Latest News
See the latest news and get GPT analysis of articles
FTC says prescription middlemen are squeezing Main Street pharmacies 2024-07-09 21:12:00+00:00 - Prescription drug middlemen — also known as pharmacy benefit managers — are lining their pockets by inflating drug prices, including overcharging cancer patients, the Federal Trade Commission said Tuesday. "The FTC's interim report lays out how dominant pharmacy benefit managers can hike the cost of drugs — including overcharging patients for cancer drugs," FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said in a news release. "The report also details how PBMs can squeeze independent pharmacies that many Americans — especially those in rural communities — depend on for essential care." Pharmacy Benefit Managers began, decades ago, as administrators, validating and processing pharmacy benefits provided by separate insurance plans. After years of acquisitions, that's no longer the case, as the FTC lays out in its report. PBMs now serve as vertically integrated health plans and pharmacists, wielding enormous control over the availability and cost of drugs by negotiating the terms and conditions for access to prescription medications for hundreds of million of Americans. The three largest PBMs — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRX — now manage almost 80% of all prescriptions filled in this country, the FTC noted. If the next three largest — Humana Pharmacy Solutions, MedImpact and Prime — are included, the six will oversee 94% of prescription drug claims in the U.S. All of the six largest PBMs run mail order and specialty pharmacies and one — CVS Caremark — operates the country's biggest retail pharmacy chain. Five of those six are now part of corporate health care conglomerates, including three of the five biggest health insurers in the country. Bad deal for patients The setup is a dire one for many Americans, with roughly three in 10 adults surveyed by KFF (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation) reporting rationing or skipping doses of prescription medications because of the cost. The scenario is also fostering pharmacy deserts, especially in rural parts of the country, which saw 20% of independent retail pharmacies close from 2013 to 2022. "Certain PBMs may be steering patients to their affiliated pharmacies and away from unaffiliated pharmacies," the FTC stated. Affiliated pharmacies received significantly higher reimbursement rates than those paid to unaffiliated pharmacies for two case study drugs, according to the regulator's findings. "These practices have allowed pharmacies affiliated with the three largest PBMs to retain levels of dispensing revenue well above estimated drug acquisition costs, resulting in nearly $1.6 billion of additional revenue on just two cancer drugs in under three years," the report states. PBMs and brand drugmakers at times negotiate rebates that are conditioned on limiting access to potentially lower cost generic alternatives, potentially cutting off patient access to lower-cost medicines, the FTC said. The interim staff report is part of an ongoing probe launched in 2022 by the FTC, and serves as a possible sounding board for action as U.S. lawmakers look for culprits behind the high cost of prescription drugs. Georgia Rep. Buddy Carter, a pharmacist and Republican, called on the FTC to finish its probe and start enforcement actions if and when it finds "illegal and anti-competitive" practices. "I'm proud that the FTC launched a bipartisan investigation into these shadowy middlemen, and its preliminary findings prove yet again that it's time to bust up the PBM monopoly," Carter said Tuesday in a statement. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association bashed what the PBM trade group called a biased report "based on anecdotes and comments from anonymous sources and self-interested parties" along with two "cherry-picked case studies."
2 people were injured in shooting outside a Virginia mall. They are expected to survive 2024-07-09 21:11:21+00:00 - MANASSAS, Va. (AP) — Two people were injured in a shooting outside a northern Virginia shopping mall Tuesday but were expected to survive, authorities said. Police in Prince William County said the shooting occurred in a parking lot at the Manassas Mall around 2 p.m. Two groups had an altercation and shots were fired, police said in a statement. Bystanders ran inside and alerted shoppers, causing what was described as an “initial panic.” One victim was taken to the hospital with a lower body wound, and another had a lower body wound believed to have come from a ricochet. Police said they stopped a car nearby and detained some people but were still sorting out who was involved. They said the shooting did not appear to be random and there was no ongoing threat.
Affirm's CEO opens up about the buy-now, pay-later company's IPO and why he doesn't sweat when the stock slumps 2024-07-09 21:03:11+00:00 - Affirm, a buy-now, pay-later fintech company, went public on the Nasdaq in January 2021. Max Levchin, Affirm's CEO and a PayPal alum, shares advice for founders considering going public. This article is part of "Road to IPO," a series exploring the public-offering process from prelaunch to postlaunch. Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address Sign up By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . You can opt-out at any time by visiting our Preferences page or by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of the email. Max Levchin, the founder and CEO of Affirm, always knew he would take his buy-now, pay-later fintech public. What he didn't know was the pandemic, one of the most economically uncertain times in history, would set Affirm's initial public offering into motion. "We definitely experienced a real moment where we're not yet profitable. We would need to raise money if we wanted to survive through what could be a drought in equity capital markets," Levchin said, referring to the first several months of the pandemic. As a buffer, Affirm raised private capital in mid-2020, a process Levchin said was "a huge pain" with "a ton of uncertainty." It might seem like curious timing to take your company public during a pandemic, but that's exactly what Max Levchin did. As a buy-now, pay-later company, Affirm's business model was built on the promise of repayment as it enabled consumers to finance their online purchases. The pandemic became a boon for Affirm as Americans received stimulus checks and e-commerce boomed. Levchin, wanting to ride that wave, needed more capital to grow the company. The sustained unpredictability in the private markets triggered talks of going public, but Levchin wanted to make sure that doing so was a step in the journey and not an end point. He had his doubts. "Can we head from the IPO into, 'Go faster and harder and invest even more aggressively into interesting ideas,' or would we just suddenly stall and become a slow-moving, publicly traded sort of paralyzed giant?" Levchin said. Affirm shares were listed on January 13, 2021. As the pipeline of IPOs starts to build up again, including the anticipated debut of Affirm's buy-now, pay-later rival Klarna, Business Insider spoke with Levchin about Affirm's IPO. He reflected on the decision-making process leading up to the offering, how he'd handled the peaks and valleys of Affirm's share price, and a couple of pieces of advice for founders contemplating going public. From late nights on Zoom to Nasdaq debut As a cofounder of the payment juggernaut PayPal, Levchin experienced firsthand the benefits of taking a fintech public. The process was still "significantly more work than I thought it would be," Levchin said. It wasn't uncommon for Levchin to be on Zoom with his CFO and chief legal officer at 10 p.m. with half-finished glasses of wine, jokingly asking why they did this to themselves, he said. In the second half of 2020, long days and late nights were spent auditing and cleaning Affirm's books, getting numbers and documents in order. Affirm's small IPO task force also needed to assemble critical documents, including the company's S-1 and a founders' letter. Meanwhile, its chief legal and finance officers needed to vet a long list of bankers who jockeyed to represent Affirm during the frothy, low-interest-rate market at the time. Affirm landed on three banks as the lead underwriters for the offering. Beyond having long-standing relationships with the companies pre-IPO, Levchin wanted partners who could "speak to our business at least as well as we could," he said. The hard work seemed to pay off. When Affirm debuted on the Nasdaq, its share price surged as much as 110% above its opening price of $49. Affirm shares climbed to as high as $164.23 in late 2021 but suffered the same stock rout that battered tech companies throughout 2022 and 2023. A major adjustment to being a public company, Levchin said, is not falling into a "quarterly lifestyle" where milestones, product road maps, and key metrics are divided into four-month sprints. "You have to have this duality of mind, where being public is about the quarter, but it can't be just about the quarter," Levchin said, referring to the ups and downs of running a public company. If a quarter results in a number you're not proud of, "you can't just hammer yourself over the head with it," Levchin added. "It's going to get worse if this quarter isn't pretty, but you know you're doing the right thing, and you can see in numbers that it's going to be OK. Don't stress it, and it'll work itself out," he said. Words of advice For founders considering going public, Levchin offered some advice. It's not uncommon to see startups hiring executives such as a president or CFO in anticipation of going public. But that could actually be a sign that you're not ready, Levchin said. Chemistry is critical to ensuring the IPO team is on the same page regarding what's right and wrong for the business. That's not something that can be "formed and seasoned over the course of an IPO prep," Levchin said. Levchin also warned against letting the process "consume the company." He kept the team working on Affirm's plans very small because he wanted the day-to-day engine to continue humming along during the intense period. Since Affirm's CFO and chief legal officer largely spearheaded the IPO process, Levchin said he was left to focus on the company's short- and long-term plans for the capital. "If you don't deliberately plan for that, you may run the risk of just freezing in place," he said.
Federal Reserve's Powell says "more good data" could open door to interest rate cuts 2024-07-09 21:02:00+00:00 - Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday that "more good data" could open the door to interest rate cuts, citing recent reports that show that the labor market and inflation are continuing to cool. The central bank left its benchmark interest rate unchanged at its June meeting, and penciled in only one rate cut in 2024 versus its previous forecast of three cuts this year, after digesting data showing inflation remains stubbornly high. Following a flurry of rate hikes, the Fed's federal fund rate since July of 2023 has remained in a range of 5.25% to 5.5% — the highest in 23 years. Speaking Tuesday morning at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Powell stressed that the central bank wants to see further progress in bringing the annual inflation rate to about 2% before cutting rates, with the most recent consumer price index at 3.3%. But the chair also noted that the Fed is concerned with the risks of waiting too long to cut rates, noting that "elevated inflation is not the only risk we face." The next "likely direction seems to be .... that we loosen policy at the right moment," Powell said at the hearing, adding that he believed it would be unlikely for the Fed to increase rates. Recent economic indicators suggest "that conditions have returned to about where they stood on the eve of the pandemic: strong, but not overheated," Powell added. The Fed chair addressed the Senate panel on the first of two days of semi-annual testimony to Congress. On Wednesday, he will testify to the House Financial Services Committee. Powell's comments suggest "a September interest rate cut remains very much in play," noted Capital Economics in a Tuesday research note. Recent economic data shows some signs of cooling. For instance, the jobless rate, while is still low, has increased slightly to 4.1% in June, while payroll job gains averaged about 222,000 per month in the first six months of 2024, he added. The jobs-to-workers gap has declined from a pandemic peak and now is at about its 2019 level, Powell noted. The next big piece of economic data the Fed will digest arrives on Thursday with the release of the June consumer price index. Economists expect that inflation rose at a 3.1% annual rate last month, according to financial data firm FactSet. "Further progress" on inflation From March 2022 to July 2023, the Fed raised its benchmark interest rate 11 times to a two-decade high of 5.3% in a bid to quash inflation, which peaked at 9.1% two years ago. Those hikes increased the cost of consumer borrowing by raising rates for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards, among other forms of borrowing. The goal was to slow borrowing and spending and cool the economy. On Tuesday, Powell noted that inflation reports covering the first three months of this year did not boost Fed officials' confidence that inflation was under control. "The most recent inflation readings, though, have shown some modest further progress," Powell told the Senate committee, "and more good data would strengthen our confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2%." Gregory Daco, chief economist at the consulting firm EY, said he thought Powell's "greater focus on the two-sided risks to the outlook is welcome, albeit a little late." Daco added that he thinks the Fed ought to cut its benchmark rate at its July meeting. Otherwise, he suggested, businesses might soon step up layoffs as the economy slows. Yet Powell did not provide what Wall Street investors are watching for most closely: a clear indication of the Fed's timing for cutting interest rates. But his testimony will likely harden investors' and economists' expectations that the first reduction will come at the central bank's September meeting. An independent Fed In his testimony, Powell also underscored the Fed's status as an independent institution, which he said "is needed to take a longer-term perspective" on interest rate policy and inflation. Raising borrowing costs to try to slow price increases is often politically unpopular, and economists have long believed that insulating central banks from political pressures is necessary to enable them to take such steps. "One gets the idea that the Federal Reserve is laying down a marker ahead of the upcoming presidential election," said Joe Brusuelas, an economist at the tax advisory firm RSM. During his presidency, Donald Trump, in a highly unusual attack from a sitting president, repeatedly denounced Powell, whom he had nominated as Fed chair, for raising interest rates. Trump has already indicated that he wouldn't renominate Powell if he is elected president again. Asked about the importance of a central bank with the independence to set monetary policy, Powell replied, "It's actually essentially, literally essential. The good news is I think that is broadly understood on both sides of the aisle." He added, "We need to do our work in a way that's outside the political process."
Jim Cramer doesn't want Amazon broken up into smaller companies — here's why 2024-07-09 20:59:00+00:00 - An Amazon breakup could deliver a short-term bump for investors, but keeping the company together will deliver bigger gains over the long haul. "I don't want it broken up," Jim Cramer said Tuesday during the Club's Morning Meeting . "But the breakup numbers are substantially better than where the current stock is." With regulatory scrutiny of Amazon and all of Big Tech in Washington, Jefferies conducted a sum-of-the-parts (SOTP) analysis and found that nearly 70% of Amazon's enterprise value comes from its Amazon Web Services cloud and fast-growing advertising business. Core retail accounts for just over 25.5% of EV. Subscription services, physical stores, and some other ancillary things make up the rest. The Jefferies analysts used their SOTP to justify raising their Amazon price target to $235 per share from $225. That would represent an 18% upside to Monday's close. They think AWS accounts for $96 of the new PT, with advertising at $68. So, together that's $164. They see core retail at $60. That may seem backward because retail makes up roughly 60% of total revenue and AWS and advertising together are only about 26%. But, the SOTP analysis looks forward, and Jefferies thinks the cloud and ads are better engines of future growth than retail. It's why they estimate a cheaper 2025 EV to EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) multiple of 11 times for retail and more expensive multiples in the low 20s for AWS and ads. Investors are willing to pay more for stocks with higher growth prospects, and that's what this exercise shows. AMZN YTD mountain Amazon YTD While Jefferies makes a strong case that higher value in AWS and advertising are being tied to the less valuable retail operations, we oppose a breakup. That's because it would disrupt Amazon's flywheel of businesses that work better together than apart thanks to how the company aggregates and analyzes customer data. Amazon has arguably created the most powerful data collection machine in the world, and shareholders don't want that to change. Think about it: Amazon tracks what customers buy, what they watch on Prime Video, what they listen to on Amazon Music, the books they download, and the groceries they buy at Amazon-owned Whole Foods. Amazon also gathers data from shipping logistics, Alexa requests, and even home security given its ownership of the Ring and Blink camera companies. If Amazon's businesses were broken apart into individual companies, that could hamper data collection and impact the company's full understanding of users' consumption habits. That, in turn, could negatively impact the company's ability to offer best-in-class services with user-targeted offerings. We believe the colossal amount of customer data collected is how Amazon maintains its dominance from the enterprise to the consumer, which gives it the most upside. We would be concerned that a separation could limit its long-term potential. Amazon shares hit record highs this week. They have rallied more than 31.5% year to date. We think it can go higher. We increased our Amazon price target on Tuesday to $220 per share from $200 on the strength of its core businesses. In recognition of its rally, we reiterated our 2 rating — meaning we would still wait for a pullback before buying. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long AMZN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED. Future Publishing | Future | Getty Images
A Southwest jet that did a ‘Dutch roll’ was parked outside during severe storm 2024-07-09 20:56:36+00:00 - DALLAS (AP) — Investigators say a Southwest Airlines jet that experienced an unusual “Dutch roll” in flight had been parked outside during a strong storm and then underwent routine maintenance, after which pilots noticed odd movements of the rudder pedals. After the May 25 incident, Southwest mechanics found “substantial” damage in the aircraft’s tail, where the rudder is located, but the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday that it hasn’t determined when the damage occurred. The plane, a Boeing 737 Max, was grounded for more than a month but resumed flights last week, according to data from Flightradar24.com. Dutch roll is a swaying, rhythmic combination of yaw, or the tail sliding sideways, and the wingtips rocking up and down. The Southwest jet experienced the movement at 34,000 feet and again after descending to 32,000 feet while flying from Phoenix to Oakland, California. The condition can be dangerous, and modern planes have a “yaw damper” to stop the oscillations that characterize Dutch roll. After the plane landed, Southwest mechanics found fractures in the metal bracket and ribs that hold a backup power control unit to the rudder system. Investigators examined the damaged parts last week in Ogden, Utah. The NTSB said the plane was parked overnight at the New Orleans airport on May 16 during thunderstorms that packed gusting winds up to 84 mph, heavy rain and a tornado watch. On May 23, the plane underwent scheduled maintenance, and afterward pilots noticed the rudder pedals moving when the yaw damper was engaged. Pilots on the May 25 flight felt the pedals moving during the Dutch roll and even after landing, the NTSB said. John Cox, a former airline pilot and now a safety consultant, said the NTSB preliminary report indicates that the plane was most likely damaged during the storm. He said the near hurricane-force winds could have caused the rudder on the parked jet to slam back and forth. Cox said there was “absolutely no way in the world” the Dutch roll caused such severe damage, nor does he think it was related to the maintenance work. “I do not see this as a Max issue. I do not see this right now as a 737 issue,” he said. “I see this as a one-off.” Southwest inspected its 231 Max jets last month and found no other cases of damage around the rudder power units and no problems in new planes it has received since, according to the NTSB. Dallas-based Southwest declined to comment. It could be a year or longer before the NTSB determines a probable cause for the incident.
Biden has stumbled on a way out of his post-debate mess 2024-07-09 20:49:40+00:00 - It’s Joe Biden versus the world. And while that's not great, it may be the last, best hope for the president. Biden is enduring one of the worst periods of political turmoil imaginable, facing serious questions about his fitness for office from the media, furious Democratic lawmakers and party donors. His response has ranged from clumsy to insulting, further provoking those who badly want to defeat Donald Trump. But Biden may have accidentally stumbled upon a way forward. In a Trumpian move, the president is now presenting himself as an underdog taking on the Washington elite. Never mind that polls show voters have long had concerns about Biden’s age. Americans like a candidate with a chip on their shoulder. And whether it’s real or a put-on, Biden has long thrived in that role. Indeed, suddenly this week, the president appears to give a damn. I have serious doubts about Biden’s ability to run a campaign and serve four more years. And there is obvious reason to be skeptical that he will be able to effectively communicate a winning message, even if he has hit upon one. But with every passing hour, Biden is more likely to remain the Democratic nominee. He holds all the cards and he is dug in. It is untenable to have members of his party publicly questioning his fitness for much longer. Staying in the race is an enormous bet for Biden and the country. But to have a fighting chance, you need to be able to fight. And Democrats can only hope their antagonism has finally awoken Biden to the battle he faces. Sign up for MSNBC’s new How to Win 2024 newsletter and get election insights like this delivered to your inbox weekly.
The threat of litigation looms as Purdue Pharma returns to settlement talks 2024-07-09 20:45:55+00:00 - OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma is trying to chart the course for a new mass settlement of thousands of lawsuits over the toll of opioids after the U.S. Supreme Court last month rejected its previous deal, which was years in the making. State, local and tribal governments and individual victims want a sense of justice — and money. And in this case, there’s not enough money to pay for all harms that are claimed. Most of what there is is held by members of the Sackler family who own Purdue — much of it in overseas trust funds that are protected from U.S. lawsuits. Here’s a look at where things stand: Why are so many parties suing Purdue? A nationwide opioid epidemic has been raging for decades. In recent years, overdoses have been linked to about 80,000 deaths a year. Currently, the biggest killers are fentanyl and other potent substances produced illicitly in labs. Before that, it was heroin, and before that prescription drugs, including OxyContin, which hit the market in 1996. Purdue targeted doctors with a campaign asserting that there was a low risk of addiction to its latest formulation of a kind of drug that’s been around for centuries. Since 2017, drugmakers, wholesalers, pharmacy chains and other businesses have agreed to pay more than $50 billion in settlements with governments that have sued. Most of the money is intended to go to stemming the crisis. Purdue’s deal would be among the largest. What was the previous settlement? Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection nearly five years ago as a way to settle all the legal claims it was facing. The deal it ultimately struck called for Sackler family members, who had already left the company’s board of directors, to give up ownership of the company, too. It would become known as Knoa Pharma and its profits would be used to combat the opioid crisis. The Sacklers would contribute up to $6 billion. Unlike nearly all the other opioid settlements, a piece of the Purdue one — $750 million — would go directly to some people who were addicted to OxyContin and the families of those who died from it. The biggest payouts would have been under $50,000. Most would be far less than that. In exchange, Sackler family members would receive immunity from all past, present and future lawsuits alleging a role in the crisis. The deal had nearly universal support among the parties in the case, though some of them were begrudging, along with some holdouts and many eligible individuals who didn’t vote. What did the Supreme Court say? In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the settlement. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion, said that the law doesn’t allow the legal protections for Sackler family members who themselves did not file for bankruptcy protection when some of the creditors in the case don’t agree. For most of the lawyers and parties that spent years hammering out the deal, it was a devastating ruling. What happens now? A judge Tuesday said he intends to grant lawyers’ request to have until Sept. 9 to work out a revised deal. They have asked that retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman, who helped the parties iron out the previous deal, be appointed to mediate again, along with mediation expert Eric Green. Sackler family members said after the Supreme Court ruled that although they believe they would prevail in trials “that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.” Attorney Mike Quinn represents Ellen Isaacs, a mother whose son died from an opioid overdose, in her fight against the earlier settlement. Quinn said it’s essential that any new deal give clients like his a say in whether to accept it. What would happen if a deal isn’t reached? Probably litigation. A failure to reach a deal in two months could open the door for some 900 previous lawsuits against Sackler family members alleging a role in creating the crisis to be resumed. More could be filed. It then could be a race to trial. There’s no certainty about which side would prevail. But a small number of judgments against the family could wipe out their fortune, leaving nothing for the thousands of other parties with potential claims. A key bankruptcy committee on Monday asked a judge to give it the exclusive right to sue Sackler family members, claiming that from 2007 until 2018, they fraudulently transferred $11.5 billion from the company to a series of trusts for their benefit to avoid losing in legal claims. “At the Sacklers’ direction, Purdue ignited and fueled an opioid firestorm that continues to rage to this day, generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue for Purdue, but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, and economic harm to the nation measured in the trillions,” the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the bankruptcy said in a legal filing Monday. Purdue and other major groups of creditors support that plan. Sackler family members issued a statement Tuesday criticizing the motion: “Their filing is riddled with factual errors, ignores that about half the money was paid in taxes and is contrary to the goal of working together towards a resolution that provides billions of dollars for communities and people in need.” Are there other possibilities? Sackler family members could file for bankruptcy to get legal protections. Or Congress could intervene. Attorney Jason Amala represented plaintiffs in lawsuits over sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts and Catholic churches where similar mechanisms were involved in settlements. Amala said Congress could modify bankruptcy laws to allow the legal protections in exchange for “the same auditing and transparency process as the company that filed for bankruptcy.”
Can Biden be replaced in the presidential race? Here's what history says 2024-07-09 20:42:18+00:00 - How easy would it be for Democrats to replace President Joe Biden as their nominee? The answer lies at the intersection of party rules, party practices and voter expectations — and the conflicting goals of a party process. Most accounts of the modern presidential nomination process start in the late 1960s. The Democrats’ 1968 convention was a disaster, with protests inside and outside the gathering driven by party divisions over the Vietnam War and other policy issues, and growing discontent with the lack of grassroots input into nominations. After the tumult, the Democratic National Committee convened a commission to construct a new nominating process for the party. This exact scenario has never played out. The result was largely the system we have now: States select delegates to the convention through primaries, caucuses or conventions, but these have to be open to all party members, with publicized dates and times. Though these reforms were intended to make the process more open and democratic, it’s a misconception that the goal was to write the party out. Instead, the delegates still choose the nominee at the convention. So who is a delegate and what do they do? There are two groups: “pledged” delegates (those selected in primaries and caucuses) and unpledged “superdelegates” (elected officials and party leaders who can vote as they please). You may recall superdelegates playing crucial roles in the delegate math during the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries, but after the latter contest, the party changed the rules to weaken their influence slightly. Now, only “pledged” delegates can vote on the first ballot for president; superdelegates join on subsequent ballots. The party rules state that delegates are bound by “conscience” to vote as they are pledged — and most are pledged for Biden. But from a formal rules perspective, it isn’t a big deal for delegates to vote differently on the first ballot at the convention. They aren’t legally bound, nor do the rules outline any consequences for delegates who vote differently. Where things get complicated is the informal party practices that have developed over time, and the voter expectations that come with them. It’s generally expected that delegates will vote as they are pledged — based on the primary votes of the states they represent. One reason for this is that primary contests help party leaders know what primary voters are thinking, and which candidates they prefer. It’s also expected that the nomination is sewn up well before the convention. Experts disagree somewhat about exactly how this happens. Some emphasize the early primaries as ways for candidates to show strength, while others stress the role of the “invisible primary,” in which different groups — say, environmentalists, labor or pro-choice activists for Democrats; religious conservatives and business interests for Republicans — weigh in and steer the process toward nominees who would be broadly acceptable to all groups. A convention that relies simply on the party’s delegates could be quite chaotic. This is probably a much larger sticking point than the formal rules. In order to select a new Democratic presidential nominee, delegates would need some method to coordinate. Otherwise, the Wisconsin delegation could go in one direction, and the Florida one in another. Or progressives and establishment Democrats could set themselves up for a rough floor fight with the world watching. Or each faction could find itself divided among alternative candidates. As with the process under normal circumstances, party leaders would need to coordinate either among themselves or in consultation with voters. But what do the party’s voters want? At this point in the nomination process, the voters’ formal role has usually ended, with each state and territory having held its primary or caucus. The official rules of the party allow the delegates to make the selection on their own (or, if a post-convention nomination process is necessary, the party leaders can choose). But parties want to win elections, which requires paying attention to what voters want. And that’s tricky at this stage. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., floated the hypothetical idea of a “mini-primary” before the delegates take their roll call votes, but it’s not clear what that would look like. Delegates in a potential replacement situation would have public opinion data to build on, but it’s likely we would see some kind of institutional innovation in order to weigh the preferences of voters. This exact scenario has never played out. Parties have generally re-nominated sitting presidents, often without serious competition, since the late 19th century. But thinking through how it might happen requires pulling together these three strains: what the formal rules say, what the informal practices are and what the voters want. One possibility is that, should President Biden decide to withdraw from the nomination and not run for re-election, the Democratic Party would do a shortened version of its usual process, coordinating among leaders, crucial interest groups and the party’s voters, in order to select a new nominee. It’s likely that this process would heavily feature promotion of Vice President Kamala Harris, promoting her as the continuation of the administration while also gauging support for her. Absent the informal aspects of the process, a convention that relies simply on the party’s delegates could be quite chaotic. Even when conventions regularly chose presidential nominees — the first presidential primaries date only back to 1912 — there was often informal coordination and persuasion going on. This is what people refer to when they talk about a “brokered” convention — and the modern era leaves a lot of questions open about who the brokers would be and how they would operate. When these efforts failed, the conventions would need multiple ballots to figure out a presidential nominee, with new and sometimes unexpected names floated before the delegates. There’s nothing in the formal rules to prevent this sort of convention from happening now. If President Biden steps aside and the Democrats select a new nominee, the process can build on existing formal and informal rules. But it also will require innovation and indeed improvisation, because it will be unlike anything we’ve seen in American politics for decades.
3 tips for using Google Flights to score cheaper airfare, from a travel expert 2024-07-09 20:41:00+00:00 - When it comes to booking flights, travel experts are just like the rest of us. Katy Nastro has visited more than 40 countries around the world. For the most part, she finds her flights through the Google Flights search engine. As a frequent flyer and travel expert at Going, Nastro has a number of techniques she employs to find the best and most affordable flights she can. Part of what makes Google Flights Nastro's preferred flight booking destination is the ability it gives her to customize her search. When she is planning a trip, Nastro doesn't stop at entering her destination and dates. She'll toggle settings to sort by nonstop flights, preferred airlines and will potentially set a price threshold. "I put in all of my filters to make sure that I'm looking at as close to perfection as possible," Nastro tells CNBC Make It. Here are three tips from Nastro to book flights like a pro. 1. Flexibility is your friend Keeping your options open is one of the most important things you can do to help yourself find the best travel deals. "I think flexibility is the biggest thing people need to remember," Nastro says. "Google Flights has the functions within it to make it as easy as possible for you to explore all your options." For example, Nastro prefers to look at one-way flights rather than round-trip when she is first planning a journey. This is helpful not only for comparing prices, but also for figuring out if she can get as close to her desired flight times as possible. "If you're really looking to prioritize traveling more affordably you should open your search up to the idea that you could fly out on your preferred airline but it might be cheaper to fly back on another," she says. When she punches in a destination, Nastro doesn't just stick to that city's local airport. She adds different airports in the area as well, even if they might be a bus or train journey away from where she wants to go. "It really gives you the capability to widen your net," she says. With more options, you can decide if flying out of your way is worth the savings. "Do I really want to prioritize my cost savings with the time that it's going to take me to get to these alternate airports? Maybe. If the cost saving is significant enough." When searching for international flights, Nastro is aware that Google may serve her options that have "super long layovers or multi-stop flights that nobody is really looking for." To avoid getting her hopes up for a low price on a suboptimal flight, she plans ahead. "When I'm searching, I'm always making sure that I put in layover duration and toggle which connecting airports I will and won't fly through," she says. "Yes, you might be able to get a cheaper flight if you have a longer layover," she adds. "But unless you're going to be able to leave the airport and have enough time to do so, it might not be worth that time sitting in the airport." 2. Price history is helpful ... until it's not Google Flights has a feature that shows you pricing history for a flight you're looking at, as well as predictions of how the price will fluctuate in the future. But be careful about relying too much on this information, especially during a record-breaking travel season. "It's tough to say that Google Flights is 100% accurate all of the time," Nastro says. "It's giving you an estimation based off of history, which is pretty good, but it doesn't mean that past history is going to deliver future results." Deciding when to pull the trigger and book your flights may depend on when you're looking. If you're in the Goldilocks window — the time frame during which you're most likely to find the best prices to a given destination — you should feel comfortable booking with the knowledge that prices are only likely to go up from there. "For peak seasons like the summer, we recommend booking between three and seven months out for domestic trips and between four and 10 months for international trips," she says. But if you're booking on short notice, don't gamble on a sudden price drop. "If you're looking to book a flight in two weeks, it's probably best to book it immediately if you're comfortable with the price rather than wait another week," she says. 3. Don't turn off alerts after you book
Kamala Harris is in a tough spot 2024-07-09 20:39:16+00:00 - By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . You can opt-out at any time by visiting our Preferences page or by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of the email. Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview Vice President Kamala Harris is in a difficult position. As Joe Biden's number two in command, she must show her unconditional support of the president during a time when elected Democrats and voters alike are questioning his ability to both win and finish a second term. At the same time, Harris must also prove that she is capable of taking Biden's place if it comes down to it — a possibility she has not acknowledged even though many see her as Biden's most natural successor. This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Biden's disastrous debate performance last month sparked mass speculation, both nationally and globally, about his ability to serve a second term. And ever since, Harris has been working overdrive to prove that Biden is still a strong candidate capable of leading the country, and more importantly to the Democratic party, of beating Donald Trump. Advertisement "The worst thing a vice president can do at this point is to be anxious to get the president out," Elaine Kamarck, a former aide to Al Gore and electoral politics expert at the Brookings Institution, told The New York Times. "It just totally backfires. My guess is some fairly unsophisticated people are calling up Kamala Harris saying: 'Can I do this? Can I do that?' And if she's smart, she will shut that down tight." Following Biden's debate against Trump, Harris acknowledged that Biden's performance was not his best. But, she argued to supporters at a Las Vegas rally the next day, "This race will not be decided by one night in June," the Washington Post reported. Related stories "I see Joe Biden when the cameras are on and when the cameras are off; in the Oval Office, negotiating bipartisan deals," Harris said at the rally, according to The New York Times. "I see him in the Situation Room, keeping our country safe; on the world stage, meeting with foreign leaders who often ask for his advice." Advertisement In the days since the debate, Harris has only ratcheted up her efforts to bolster Biden's image. She's on the Biden campaign trail all of this week, meeting with Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander voters in Las Vegas on Tuesday before heading to Dallas on Wednesday and North Carolina on Thursday, according to the Washington Post. At every possible opportunity, Harris has reiterated her support of Biden and her belief that he can run the country for another four years. If she were to publicly, or even privately, acknowledge that she's ready to take on the presidency in his place, it could be seen as an admission that Biden isn't fit to lead. "She's in an awkward position," civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton told The New York Times of Harris' dual roles of supporting Biden while also proving her own ability to lead. "But the job of vice president is awkward." But, there's also a deeper tension underlying Harris's current position, a political science expert told Business Insider. Advertisement Lonna Atkeson, a political science professor at Florida State University and director of nonpartisan think tank LeRoy Collins Institute, says that Harris's role supporting Biden's reelection at all costs may conflict with her 25th Amendment duty to determine if he is unfit to hold the position. Atkeson argued that, under of the 25th Amendment, Harris "has a constitutional duty to be independent of" Biden, and to "help decide whether or not he's capable of completing his term." "But that is complicated by the fact that she is the vice president and is also running for elective office as the vice president," Atkeson added. "So how does she fill both her constitutional role and her role as supporter of the president during an election campaign?" Atkeson then explained that Harris' decision to support Biden despite growing doubts about his physical and mental capacity puts her in a compromising position. That's because, Atkeson said, if it were to come out that Biden is not actually fit for office, and that Harris knew all along, then she could be seen as "not fulfilling her constitutional mission." Advertisement But while some Republicans like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and House Speaker Mike Johnson believe that Biden should be removed under the 25th Amendment, Democrats — and least of all, Harris — don't appear to be considering that option.
Can first Asian Bachelorette Jenn Tran bring real change to ABC franchise? 2024-07-09 20:37:41+00:00 - As the first Asian American Bachelorette, Jenn Tran is very aware of the added responsibility she carries. “I want to be able to make everybody proud and make my heritage proud,” Tran, a 26-year-old physician assistant student, said during the season premiere Monday. “I think what it really comes down to is that I just have to be myself and do the best that I can do.” There’s no question that Tran will be a capable lead — one episode in, she’s already shown herself to be a great choice. Indeed, already Tran is everything you’d want a Bachelorette to be: funny, bubbly, telegenic, open to new experiences and excited to find love. She can declare it “shot o’clock” one moment and then sit down for an earnest conversation about shared family history the next. (Bachelorettes can do it all!) There’s no question that Tran will be a capable lead — one episode in, she’s already shown herself to be a great choice. However, the jury is still out on whether a television franchise steeped in institutional racism is capable of doing right by her. When Tran was named the next Bachelorette back in March, the announcement was met with shock and excitement from Asian fans of the franchise. “I’ve watched #TheBachelorette since its first season and never thought I’d see the day we’d get an Asian American lead!” tweeted Washington Post reporter Jada Yuan, who watched the announcement live from a bar in Brooklyn, New York, and witnessed the pure joy of the two Vietnamese American women sitting next to her. After all, fans of color have come to expect as little as possible from “The Bachelor” franchise. The show’s less-than-stellar diversity track record is common knowledge at this point. For years, fans darkly joked about the way that contestants of color would show up for a week or two but never became serious contenders. After a class action lawsuit was filed in 2012 — the show began airing in 2002 — “The Bachelor” seemed to work a bit harder to inject racial diversity into its dating pool. But there were still no Black leads until Rachel Lindsay’s season of “The Bachelorette” in 2017, and the franchise took even longer to cast a Black man in the lead role, finally casting Matt James in 2020, the year George Floyd’s death at the hands of police set off national protests and a national racial reckoning. But the casting of Lindsay and James also proved that true representation is about more than ticking a box. Both grappled with the challenges of being a highly visible first while working within a show infrastructure that wasn’t equipped to support them. “I’m going to be really frank — we let Matt down,” executive producer Bennett Graebner told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published shortly before the beginning of Tran’s season. “That season went wrong on so many levels,” Graebner said, calling the show’s 15-year wait for a Black lead “inexcusable.” “We did not protect him as we should have.” Graebner and fellow EP Claire Freeland seem ready to answer publicly for the franchise’s long-running failures — failures that didn’t stop with James’ season. Freeland came on board from the Canadian “Bachelor” franchise after creator Mike Fleiss was ousted in 2023 after a Warner Bros. investigation into allegations of racial discrimination made against him. (Fleiss told Variety he was “proud of the work we’ve done over the past five years to make the show substantially more diverse, but I do believe I could have done more. Hopefully, the franchise will continue to move in the right direction.”) Earlier this year, the American show came under fire after Rachel Nance, who made it to the final three on Joey Graziadei's season of “The Bachelor” and is biracial, said she was subjected to a barrage of racist messages after her hometown date. “I got a lot of hateful messages ... calling me the N-word or jungle Asian, all because I got a rose,” Nance told host Jesse Palmer during the women tell-all special. “It’s sad because my parents really enjoyed the hometown episode, and for them to see people attacking our culture and attacking me — I’ve been in this scenario before, but this was like a whole new level.” Instead of calling this what it was — racism from the show’s own fan base — Palmer asked all of the cast members if they had received hateful messages, and then asked the audience to temper their “strong opinions” in favor of “uplifting” the people who go on the show. (Freeland acknowledged to the L.A. Times that this segment “was another missed opportunity.” “Our intention was to bring light toward what Rachel was going through,” she said. “But we have to do better.”) Even meaningful incremental changes from the show’s production team do not shield cast members from the racist aggressions of the fans that the franchise cultivated for years and years. This long history makes it hard to believe that even the noblest of intentions from producers will make a real difference for the people of color who are generous enough to share their lives and stories with millions of people each season. And even meaningful incremental changes from the show’s production team do not shield cast members from the racist aggressions of the fans that the franchise cultivated for years and years. Amid all of the Instagram posts from Tran excitedly boosting her season, she also reposted a commenter who noted, “We wanted white skin and blonde hair.” I have long wondered if and when “The Bachelor” franchise would be forced to choose between conservative white viewers who want to see the show remain as it was in its heyday when everyone was an evangelical dental hygienist and Black contestants never made it past week three, and more progressive viewers who have been vocally pushing for change from their problematic fave. For years, the show has tried to make both groups happy using cosmetic tweaks that never really addressed the rot at the core. The L.A. Times piece indicates that an affirmative choice has finally been made. Probably. “We can’t change the minds of people who aren’t interested in this new direction. What we have the power to do is change the program,” Freeland told the L.A. Times. Graebner was even more explicit: “If you don’t want to see a Black love story, an Asian American love story, an interracial love story, then maybe Bachelor Nation isn’t for you.” The sentiment is a great one, and one that so many members of Bachelor Nation have been waiting years to hear. But these words only have meaning if they’re backed up by action. So now we wait, and cheer for Jenn Tran. Here’s hoping she finds the love she deserves and doesn’t become a sacrificial lamb to the show’s growth.
'There's no way out': Democrats feel powerless as 'elites' fall in line behind Biden 2024-07-09 20:35:00+00:00 - President Joe Biden is attempting to frame his quest to retain his candidacy as him against the “elites” in Washington. But in interviews, rank-and-file Democrats, party chairs, battleground leaders and elected officials say Biden has it exactly backward. All along, they say, they’ve felt deep concerns about Biden — and fielded reservations from voters, as poll after poll has demonstrated — but have felt powerless to act in the face of a White House and Democratic Party that’s been under Biden’s thumb. “I wish I was more brave,” said one Democratic state party chair who thinks Biden should step aside. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they fear retaliation from the president’s camp. “I would be crucified by them if I spoke out of line,” the chair continued. “I know when you get out of line they all of a sudden have a shift of priorities and your races, your state is no longer on the map.” Now, they say, it’s happening again. Even after a disastrous debate performance that was initially met with calls for him to step aside, new revelations from those around the president expressing concerns about his mental acuity and warning signs about future fundraising, one power broker after another is falling in line behind Biden — in some cases after just expressing grave doubts about him. But by some accounts from Democrats on Tuesday, that backing felt more akin to a death march to November than a rousing backing for a party nominee. “No one is excited,” an ally of the president said. “Expectations are very low for Biden going forward.” Another Democratic House member put it in starker terms. “People are very frustrated that the president appears defensive and in denial. He’s like the grandpa who refuses to give up the car keys even though it’s not safe for him to drive anymore,” the person said. “There’s also a growing resignation that, if Joe Biden insists on remaining our nominee, we will have to make the best out of a bad situation going into the most consequential presidential election in American history.” On Sunday, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and three other congressional Democrats told colleagues on a phone call that Biden should step aside. By Tuesday, Nadler changed his tune. “Whether I have concerns or not is beside the point,” Nadler told reporters Tuesday. “He’s going to be our nominee, and we all have to support him.” Another member of Congress privately expressed deep concerns with Biden and feared one more major gaffe could be catastrophic to Democrats. But the person expressed powerlessness as an individual member speaking out without leadership sticking out their necks. “I could say something, but I’m a pragmatist. Would it have any effect? Would it have any impact? I think in the absence of leadership stepping forward — I don’t think any rank-and-file member is going to change that dynamic,” the House member said. “I fall in the category of a lot of front-liners who were staying quiet in the hopes that he was going to do the right thing. But he’s choosing to stay.” In the 12 days since Biden froze, mumbled, trailed off and, at times, even struggled to complete a sentence at the debate against former President Donald Trump, he has been playing cleanup. “Take the debate out of it and just look at the last couple of weeks,” said a second Democratic state party chair, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Is he going to be able to get a message out and build a narrative or will every public event be about this?” The situation, of course, is still fluid. While Biden has doubled down on his insistence this week that he’s not going to step out of the 2024 race, there are still calls for him to do so and the situation could change. There are fears within the party that Democratic voters will lose enthusiasm, and Biden will lose the election — with down-ballot candidates sinking with him, both state party chairs said. “Most of the chairs I’ve talked to are scared,” the second chair said. Some Democrats have said the president has taken too long to do damage control with his own party, allowing talk that undermines his candidacy to run rampant and dominate a race that should be focused on Trump. One battleground Democratic organizer described a splintering party, with some holding serious doubts about not just Biden’s age, but whether he’s capable of doing the job. Others, the person said, are willing to back Biden, if only to stop the bleeding and move on. “It feels like we’re creating a 2016 environment again, where we were pulled apart in that primary and never got back together. It’s very frustrating for us in these swing states. We have to win, we cannot lose,” the person said. “Ultimately, nobody really knows how this will be resolved. There’s no way out.” The White House and the campaign have attempted to contain the fallout, reaching out to members of Congress, briefing governors and holding calls from the campaign and donors. Biden was also scheduled for a call with mayors Tuesday. Some of those calls themselves prompted backlash, with some complaining they weren’t allowed an opportunity to weigh in and others saying they felt gaslighted. And his campaign insists there's still plenty of grassroots support for the president, pointing in part to 864,000 first-time donors in the last fundraising quarter and saying that 2024 campaign volunteers signed up for three times more organizing shifts after the debate. Biden and his team have reiterated that millions of voters have chosen him in primaries and casting him aside would discount the will of those people. Some of the Democrats countered in interviews that those voters weren’t equipped with the same information then, namely, the cognitive concerns Biden’s debate performance raised. On Thursday, Biden is to hold a rare news conference, in what’s anticipated to be another test of his mental acuity. On Monday, in a phone interview on MSNBC, Biden said he would not accede to the “elites” who wanted him to step aside. The president also issued a letter to Democrats in Congress declaring he would remain in the race. “I wouldn’t be running again if I did not absolutely believe I was the best person to beat Donald Trump in 2024,” Biden wrote. “We had a Democratic nomination process and the voters have spoken clearly and decisively.” “The question of how to move forward has been well-aired for over a week now. And it’s time for it to end. We have one job. And that is to beat Donald Trump,” Biden wrote. “Any weakening of resolve or lack of clarity about the task head only helps Trump and hurts us.” Even that, however, caused some stir among Democrats in Congress, with some saying they never received the letter and had to read about it in the media. “I’m still concerned, I don’t think anything he’s done has relieved any of that concern. Whether it be the North Carolina rally or the Wisconsin rally, we see all of it,” one of the Democratic congresspeople said. “I am concerned. But it is the president’s decision what to do with his legacy and moving forward, I’m gonna get behind that.” The first party chair shared a similar resignation. “I don’t have the power to change Biden’s mind. And so whatever is in front of me is what I’m going to roll with and do whatever I can to win,” the person said. “I just don’t think our voice matters to them.”
Dyson to cut 1,000 jobs in the U.K. 2024-07-09 20:34:00+00:00 - Dyson is planning to lay off 1,000 workers in the U.K., the home appliance maker told employees on Tuesday. Best known for its high-end vacuum cleaners, fans and other appliances, Dyson announced the cuts as it faces growing competition, including from manufacturers that release copycat designs in Asia, the company's largest market. In a statement to CBS MoneyWatch, Dyson CEO Hanno Kirner cited increased competition as a reason for the layoffs. "We have grown quickly and, like all companies, we review our global structures from time to time to ensure we are prepared for the future," he said. "As such, we are proposing changes to our organization, which may result in redundancies." "Dyson operates in increasingly fierce and competitive global markets, in which the pace of innovation and change is only accelerating," Kirner added. The job cuts represent about a quarter of Dyson's U.K. workforce and is part of an effort to slim down its global footprint of roughly 15,000 employees, according to the Financial Times, which first reported the layoffs. James Dyson, who founded the privately held company in 1991, is worth $19.2 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The Singapore-based company's range of products also includes hair care products, air purifiers and air purifiers.
Meet Emma Navarro, the American billionaire heiress who upset world No. 2 Coco Gauff to take the tennis world by storm 2024-07-09 20:33:57+00:00 - Her father, Ben Navarro, has an estimated net worth of $1.5 billion, according to Forbes. Ben Navarro. HENRY NICHOLLS/Contributor/AFP via Getty Images Ben Navarro, 61, is the founder and CEO of Sherman Financial Group, which Forbes describes as "a credit card and debt collection empire." One of the group's main assets is lender Credit One, which some eagle-eyed fans may have noticed is one of the logos on Emma's uniforms at recent tournaments. Forbes reported that, in addition to banking, Navarro has purchased more than $350 million worth of property in Charleston since 2021. He's also been an active buyer in the tennis space, with CNN reporting that he purchased the Cincinnati Open tournament for about $300 million in 2022. Other tennis-related ventures in his portfolio include the South Carolina-based Live To Play Tennis Club and the Volvo Car Open, the largest women's only tennis tournament in North America, per the WTA. (It has since been renamed the Credit One Charleston Open.) In 2019, the US Tennis Association named the Navarro family South Carolina's tennis family of the year. He told the Post and Courier at the time, "As a fan, father, and business owner, tennis has brought so much to our family. Junior tennis has provided a place for our children to learn a work ethic, develop friendship through shared struggle, and learn to handle disappointment, defeat, and sometimes even unfairness."
More than 1,300 stores are closing across the US in 2024. Here's the list. 2024-07-09 20:33:16+00:00 - At least ten retail brands have said they're closing US stores in 2024, totaling up to 1,330 locations. Family Dollar is the largest chain on the list, planning to close at least 600 stores this year. Other companies, such as Walmart and TJX, are closing a few stores while opening many more. Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address Sign up By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . You can opt-out at any time by visiting our Preferences page or by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of the email. Advertisement A Business Insider tally of disclosures from nine retail chain brands found as many as 1,330 stores have closed or are set to close across the US in 2024. The number is down considerably from prior years, including last year, when the collapse of Bed Bath & Beyond contributed to a total of more than 2,800 locations shuttering. Analysts at UBS think the total number of US retail closures could reach 45,000 over the next five years, led largely by smaller stores going out of business, even as larger firms such as Walmart, Costco, Target, and Home Depot continue to expand. This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Log in .
How much does a Tesla cost? Price ranges of Model Y, X, S, and 3 2024-07-09 20:30:29+00:00 - Tesla's cheapest model is the Model 3, which starts at $38,990. Andrew Lambrecht Some of the cheapest EVs in the US are Tesla models. There are also other financial considerations to make if you're considering a purchase, including battery and Tesla charging costs. Tesla changes its pricing frequently for its different models. Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address Sign up By clicking “Sign Up”, you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . You can opt-out at any time by visiting our Preferences page or by clicking "unsubscribe" at the bottom of the email. Advertisement Tesla sells some of the cheapest electric vehicles on the market today after CEO Elon Musk spent the past year and a half slashing the prices of his most popular cars. The constant price cuts kicked off a price war between Tesla and mainstream car brands like Ford and GM. Tesla initially had the upper hand, but cracks began to show in the price cutting strategy after Tesla released disappointing financial results in the first quarter. Musk's electric car company is finally starting to feel the pinch as lower prices cut into Tesla's bottom line. Here's a look at where the pricing stands for each of the models. Advertisement What is the cheapest Tesla model? The Tesla Model 3 is the cheapest model. The starting price for the Tesla Model 3 is around $38,990 for the Rear-Wheel Drive, $47,490 for the Long Range All-Wheel Drive variant, and $54,990 for the Performance All-Wheel Drive variant. The next cheapest model is the Tesla Model Y. The starting price for the Tesla Model Y is around $44,490 for the Rear-Wheel Drive, $47,990 for the All-Wheel Drive model, and $51,490 for the Performance model. Tesla has initiated extensive markdowns on the prices of the Model 3 and Model Y since early 2023, making some cost less than the average new car in the US. That's an important distinction for a new crop of EV shoppers who are more practical and frugal that the wealthy early adopters that first dominated the market. What is the most expensive Tesla model? Tesla Model S and the Model X are the most expensive models. The Tesla Model S is around $72,990 for the Long Range variant and $87,990 for the Plaid variant. Advertisement The starting price for the Tesla Model X is around $77,990, and $92,990 for the Plaid variant. Related stories The Tesla Roadster is expected to be the most expensive model when it enters production, at a base price of around $200,000. Do Teslas qualify for a tax credit? After changes to eligibility requirements went into effect at the start of the year, only some Tesla models are eligible for a $7,500 EV tax credit. As of June, two Model Y variants and two Model 3 variants were eligible while only Long Range version of the Model X can receive the $7,500 credit. How long do Teslas last? A big concern for prospective EV buyers is if the battery will need replacing. EV battery replacements could cost anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000. Advertisement In Tesla's 2021 impact report, it said that the company's battery packs are designed to outlast the vehicle. "We estimate that a vehicle gets scrapped after approximately 200,000 miles of usage in the U.S. and roughly 150,000 miles in Europe," the report said. A warranty also covers Tesla's batteries. Models have slightly different warranties, but they're generally covered for 8 years or between 100,000-150,000 miles (whatever comes first). While EVs as a category do have more frequent problems than other vehicles, such as issues with battery packs and charging, Tesla models stand out for their reliability. Advertisement Is Tesla charging free? No, Tesla charging isn't free (although the company sometimes offers a limited amount of free Supercharger miles with a vehicle purchase) and the cost varies based on if you charge at home or one of Tesla's proprietary Superchargers. At a Supercharger, charging costs vary based on the speed across four tiers and on time — not range or energy added to your vehicle. Charges will also change based on electricity costs. On average, a Tesla will charge about 4.5 cents per mile, according to EnergySage estimates, depending on local electricity costs. A full charge on a level-2 charger will run you about $15.52 on average, the site says, though costs vary for each model. The cost of charging a Tesla is more than three times cheaper per mile than the cost of fueling a gas-powered car, a savings stat that Tesla often rolls into initial sticker prices on its website. You have to toggle off estimated savings to see the full base prices on Tesla's website. Advertisement EnergySage estimates that it costs $614.95 to charge your Tesla per year. In comparison, gas-powered cars cost an average of $1,850.42 to fuel per year. Tesla Superchargers also charge an "idle fee" if a car remains plugged in after it is fully charged in order to serve more customers efficiently. Some Tesla vehicles also include free charging, sometimes added as an incentive when purchasing. Free charging is also available through Tesla's referral program. To get the cheapest charging, you'll need to charge at home. If you already have a 240-volt outlet in your garage (equivalent to level 2), you can simply buy a charger and plug it in. Otherwise, an electrician will likely need to install one for you.
It suddenly looks like there are too many homes for sale. Here's why that's not quite right 2024-07-09 20:27:00+00:00 - watch now Anyone out shopping for a home today knows there is still precious little for sale. The housing market is just beginning to come out of its leanest few years in history. Inventory of both new and existing homes is finally rising, but there is something suddenly strange in the numbers: The supply of newly built homes appears to be way too high. The numbers, however, are deceiving due to the unprecedented dynamics of today's housing market, which can be traced back two decades to another unprecedented time in housing, the subprime mortgage boom. All of it is precisely why home prices, which usually cool off when supply is high, just continue to rise. The supply scenario There is currently a 4.4-month supply of both new and existing homes for sale, according to the National Association of Home Builders, or NAHB. Months' supply is a common calculation used in the market to measure how long it would take to sell all the homes available at the current sales pace. A six-month supply is considered a balanced market between a buyer and a seller. Supply was already low at the start of this decade, but pandemic-driven demand pushed it to a record low by the start of 2021 at just two-months' supply. That shortage of homes for sale, combined with strong demand, pushed home prices up more than 40% from pre-pandemic levels. Now supply is finally beginning to climb back, but the gains are mostly in the new home market, not on the existing side. In fact, there is now a nine-month supply of newly built homes for sale, nearly three times that of existing homes. New and old home months' supply usually track pretty closely. New construction now makes up 30% of total inventory, about twice its historical share, according to the NAHB. Single-family homes in a residential neighborhood in San Marcos, Texas. Jordan Vonderhaar | Bloomberg | Getty Images "June 2022 recorded the largest ever lead of new home months' supply (9.9) over existing single-family home months' supply (2.9)," wrote Robert Dietz, chief economist for the NAHB. "This separation makes it clear that an evaluation of current market inventory cannot simply examine either the existing or the new home inventory in isolation." This unusual dynamic has been driven by both recent swings in mortgage rates and an unprecedented disaster in the housing market that began 20 years ago. The foundation of today's tricky numbers This housing market is unlike any other because of economic forces unlike any other. First, in 2005, there was a massive runup in home sales, homebuilding and home prices fueled by a surge in subprime mortgage lending and a frenzy of trading in new financial products backed by these mortgages. That all came crashing down quickly, resulting in one of the worst foreclosure crises since the Great Depression and causing the ensuing Great Recession. Single-family housing starts plummeted from a high of 1.7 million units in 2005 to just 430,000 in 2011. By 2012, new homes made up just 6% of the total for-sale supply and, even by 2020, housing starts had yet to recover to their historical average of about 1.1 million units. They sat at 990,000. Then came the Covid-19 pandemic and during that time, consumer demand surged and mortgage rates set more than a dozen record lows, so builders responded. Housing starts shot up to 1.1 million in 2021. The Federal Reserve was bailing out the economy, making homebuying much cheaper, and the new work-from-home culture had Americans moving like never before. Suddenly, supply was sucked into a tornado of demand. Mortgage rate mayhem The current strange divide in supply between newly built and existing homes is also due to roller-coaster mortgage rates, dropping to historic lows at the start of the pandemic and then spiking to 20-year highs just two years later. Millions of borrowers refinanced at the lows and now have no desire to move because they would have to trade a 3% or 4% rate on their loans to the current rate, which is around 7%. This lock-in effect caused new listings to dry up. It also put builders in the driver's seat. Homebuilders had already ramped up production in the first years of the pandemic, with single-family homes surging to more than 1.1 million in 2021, according to the U.S. census, before dropping back again when mortgage rates shot up. Builders have been able to buy down mortgage rates to keep sales higher, but as of this May, they are building at an annualized pace of 992,000. Resale listings improved slightly this spring, as mortgage rates fell back slightly, and by June, active listings were 16.5% higher than they were the year before, according to Redfin. Some of that increased supply, however, was due to listings sitting on the market longer. "The share of homes sitting on the market for at least one month has been increasing year over year since March, when growth in new listings accelerated, but demand from buyers remained tepid, as it has been since mortgage rates started rising in 2022," according to a Redfin report. A home available for sale is shown in Austin, Texas, on May 22, 2024. Brandon Bell | Getty Images Growth at the low end
Is ADMA Biologics Stock Outpacing Its Medical Peers This Year? - ADMA Biologics (NASDAQ:ADMA), Aclaris Therapeutics (NASDAQ:ACRS) 2024-07-09 20:26:00+00:00 - Loading... Loading... For those looking to find strong Medical stocks, it is prudent to search for companies in the group that are outperforming their peers. Is Adma Biologics ADMA one of those stocks right now? By taking a look at the stock's year-to-date performance in comparison to its Medical peers, we might be able to answer that question. Adma Biologics is one of 1026 individual stocks in the Medical sector. Collectively, these companies sit at #5 in the Zacks Sector Rank. The Zacks Sector Rank considers 16 different sector groups. The average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within the groups is measured, and the sectors are listed from best to worst. The Zacks Rank is a successful stock-picking model that emphasizes earnings estimates and estimate revisions. The system highlights a number of different stocks that could be poised to outperform the broader market over the next one to three months. Adma Biologics is currently sporting a Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy). The Zacks Consensus Estimate for ADMA's full-year earnings has moved 18% higher within the past quarter. This is a sign of improving analyst sentiment and a positive earnings outlook trend. Based on the most recent data, ADMA has returned 157.5% so far this year. In comparison, Medical companies have returned an average of 4.4%. As we can see, Adma Biologics is performing better than its sector in the calendar year. Aclaris Therapeutics ACRS is another Medical stock that has outperformed the sector so far this year. Since the beginning of the year, the stock has returned 21%. For Aclaris Therapeutics, the consensus EPS estimate for the current year has increased 20.8% over the past three months. The stock currently has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). Looking more specifically, Adma Biologics belongs to the Medical - Biomedical and Genetics industry, a group that includes 500 individual stocks and currently sits at #73 in the Zacks Industry Rank. Stocks in this group have lost about 5.3% so far this year, so ADMA is performing better this group in terms of year-to-date returns. On the other hand, Aclaris Therapeutics belongs to the Medical - Drugs industry. This 181-stock industry is currently ranked #147. The industry has moved -7.4% year to date. Investors interested in the Medical sector may want to keep a close eye on Adma Biologics and Aclaris Therapeutics as they attempt to continue their solid performance. To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
Suspected carjacker shot outside home of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor 2024-07-09 20:26:00+00:00 - Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaks during a service for retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the Great Hall at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 18, 2023. A deputy U.S. Marshal tasked with protecting Supreme Court justices' homes shot an alleged armed carjacker near the Washington residence of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor last week, authorities said Tuesday. The suspect, 18-year-old Kentrell Flowers of Southeast D.C., allegedly pulled a handgun on the marshal, who was in a parked car in the Northwest section of the city around 1:15 a.m. ET on Friday, the Metropolitan Police Department said in a press release. The marshal drew his own gun and "fired several shots at the suspect," the MPD said. Another marshal in a separate vehicle also fired at Flowers, who suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police said. Police recovered a gun from the scene.