borrowed money to attend any Art Institutes campus on or after January 1, 2004, through October 16, 2017. Do borrowers need to take any actions? No, borrowers don't need to do anything, the Education Department said. The department will start notifying eligible borrowers on May 1 that they have been approved for their debt to be discharged. Do borrowers need to continuing making payments? The Education Department said it will immediately pause loans identified for discharge, meaning that borrowers should not have to make additional payments. "This ensures that they will not face any further financial demands from these loans during the time needed to process their discharges," the agency added.
AMD is Down 35%. Now is the Time to Buy the Dip 2024-05-01 14:59:00+00:00 - Key Points Advanced Micro Devices had a lackluster quarter, leading the analysts to lower their targets. Guidance is good and forecasts a sequential acceleration and a YOY acceleration compared to last quarter. Analysts remain bullish on this stock and see it advancing by double-digits. 5 stocks we like better than Advanced Micro Devices Advanced Micro Devices NASDAQ: AMD share prices inflated in 2023 and early 2024 on hopes for an AI boom like NVIDIA NASDAQ: NVDA. The share price is down 35% from that peak because the boom didn’t happen, or did it? Unlike NVIDIA, Advanced Micro Devices is a highly diversified semiconductor manufacturer with offsetting businesses. That is having an impact on the results and market sentiment. On the one hand, AMD is experiencing an AI boom in two of its core business. Conversely, two core businesses struggle as their end markets reset and normalize. Because those markets are working through inventory issues and are well situated for long-term growth related to AI and upgrade cycles, they may soon turn into tailwinds. Get Advanced Micro Devices alerts: Sign Up Regardless, the company’s Q1 results were solid, and so was the guidance. The outlook is for sequential improvement in Q2 and an acceleration from Q1, a tailwind today. The only problem is that results align with the consensus, which is not a catalyst for rallying. However, with share prices down 35% from the high, the tepid performance is likely priced into the market, leaving it at rock bottom. Advanced Micro Devices Sustains Growth, Forecasts Acceleration Advanced Micro Devices Today AMD Advanced Micro Devices $144.27 -14.11 (-8.91%) 52-Week Range $81.02 ▼ $227.30 P/E Ratio 277.45 Price Target $184.68 Add to Watchlist Advanced Micro Devices had a solid quarter in Q1. The problem for the market today is the high bar set by analysts and market hope going into the release. Despite the report's tepidness, revenue is up 2.2% to $5.47 million, aligning with the consensus. Strength was seen in the Data Center segment, up 80% YOY and in Client, up 85%. The data center segment is driven by demand for the Instinct and Epyc chip groups, including the MI300. The Client segment is driven by demand for the Ryzen line of processors, which is aiding the advancement of AI at the edge. Weakness was seen in the Gaming and Embedded segments, down 48% and 46%, respectively. The outlook for gaming is weak but includes normalization over the next year. The outlook for Embedded is much better - embedded semiconductor markets are expected to resume growth and sustain a mid-single-digit CAGR through the decade's end. Forecasts for embedded growth may also be cautious due to AI. Margin news is also good, albeit aligning with market expectations. The company’s margin widened significantly at the gross level due to revenue leverage. The gross margin widened by 200 basis points to 52%, with the operating margin holding flat. Operating income is up 3%, net income is up 4%, and adjusted earnings are up 3%. The $0.62 is a penny ahead of the consensus, outpacing the top line by a hair. Guidance is also favorable to shareholders, although aligning with the consensus. The company forecasts $5.7 billion in net revenue for a sequential gain of 4% compared to a contraction in Q1 and a YOY gain of 6% compared to 2.2% in Q1. The analysts expected $5.69 billion. Analysts Trim Targets: Double-Digit Upside Is Indicated The analysts are trimming their targets for AMD stock, which may cause a headwind in the near term. However, the lowest fresh target is $162, which implies a 10% upside from the post-release price action. The range of targets runs as high as $250, which is a maintained target by Rosenblatt and the highest among analysts. Most fresh targets have the stock trading between $175 and $210, a 13% to 42% upside. Analysts maintain their sentiment ratings and the consensus of Moderate Buy. The takeaway from the chatter is that supply constraints impact results in DC now but are expected to improve in the second half; with this in play, the company is in the early stages of its AI ramp and has likely sandbagged the outlook. Advanced Micro Devices Stock is at Rock Bottom AMD stock is at a critical turning point. The market is down 7% following the release but showing some signs of support at a key level. That level aligns with the prior lows and maybe the bottom for this market. The indicators suggest as much. The stochastic is set up to fire a strong buy signal should the price action rise and MACD is divergent from the latest lows, likewise set up to fire a strong signal. The question is if the market will take the bait. A move to a new low would be bearish and likely lead the market down to $134 or lower; a rebound from this level would be bullish and may get as high as $160 before encountering significant resistance. A move to the consensus target near $180 would put this market into a complete reversal. Before you consider Advanced Micro Devices, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Advanced Micro Devices wasn't on the list. While Advanced Micro Devices currently has a "Moderate Buy" rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys. View The Five Stocks Here
Biden Cancels $6.1 Billion in Debt for Former Art Institute Students 2024-05-01 14:19:30+00:00 - The Biden administration on Wednesday canceled more than $6 billion in student debt for 317,000 people who attended the Art Institutes, a now-defunct network of for-profit colleges that President Biden said “knowingly misled” students. After a review of lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against the schools and their parent company, Education Management Corporation, the Education Department found that the Art Institutes falsified job placement figures in advertisements and misled prospective students with inflated salary expectations. In one case the department highlighted, an Art Institute campus in Florida appeared to have included the tennis star Serena Williams’s annual income in its graduate salary projections after she had attended classes there. “This institution falsified data, knowingly misled students and cheated borrowers into taking on mountains of debt without leading to promising career prospects at the end of their studies,” President Biden said in a statement.
Amazon Stands Tall: New Highs Are in Sight 2024-05-01 13:12:00+00:00 - Key Points Amazon had another solid quarter, with growth in all segments contributing. AWS led with an increase of 17%, driven by more significant deals and larger clients. Analysts are lifting their targets and leading this market to a new high. 5 stocks we like better than Amazon.com The bar was set high for Amazon NASDAQ: AMZN, so the Q1 results were doubly strong. The takeaway is that the multinational retail and web services conglomerate is firing on all cylinders, providing favorable guidance, and analysts are lifting their targets. What this means for investors is that recent volatility is ending and turning into a directional movement for share prices. The simple fact is that this stock is on track to set a new all-time high soon, which is an important pivot point for the market. All else aside, the technical implications of setting new highs are enormous. In this scenario, the market will break out of a trading range that began in 2020 with the rise of COVID-19, social distancing, and the boom in eCommerce. That range has since been plumbed by a massive correction in 2022, a rebound in 2023, and a return to resistance in 2024. At face value, the range is worth $100 or more than 100%, which gives us our projections. The simple target is $100 + $185 or $285; the bull-case target is $185 + 100% or $370, above the analysts' forecast range. Get Amazon.com alerts: Sign Up Analysts Will Drive Amazon to New Highs How do the analysts fit into this equation? Very well. The forty-five analysts tracked by Marketbeat.com with ratings on Amazon pegged it as a solid buy and steadily lifted their price targets for the last year. That trend continues after the Q1 release. The two dozen revisions to hit the wires include no price target revisions or downgrades, only price target increases and reaffirmed targets above the consensus. The consensus target reported by Marketbeat.com is up 50% in the last twelve months, about 15% above the current price action. It will be a new high when reached, and the freshest targets have this stock trading in the range of $225 to $250. Assuming Amazon continues to build momentum, there is no reason to think otherwise; the trend in sentiment will continue to lead the market toward $285 and lift the consensus target. A move to $285 is worth about a 50% upside from the post-release price points. Amazon’s Impressive Quarter and Guidance Lift Shares Amazon had a solid Q1 with strength in all business segments and revenue streams. The company reported $143.3 billion in revenue, a gain of 12.5% over last year. The top line is $0.75 billion ahead of consensus, aided by an extra day in the quarter. The additional day is due to Leap Year, which added 120 basis points to the top line. Adjusting for that, comparable growth is 11.3% YOY and aligned with expectations. FX also impacted results, shaving nearly 50 bps off the organic gain. AWS led segmentally with an increase of 17%. The increase is driven by strong demand for AI, highlighted by longer-term deals worth larger sums to the business. The segment run rate is now over $100 billion annually and growing. CEO Andy Jassy says this and the other business segments are still in their early days and have ample room to run. North American sales increased by 12% and international by 10% on increases in products and services. Margin is another area of strength. The company reports improvement in the cost of sales and SG&A, which led to significant improvements in cash flow, earnings, and free cash flow. The operating and net income grew roughly 300%, with operating cash flow up 85%, FCF at $50 billion TTM (reversing a loss in the previous TTM period), and earnings of $0.98. The $0.98 may not be directly comparable due to Leap Year, but it is up 200% YOY and $0.15 above the consensus. Guidance is also favorable, with revenue growth expected to hold steady in the high single- to low double-digits. Before you consider Amazon.com, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Amazon.com wasn't on the list. While Amazon.com currently has a "Buy" rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys. View The Five Stocks Here
Arizona Senate passes repeal of 1864 abortion ban 2024-05-01 13:00:00+00:00 - The Arizona Senate passed a repeal of the state’s near-total ban on abortion on Wednesday, capping a weekslong legislative scramble to respond to the state Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling that upheld the law from 1864. The bill, which the state House approved last week, will soon head to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Hobbs said she expects to sign the bill as early as Wednesday night. Two state Senate Republicans — Shawnna Bolick and T.J. Shope — joined all 14 Democrats in the narrowly divided chamber in approving a repeal of the Civil War-era law that held the power to send a doctor to prison for providing nearly any kind of abortion care. With the support of those two Republican senators, Democrats in the chamber quickly overcame procedural hurdles and swiftly moved to vote. Bolick, in a lengthy and nuanced speech ahead of casting her pivotal vote, told several emotional stories of women who experienced major complications during pregnancy and needed care that would likely be restricted under the 1864 law — while also making clear her opposition to reproductive health groups and abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Bolick concluded her 21-minute speech, which was interrupted by lawmakers and protesters several times, by revealing all of the pregnancies she spoke of were her own. "Would Arizona's pre-Roe law have allowed me this medical procedure even though at the time my life was not in danger?" Bolick asked rhetorically at one point. She was referring to a dilation and curettage procedure she needed during the first trimester of a non-viable pregnancy she experienced. "Having a 'D and C' in my first trimester because the baby wasn't viable was very tough," Bolick said. Abortion rights groups lauded the action in the Arizona Legislature, while President Joe Bide's campaign pinned blame on the broader reproductive rights landscape in the state on former President Donald Trump, whose appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. "While Arizona Democrats have worked to clean up the devastating mess created by Trump and his extremist allies, the state’s existing ban, with no exception for rape or incest, remains in effect," Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement released by the Biden re-election campaign. Despite the heavy anticipation ahead of Wednesday's session, Democrats were expected to have the support they needed in the GOP-controlled Senate to pass the repeal. Earlier this month, members of the state Senate voted in favor of a motion to introduce a repeal bill after those two Republicans joined every Democrat in the chamber on that vote. Republican opponents of the repeal delivered their own speeches explaining their votes Wednesday. State Sen. Anthony Kern called the 1864 law "the best abortion ban in the nation" and likened Bolick and Shope to Nazi officers who sent Jewish citizens to different fates. "We have two Republicans voting with the Democrats to repeal an abortion ban, while saying, 'I'm pro-life,'" Kern said. "That's kind of like Nazi Germany where the Nazis said, 'Jews, you have something wrong with you, you go to the death chamber. You, Jews, can live and work the fields. It's wrong.'" Wednesday's state Senate session came one week after the state House voted to repeal the ban on its third attempt in as many weeks. Three Republicans joined 29 Democrats in that vote in the narrowly divided chamber, giving the measure enough support to advance. Passage of the bill by both chambers, however, does not guarantee that a repeal of the abortion law will quickly go into effect. First, the bill would still must go to Hobbs, who has said she will sign it, though Republicans in either chamber could potentially delay getting the bill to her office. In an interview with NBC News after the Senate passed the repeal, Hobbs said, "I will sign it as soon as I get it" and that her office was expecting the Legislature to transmit the bill later Wednesday. However, under the Arizona state Constitution, repeals of laws don’t go into effect until 90 days after a legislative session concludes. Arizona doesn’t have a fixed legislative calendar, meaning Republicans could keep the session open with the intent to further delay the implementation of a repeal. Last year’s session ended in late July, so if this year’s session ended at a similar time, the repeal would not occur until late October or early November. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the 1864 ban would go into effect on June 27 — not June 8 as her office initially said — citing her office’s interpretation of state Supreme Court procedural rules. As a result, the ban is likely to go into effect for a period of time, even though both chambers have now passed a repeal. Mayes said Wednesday that her office was still "exploring every option available to prevent" the law "from ever taking effect.” In addition, Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a motion Wednesday afternoon, following the Senate vote, seeking an order from the state Supreme Court that would delay implementation of its ruling until after the repeal takes effect — an action that, if granted, would effectively prevent the ban from being reinstated. Wednesday’s state Senate session is the latest chapter in the fight over abortion rights in the crucial battleground following the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling last month. The conservative-leaning court ruled that a law making abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs one or helps a woman obtain one is enforceable. The law was codified in 1901 — and again in 1913, after Arizona gained statehood — and outlaws abortion from the moment of conception but includes an exception to save the woman’s life. A fully implemented repeal of the 1864 ban would likely result in state policy reverting to a 15-week ban on abortions passed in 2022 that makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest. The continuing saga has raised the stakes around a constitutional amendment that is all but certain to appear on the Arizona ballot this November that would allow voters themselves to decide on the future of abortion rights in the state. Organizers are likely to succeed in placing a proposed amendment on the ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy. If voters approve the ballot measure, it would effectively undo both the 1864 near-total ban and the 15-week ban. But the state Supreme Court decision prompted Republicans to also discuss a series of possible contingencies, including pushing alternative ballot measures to compete with the pro-abortion rights proposed amendment. Abortion rights groups welcomed Wednesday’s news but pledged to continue building support around their ballot measure. “Though we celebrate today’s important step forward,” Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona Angela Florez said in a statement, “we know the fight is far from over.”
Chesapeake Energy Stock is The Energy Play, Earnings Confirm 2024-05-01 12:51:00+00:00 - Key Points Chesapeake stock is down after reporting first-quarter 2024 earnings, though fundamental trends keep the stock a potential target. Stockpiling natural gas inventory and wells, the company is betting that natural gas prices will catch up to crude oil. Analysts see 230% EPS growth ahead and a double-digit upside, reiterating the 'catch up' play as a reality. 5 stocks we like better than Southwestern Energy Professional traders often say that the first move is always wrong; how much traction that saying has over shares of Chesapeake Energy Co. NASDAQ: CHK is up for debate. After reporting its first quarter 2024 earnings, arguably the most critical earnings as they set the tone for the rest of the year, a decline in the stock price could be an opportunity in disguise. As the company focused on natural gas over crude oil production, Chesapeake’s financials show signs of contraction for the short term. However, over the long term, management plans to deliver over triple-digit growth in earnings per share (EPS), which Wall Street analysts certified in their official projections. Get Southwestern Energy alerts: Sign Up Driven by a global macro trend, energy stocks could be setting up for a breakout soon. Warren Buffett saw it fit to boost his own position in Occidental Petroleum Co. NYSE: OXY in the past quarter. However, oil and natural gas (typically highly correlated and tied) have now diverged to give Chesapeake the push it needs. What’s Driving The Sector? Chesapeake Energy Today CHK Chesapeake Energy $86.68 -3.20 (-3.56%) 52-Week Range $72.84 ▼ $93.58 Dividend Yield 2.65% P/E Ratio 5.15 Price Target $104.73 Add to Watchlist For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. economy is now driven by two diverging sectors. On the one hand, business services have been solely responsible for any positive rate of gross domestic product (GDP) growth this year. On the other hand, the U.S. manufacturing sector has been declining for over a year and a half, only to read its first expansionary month in the latest ISM manufacturing PMI index. Far from being the final confirmation, some on Wall Street think that the rest of 2024 could be led by manufacturing rather than services. At least that’s what analysts at The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. NYSE: GS think, as they expressed their views favoring a manufacturing breakout within the bank’s 2024 macro outlook report. Because manufacturing activity means higher oil demand, Goldman said oil could reach $100 a barrel this year. Recently, oil prices broke away from their previous $80 ceiling, reaching $90 in April to take a breather, leaving room for another potential rally. Natural gas prices, however, lagged behind during the past quarter. Natural gas futures fell by as much as 56% since January 2024, while the price per barrel rose by 18% during the same period. The Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund NYSEARCA: XLE underperformed Chesapeake by 5% over the past quarter despite holding mostly oil names. Price action would suggest that markets believe natural gas’ catch up to crude may pose a more significant potential reward. Chesapeake’s Deep Value: Wall Street’s Bet Despite seeing a contraction across the board in the first quarter, Chesapeake’s financials still show a hidden treasure most may have missed. The company’s balance sheet would show a net increase in natural gas inventories and properties of 3.1%, bringing its total value to $11.8 billion. More than that, according to Bloomberg Intelligence, Chesapeake is building up new gas wells in their latest round of capital expenditures. Up to 80 new natural gas wells are expected to be put into suspended animation by the end of 2024, to be turned on by the time natural gas catches up to oil. Wall Street analysts see the company’s EPS growing 230.1% in the next 12 months, significantly above the oil industry’s 19.3% average growth rate. Compared to competitors like Murphy Oil Co. NYSE: MUR, which is only expected to see 33.8% EPS growth, Chesapeake seems to be the right deal. Analysts at Scotiabank saw enough evidence to boost their price targets for Chesapeake up to $110 a share, calling for a 22.5% upside from today’s prices. Despite being down by 6.5% in the after-market hours following the quarterly earnings announcement, Chesapeake’s future could still be sealed. With up to 97.9% institutional ownership, Chesapeake’s investment-grade balance sheet, with no debt maturities for the next two years (according to management’s presentation), gives investors access to up to $3.7 billion of liquidity. Another thing to look out for is Chesapeake’s attempted takeover of Southwestern Energy Co. NYSE: SWN, which is yet another bet into the future of gas. Temporarily blocked by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a resolution would make Chesapeake the largest gas producer in the U.S. Despite contracting financials as the company ramps up its natural gas exposure, the first quarter of 2024 still saw enough free cash flow (operating cash flow minus capital expenditures) to sustain Chesapeake’s 2.6% dividend today. Before you consider Southwestern Energy, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Southwestern Energy wasn't on the list. While Southwestern Energy currently has a "Hold" rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys. View The Five Stocks Here