Nordstrom responds to activist Ryan Cohen

Shares for the department store chain Nordstrom spiked following reports that meme-stock investor Ryan Cohen was purchasing more shares of the company......»»

Category: marketSource: foxnewsFeb 3rd, 2023

Nordstrom responds to activist Ryan Cohen

Shares for the department store chain Nordstrom spiked following reports that meme-stock investor Ryan Cohen was purchasing more shares of the company......»»

Category: marketSource: foxnewsFeb 3rd, 2023

Nothing But Rage: The Ginni Thomas Investigation Ends Without A Mention In J6 Report

Nothing But Rage: The Ginni Thomas Investigation Ends Without A Mention In J6 Report Authored by Jonathan Turley, Below is my column in the New York Post on J6 Committee report and the conspicuous absence of any mention of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas. Despite calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and criminal charges against the couple, the Ginni Thomas “scandal” seemed to evaporate with nary a mention in the report or the press. Here is the column: The Jan. 6 committee issued its long-awaited report at 2022’s end, with the expected breathless punditry. Spoiler alert: It turns out the culprit of this “whodunit” was … wait for it … Donald Trump. What’s more interesting is the dog that did not bark. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “Silver Blaze,” the local inspector asks Sherlock Holmes, “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Holmes responds, “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” When the inspector objects, “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replies, “That was the curious incident.” In the 895-page report, the “curious incident” is the lack of any reference to Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife. For months, members, the media and an army of pundits hammered away at the “smoking gun” texts Thomas sent to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and others calling the election stolen and demanding challenges to certifying the electoral votes. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was the first member of Congress to call for Justice Thomas to be impeached over his wife’s 29 messages. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) called for Thomas to resign immediately as a “corrupt jurist.” Former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others joined these calls. (Boxer was particularly ironic since she used the same underlying federal law to challenge the certification of George W. Bush’s election.) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demanded an investigation. On the committee itself, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fueled the frenzy and demanded subpoenas for both Thomases. The media also went into hyperbolic overload. Liberal sites demanded Thomas be impeached, citing “watchdogs” who turned out to be the same crowd that has long denounced the justice. MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan tweeted, “I have a question for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats: Why haven’t you impeached Clarence Thomas yet?” CNN and MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell tweeted that the couple had to be subpoenaed: “At best, they are material fact witnesses. At worst, they are co-conspirators to be charged with seditious conspiracy.” Professor Laurence Tribe (who declared Trump should be charged with attempted murder) also demanded the justice and his wife be subpoenaed. MSNBC’s Zeeshan Aleem declared in June that the scandal “keeps getting worse” but “the silver lining is that it will likely intensify calls for overhauling the high court, and help strip more people of the illusion that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government and a neutral arbiter of the law.” Activists like Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Take Back the Court Action Fund executive director, declared that “there’s much more to the story of Ginni Thomas’ participation in the January 6 attack that the House Select Committee and the American public deserve to know.” Yet it turns out what we knew was largely all we needed to know. There was not “much more to the story.” The entire Ginni Thomas scandal merited nary a mention in the massive report. Indeed, it doesn’t appear the committee had anything more than what we knew when the controversy began. The texts were never denied, and they weren’t surprising since Ginni Thomas was publicly supporting Trump and his claims. She was willing, moreover, to answer the committee’s questions voluntarily. We’ve come a long way from the days when spouses were viewed as mere extensions of their husbands. Ginni Thomas is an activist, and the couple has often discussed how they keep their professional lives apart. Of course, when some of us suggested Ginni Thomas has a protected right to such views and communications, we were denounced as apologists or sympathizers to an “insurrection.” For her part, as The Post reported, “Thomas said that her husband only found out about her texts with Meadows from media reports as he lay in hospital bed recovering from an infection in March 2022.” In reality, there were press reports before that. The House received 29 texts between the pair from November 2020 to mid-January 2021 in the 2,320 messages Meadows gave the committee. The press reported Meadows’ turnover in December 2021. That, however, does not change the fact there was nothing in this controversy that warranted the breathless coverage or, in my view, a subpoena issued to the spouse of a sitting justice. Politicians and pundits suggested Thomas could be impeached because he voted on a challenge to the committee obtaining White House messages and emails. In January 2022, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the materials’ release. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas. Yet Ginni Thomas’ texts had already been turned over to the committee by then, and she testified she never told her husband about her communications. Likewise, there was no evidence that she ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol riot. Thomas said she attended the Ellipse rally Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol. In the end, the committee did not take the advice of Schiff, Tribe, and others. It did not subpoena Justice Thomas. It did hear from Ginni, who voluntarily testified for four hours. Again, while the committee released her transcript, it did not find that she merited a single reference in the 895-page report. The media that pushed this exaggerated story for months followed the familiar pattern. They just shrugged and barely covered the fact the committee found nothing beyond what some of us had previously noted: Ginni Thomas was a longstanding Republican activist who publicly supported Trump’s claims of a rigged election. In her testimony, Thomas reiterated under oath that she does not talk to her husband about her political activities and he does not discuss his work on the court. She reaffirmed she never told her husband about her conversations with Meadows. She now regrets sending Meadows messages and described the days following the election as an “emotional time.” Now the entire investigation of Ginni Thomas ended as it began: as a largely recreational exercise. It did prove one thing. What many people in this age of rage refuse to admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive. It releases you from any obligations of fairness or balance. Ginni Thomas’ targeting was just another cathartic “curious incident” in the J6 investigation. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/05/2023 - 14:29.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytJan 5th, 2023

Disney responds to letter from activist investor Dan Loeb

The Third Point CEO has called on the House of Mouse to consider a series of initiatives, including a cost-cutting program, board refresh, EPSN spinoff and integration of Hulu into Disney+......»»

Category: topSource: foxnewsAug 15th, 2022

LivePerson responds to Starboard letter, says it"s executing its priorities and growth plan

LivePerson Inc. responded Friday to a letter from activist investor Starboard Value LP, saying it has "constructively engaged" in talks with Starboard Value and the fund's Managing Member Peter Feld since Starboard disclosed its investment in February. "LivePerson remains committed to serving the best interests of all shareholders," the mobile messaging company said in a statement. "The company is executing on its strategic priorities and profitable growth plan, as previously announced, and will update shareholders when it reports results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2022." The statement comes after Starboard, which own's 9.7% of LivePerson's shares outstanding, disclosed Thursday a letter Weld wrote to LivePerson's board, in which the fund urged the company to take advantage of opportunities to create "significant value" for shareholders. LivePerson's stock, which was still inactive in premarket trading, has tumbled 56.0% over the past 12 months while the S&P 500 has gained 9.8%.Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchApr 8th, 2022

Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI – S&P Global Market Intelligence

Every year leading up to the Super Bowl, S&P Global Market Intelligence uses the S&P Capital IQ database to take a light-hearted look at Super Bowl history, winners and losers and stock market returns. Q4 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI Notes about the game: LET’S GO […] Every year leading up to the Super Bowl, S&P Global Market Intelligence uses the S&P Capital IQ database to take a light-hearted look at Super Bowl history, winners and losers and stock market returns. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get Our Activist Investing Case Study! Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below! (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q4 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI Notes about the game: LET’S GO OFFENSE: Over the past 55 years the median combined final score of each game has been 46 points. When the teams in the Super Bowl combine to score at least 46 points, the stock market returns 15.9% on average (based on 29 years). If the final combined score is under 46, the average market return is just 8.2%. WHEN IN ROME: Roman numerals began to be used with Super Bowl V held in 1971. This year’s game is designated LVI and when the game is designated with an even number the average market return in the subsequent years is 8.2% versus 16.2% for games designated with an odd number. WHAT ARE THE ODDS: When the favored team wins the market responses with an average return of 13.7% versus 9.9% when the underdog pulls off the upset. No matter who wins the market is happiest when the game goes “over” as the market responds with an average return of 15.9% GO WEST YOUNG MAN: Not so good advice when it comes to the Super Bowl. When games are played west of the Mississippi River the average market return in the subsequent years is 9.0% versus a more robust 14.3% when games played east of the Mississippi River. NO PLACE LIKE HOME: When the designated home team wins the average market return in the subsequent years is 16.9% versus only 8.9% when the road team wins. Interestingly this year while the Cincinnati Bengals will have the home team designation the Los Angeles Rams will likely have true home field advantage while playing at home at SoFi Stadium. THE GOLDEN STATE: It may well be golden for investors as the average returns in subsequent years after games have been played in California is 15.8% trailing only Florida of any of the 10 states that the game has been played in. DOME MIGHT CAST SHADOW ON OUTLOOK: While technically not a dome, this year’s game will be played under a canopy at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California. Nineteen previous Super Bowls were played under a dome or with the retractable roof closed and the average market return was 7.3% while 36 Super Bowl games have been played at an open-air stadium or with the retractable roof open and the average S&P 500 return for those years is 14.9%. RETURNING CHAMPS ARE A WIN FOR S&P 500: The Los Angeles Rams are a past winner of the Super Bowl. When a former champion returns and wins the Super Bowl, the average market return is 14.3%. Notes about each league: National Football Conference (NFC) versus American Football Conference (AFC) The market performs better on average after an NFC win returning on average 13.8% versus 10.7% after an AFC win. In this year’s game the AFC is considered the home team and when the designated home team wins the average market return in the subsequent years is 16.9% versus 8.9% after a road team win. Both the best annual return (37.6% in 1995) and the worst return (-37.0 in 2008) occurred after an NFC victory. 4 of the top 5 highest scoring Super Bowls were won by the NFC while 8 of the top 10 lowest scoring games were won by the AFC. While the NFC enjoys a better record during games played outdoors (12-7) the market prefers wins by the AFC as the market averages a 12.2% return after those AFC victories in games played indoors. Note about each team: The Cincinnati Bengals (AFC) are 0-2 in their previous Super Bowls appearances. The market responds well when the Bengals are in the big game with stock market returns averaging 26.6% after their losses in Super Bowls XVI and XXIII. The Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams (NFC) are 1-3 in their previous Super Bowl appearances The market seems to like the Rams out west as after the Rams participated in two Super Bowls when located in Los Angeles the market was up an average of 32.0% while the average market return was -15.6% after their two Super Bowl appearances while located in St. Louis. Disclaimer: This data is not intended to represent a fundamental analysis of market trends or historical data and in no way is intended to be the basis for any investment decisions whatsoever. This also does not represent an endorsement of any specific NFL team by S&P Global Market Intelligence. Updated on Feb 7, 2022, 2:56 pm (function() { var sc = document.createElement("script"); sc.type = "text/javascript"; sc.async = true;sc.src = "//"; sc.charset = "utf-8";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s); }()); window._F20 = window._F20 || []; _F20.push({container: 'F20WidgetContainer', placement: '', count: 3}); _F20.push({finish: true});.....»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkFeb 7th, 2022

Rep. Cori Bush responds to Nancy Pelosi"s officiation of oil heiress Ivy Getty"s glitzy wedding: "That"s more her lane I guess"

"My purpose is to lift up those that have been marginalized and oppressed and overlooked," the congresswoman said, drawing a contrast with Pelosi. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri and House Speaker Nancy PelosiDrew Angerer and Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Cori Bush drew a sharp contrast with Nancy Pelosi, who officiated an oil heiress's lavish wedding. "She's in a position of power, and that's more her lane I guess. That's where her focus is," she said. Bush also declined to say whether she'd back Pelosi in potential future leadership elections. Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri drew a stark contrast between her and Nancy Pelosi when she was asked about the House Speaker's officiation of an oil heiress's glamorous San Francisco wedding earlier this month."My purpose is to lift up those that have been marginalized and oppressed and overlooked," the St. Louis congressman and Squad member told BuzzFeed. "And she's in a position of power, and that's more her lane I guess. That's where her focus is."Earlier this month, Pelosi officiated the wedding ceremony for Tobias Engel and Ivy Getty at San Francisco's City Hall. Getty — the granddaughter of oil baron J. Paul Getty and an heiress to his fortune — held a glamorous and high-profile wedding where she wore a dress made of broken mirrors.California Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed were also reportedly in attendance.—Vogue Runway (@VogueRunway) November 8, 2021 That came right after the House voted to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which President Joe Biden later signed into law. Bush was one of 6 "Squad" members who voted no on the bill, preferring to see it move in tandem with the Build Back Better social spending bill that progressives have prioritized.Bush told BuzzFeed that the day of the infrastructure vote was the "absolute worst day" she's had as a member of congress so far, telling her staff she wanted to take care of herself by staying off social media and away from the news."I'm Black girl broken," she reportedly texted St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones. Of the wedding itself, Bush told Buzzfeed that she "didn't know who those people were until I saw people talking about it" and that Pelosi's participation in the lavish ceremony "didn't really move me either way.""People see things differently than others, and I have learned to not condemn people for the way they see things when they haven't gone through the things that I've gone through," she said. "Like I can't change their experiences, the only thing that I can do is expose them to mine, or those of others that they may not know or understand."The congresswoman also contrasted her experiences with Pelosi within the framework of race."I don't wear those same glasses that she wears," Bush told BuzzFeed, referring to Pelosi. "For me, I'm not a woman first, I'm Black first. I don't care about party lines the way that she does. I don't care about looking like I'm leading, or care about being the one that is staying within — like, just playing the game."The Missouri congresswoman was first elected to the House in 2020, defeating an incumbent whose family had held the St. Louis-based seat since 1969. Bush rose to prominence as a Black Lives Matter activist in Ferguson in 2014, and her failed 2018 primary bid was the subject of a documentary, "Take Back The House," that also profiled Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's successful first campaign.Bush also declined to say whether she would support Pelosi to lead House Democrats in future leadership elections, saying she didn't "have an answer" to that question.Pelosi's office did not respond to Insider's request for comment, but told BuzzFeed that "the Speaker is not on a shift, she's on a mission."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 24th, 2021

Green Energy: A Bubble In Unrealistic Expectations

Green Energy: A Bubble In Unrealistic Expectations Authored by David Hay via Everegreen Gavekal blog, “You see what is happening in Europe. There is hysteria and some confusion in the markets. Why?…Some people are speculating on climate change issues, some people are underestimating some things, some are starting to cut back on investments in the extractive industries. There needs to be a smooth transition.” - Vladimir Putin (someone with whom this author rarely agrees) “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens.” – John Maynard Keynes (an interesting observation for all the modern day Keynesians to consider given their support of current inflationary US policies, including energy-related) Introduction This week’s EVA provides another sneak preview into David Hay’s book-in-process, “Bubble 3.0” discussing what he thinks is the crucial topic of “greenflation.”  This is a term he coined referring to the rising price for metals and minerals that are essential for solar and wind power, electric cars, and other renewable technologies. It also centers on the reality that as global policymakers have turned against the fossil fuel industry, energy producers are for the first time in history not responding to dramatically higher prices by increasing production.  Consequently, there is a difficult tradeoff that arises as the world pushes harder to combat climate change, driving up energy costs to painful levels, especially for lower income individuals.  What we are currently seeing in Europe is a vivid example of this dilemma.  While it may be the case that governments welcome higher oil and natural gas prices to discourage their use, energy consumers are likely to have a much different reaction. Summary BlackRock’s CEO recently admitted that, despite what many are opining, the green energy transition is nearly certain to be inflationary. Even though it’s early in the year, energy prices are already experiencing unprecedented spikes in Europe and Asia, but most Americans are unaware of the severity. To that point, many British residents being faced with the fact that they may need to ration heat and could be faced with the chilling reality that lives could be lost if this winter is as cold as forecasters are predicting. Because of the huge increase in energy prices, inflation in the eurozone recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices on the Continent that are the equivalent of $200 oil. It used to be that the cure for extreme prices was extreme prices, but these days I’m not so sure.  Oil and gas producers are very wary of making long-term investments to develop new resources given the hostility to their industry and shareholder pressure to minimize outlays. I expect global supply to peak sometime next year and a major supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand returns to normal. In Norway, almost 2/3 of all new vehicle sales are of the electric variety (EVs) – a huge increase in just over a decade. Meanwhile, in the US, it’s only about 2%. Still, given Norway’s penchant for the plug-in auto, the demand for oil has not declined. China, despite being the largest market by far for electric vehicles, is still projected to consume an enormous and rising amount of oil in the future. About 70% of China’s electricity is generated by coal, which has major environmental ramifications in regards to electric vehicles. Because of enormous energy demand in China this year, coal prices have experienced a massive boom. Its usage was up 15% in the first half of this year, and the Chinese government has instructed power providers to obtain all baseload energy sources, regardless of cost.  The massive migration to electric vehicles – and the fact that they use six times the amount of critical minerals as their gasoline-powered counterparts –means demand for these precious resources is expected to skyrocket. This extreme need for rare minerals, combined with rapid demand growth, is a recipe for a major spike in prices. Massively expanding the US electrical grid has several daunting challenges– chief among them the fact that the American public is extremely reluctant to have new transmission lines installed in their area. The state of California continues to blaze the trail for green energy in terms of both scope and speed. How the rest of the country responds to their aggressive take on renewables remains to be seen. It appears we are entering a very odd reality: governments are expending resources they do not have on weakly concentrated energy. And the result may be very detrimental for today’s modern economy. If the trend in energy continues, what looks nearly certain to be the Third Energy crisis of the last half-century may linger for years.  Green energy: A bubble in unrealistic expectations? As I have written in past EVAs, it amazes me how little of the intense inflation debate in 2021 centered on the inflationary implications of the Green Energy transition.  Perhaps it is because there is a built-in assumption that using more renewables should lower energy costs since the sun and the wind provide “free power”.  However, we will soon see that’s not the case, at least not anytime soon; in fact, it’s my contention that it will likely be the opposite for years to come and I’ve got some powerful company.  Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, a very pro-ESG* organization, is one of the few members of Wall Street’s elite who admitted this in the summer of 2021.  The story, however, received minimal press coverage and was quickly forgotten (though, obviously, not be me!).  This EVA will outline myriad reasons why I think Mr. Fink was telling it like it is…despite the political heat that could bring down upon him.  First, though, I will avoid any discussion of whether humanity is the leading cause of global warming.  For purposes of this analysis, let’s make the high-odds assumption that for now a high-speed green energy transition will continue to occur.  (For those who would like a well-researched and clearly articulated overview of the climate debate, I highly recommend the book “Unsettled”; it’s by a former top energy expert and scientist from the Obama administration, Dr. Steven Koonin.) The reason I italicized “for now” is that in my view it’s extremely probable that voters in many Western countries are going to become highly retaliatory toward energy policies that are already creating extreme hardship.  Even though it’s only early autumn as I write these words, energy prices are experiencing unprecedented increases in Europe.  Because it’s “over there”, most Americans are only vaguely aware of the severity of the situation.  But the facts are shocking…  Presently, natural gas is going for $29 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) in Europe, a quadruple compared to the same time in 2020, versus “just” $5 in the US, which is a mere doubling.  As a consequence, wholesale energy cost in Great Britain rose an unheard of 60% even before summer ended.  Reportedly, nine UK energy companies are on the brink of failure at this time due to their inability to fully pass on the enormous cost increases.  As a result, the British government is reportedly on the verge of nationalizing some of these entities—supposedly, temporarily—to prevent them from collapsing.  (CNBC reported on Wednesday that UK natural gas prices are now up 800% this year; in the US, nat gas rose 20% on Tuesday alone, before giving back a bit more than half of that the next day.) Serious food shortages are expected after exorbitant natural gas costs forced most of England’s commercial production of CO2 to shut down.  (CO2 is used both for stunning animals prior to slaughter and also in food packaging.)  Additionally, ballistic natural gas prices have forced the closure of two big US fertilizer plants due to a potential shortfall of ammonium nitrate of which “nat gas” is a key feedstock.  *ESG stands for Environmental, Social, Governance; in 2021, Blackrock’s assets under management approximated $9 ½ trillion, about one-third of the total US federal debt. With the winter of 2021 approaching, British households are being told they may need to ration heat.  There are even growing concerns about the widespread loss of life if this winter turns out to be a cold one, as 2020 was in Europe.  Weather forecasters are indicating that’s a distinct possibility.   In Spain, consumers are paying 40% more for electricity compared to the prior year.  The Spanish government has begun resorting to price controls to soften the impact of these rapidly escalating costs. (The history of price controls is that they often exacerbate shortages.) Naturally, spiking power prices hit the poorest hardest, which is typical of inflation whether it is of the energy variety or of generalized price increases.  Due to these massive energy price increases, eurozone inflation recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices that are the equivalent of $200 per barrel oil.  This is consistent with what I warned about in several EVAs earlier this year and I think there is much more of this looming in the years to come. In Asia, which also had a brutally cold winter in 2020 – 2021, there are severe energy shortages being disclosed, as well.  China has instructed its power providers to secure all the coal they can in preparation for a repeat of frigid conditions and acute deficits even before winter arrives.  The government has also instructed its energy distributors to acquire all the liquified natural gas (LNG) they can, regardless of cost.  LNG recently hit $35 per million British Thermal Units in Asia, up sevenfold in the past year.  China is also rationing power to its heavy industries, further exacerbating the worldwide shortages of almost everything, with notable inflationary implications. In India, where burning coal provides about 70% of electricity generation (as it does in China), utilities are being urged to import coal even though that country has the world’s fourth largest coal reserves.  Several Indian power plants are close to exhausting their coal supplies as power usage rips higher. Normally, I’d say that the cure for such extreme prices, was extreme prices—to slightly paraphrase the old axiom.  But these days, I’m not so sure; in fact, I’m downright dubious.  After all, the enormously influential International Energy Agency has recommended no new fossil fuel development after 2021—“no new”, as in zero.  It’s because of pressure such as this that, even though US natural gas prices have done a Virgin Galactic to $5 this year, the natural gas drilling rig count has stayed flat.  The last time prices were this high there were three times as many working rigs.  It is the same story with oil production.  Most Americans don’t seem to realize it but the US has provided 90% of the planet’s petroleum output growth over the past decade.  In other words, without America’s extraordinary shale oil production boom—which raised total oil output from around 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 13 million barrels per day in 2019—the world long ago would have had an acute shortage.  (Excluding the Covid-wracked year of 2020, oil demand grows every year—strictly as a function of the developing world, including China, by the way.) Unquestionably, US oil companies could substantially increase output, particularly in the Permian Basin, arguably (but not much) the most prolific oil-producing region in the world.  However, with the Fed being pressured by Congress to punish banks that lend to any fossil fuel operator, and the overall extreme hostility toward domestic energy producers, why would they?  There is also tremendous pressure from Wall Street on these companies to be ESG compliant.  This means reducing their carbon footprint.  That’s tough to do while expanding their volume of oil and gas.  Further, investors, whether on Wall Street or on London’s equivalent, Lombard Street, or in pretty much any Western financial center, are against US energy companies increasing production.  They would much rather see them buy back stock and pay out lush dividends.  The companies are embracing that message.  One leading oil and gas company CEO publicly mused to the effect that buying back his own shares at the prevailing extremely depressed valuations was a much better use of capital than drilling for oil—even at $75 a barrel. As reported by Morgan Stanley, in the summer of 2021, an US institutional broker conceded that of his 400 clients, only one would consider investing in an energy company!  Consequently, the fact that the industry is so detested means that its shares are stunningly undervalued.  How stunningly?  A myriad of US oil and gas producers are trading at free cash flow* yields of 10% to 15% and, in some cases, as high as 25%. In Europe, where the same pressures apply, one of its biggest energy companies is generating a 16% free cash flow yield.  Moreover, that is based up an estimate of $60 per barrel oil, not the prevailing price of $80 on the Continent. *Free cash flow is the excess of gross cash flow over and above the capital spending needed to sustain a business.  Many market professionals consider it more meaningful than earnings.  Therefore, due to the intense antipathy toward Western energy producers they aren’t very inclined to explore for new resources.  Another much overlooked fact about the ultra-critical US shale industry that, as noted, has been nearly the only source of worldwide output growth for the past 13 years, is its rapid decline nature.  Most oil wells see their production taper off at just 4% or 5% per year.  But with shale, that decline rate is 80% after only two years.  (Because of the collapse in exploration activities in 2020 due to Covid, there are far fewer new wells coming on-line; thus, the production base is made up of older wells with slower decline rates but it is still a much steeper cliff than with traditional wells.)  As a result, the US, the world’s most important swing producer, has to come up with about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of new output just to stay even.  (This was formerly about a 3 million bpd number due to both the factor mentioned above and the 2 million bpd drop in total US oil production, from 13 million bpd to around 11 million bpd since 2019).  Please recall that total US oil production in 2008 was only around 5 million bpd.  Thus, 1.5 million barrels per day is a lot of oil and requires considerable drilling and exploration activities.  Again, this is merely to stay steady-state, much less grow.  The foregoing is why I wrote on multiple occasions in EVAs during 2020, when the futures price for oil went below zero*, that crude would have a spectacular price recovery later that year and, especially, in 2021.  In my view, to go out on my familiar creaky limb, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!  With supply extremely challenged for the above reasons and demand marching back, I believe 2022 could see $100 crude, possibly even higher.  *Physical oil, or real vs paper traded, bottomed in the upper teens when the futures contract for delivery in April, 2020, went deeply negative.  Mike Rothman of Cornerstone Analytics has one of the best oil price forecasting records on Wall Street.  Like me, he was vehemently bullish on oil after the Covid crash in the spring of 2020 (admittedly, his well-reasoned optimism was a key factor in my up-beat outlook).  Here’s what he wrote late this summer:  “Our forecast for ’22 looks to see global oil production capacity exhausted late in the year and our balance suggests OPEC (and OPEC + participants) will face pressures to completely remove any quotas.”  My expectation is that global supply will likely max out sometime next year, barring a powerful negative growth shock (like a Covid variant even more vaccine resistant than Delta).  A significant supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand recovers and exceeds its pre-Covid level.  This is a view also shared by Goldman Sachs and Raymond James, among others; hence, my forecast of triple-digit prices next year.  Raymond James pointed out that in June the oil market was undersupplied by 2.5 mill bpd.  Meanwhile, global petroleum demand was rapidly rising with expectations of nearly pre-Covid consumption by year-end.  Mike Rothman ran this chart in a webcast on 9/10/2021 revealing how far below the seven-year average oil inventories had fallen.  This supply deficit is very likely to become more acute as the calendar flips to 2022. In fact, despite oil prices pushing toward $80, total US crude output now projected to actually decline this year.  This is an unprecedented development.  However, as the very pro-renewables Financial Times (the UK’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) explained in an August 11th, 2021, article:  “Energy companies are in a bind.  The old solution would be to invest more in raising gas production.  But with most developed countries adopting plans to be ‘net zero’ on carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier, the appetite for throwing billions at long-term gas projects is diminished.” The author, David Sheppard, went on to opine: “In the oil industry there are those who think a period of plus $100-a-barrel oil is on the horizon, as companies scale back investments in future supplies, while demand is expected to keep rising for most of this decade at a minimum.”  (Emphasis mine)  To which I say, precisely!  Thus, if he’s right about rising demand, as I believe he is, there is quite a collision looming between that reality and the high probability of long-term constrained supplies.  One of the most relevant and fascinating Wall Street research reports I read as I was researching the topic of what I have been referring to as “Greenflation” is from Morgan Stanley.  Its title asked the provocative question:  “With 64% of New Cars Now Electric, Why is Norway Still Using so Much Oil?”  While almost two-thirds of Norway’s new vehicle sales are EVs, a remarkable market share gain in just over a decade, the number in the US is an ultra-modest 2%.   Yet, per the Morgan Stanley piece, despite this extraordinary push into EVs, oil consumption in Norway has been stubbornly stable.  Coincidentally, that’s been the experience of the overall developed world over the past 10 years, as well; petroleum consumption has largely flatlined.  Where demand hasn’t gone horizontal is in the developing world which includes China.  As you can see from the following Cornerstone Analytics chart, China’s oil demand has vaulted by about 6 million barrels per day (bpd) since 2010 while its domestic crude output has, if anything, slightly contracted. Another coincidence is that this 6 million bpd surge in China’s appetite for oil, almost exactly matched the increase in US oil production.  Once again, think where oil prices would be today without America’s shale oil boom. This is unlikely to change over the next decade.  By 2031, there are an estimated one billion Asian consumers moving up into the middle class.  History is clear that more income means more energy consumption.  Unquestionably, renewables will provide much of that power but oil and natural gas are just as unquestionably going to play a critical role.  Underscoring that point, despite the exponential growth of renewables over the last 10 years, every fossil fuel category has seen increased usage.  Thus, even if China gets up to Norway’s 64% EV market share of new car sales over the next decade, its oil usage is likely to continue to swell.  Please be aware that China has become the world’s largest market for EVs—by far.  Despite that, the above chart vividly displays an immense increase in oil demand.  Here’s a similar factoid that I ran in our December 4th EVA, “Totally Toxic”, in which I made a strong bullish case for energy stocks (the main energy ETF is up 35% from then, by the way):  “(There was) a study by the UN and the US government based on the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gasses Induced Climate Change (MAGICC).  The model predicted that ‘the complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and by less than one fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100.’  Say again?  If the world’s biggest carbon emitter on a per capita basis causes minimal improvement by going cold turkey on fossil fuels, are we making the right moves by allocating tens of trillions of dollars that we don’t have toward the currently in-vogue green energy solutions?” China's voracious power appetite increase has been true with all of its energy sources.  On the environmentally-friendly front, that includes renewables; on the environmentally-unfriendly side, it also includes coal.  In 2020, China added three times more coal-based power generation than all other countries combined.  This was the equivalent of an additional coal planet each week.  Globally, there was a reduction last year of 17 gigawatts in coal-fired power output; in China, the increase was 29.8 gigawatts, far more than offsetting the rest of the world’s progress in reducing the dirtiest energy source.  (A gigawatt can power a city with a population of roughly 700,000.) Overall, 70% of China’s electricity is coal-generated. This has significant environmental implications as far as electric vehicles (EVs) are concerned.  Because EVs are charged off a grid that is primarily coal- powered, carbon emissions actually rise as the number of such vehicles proliferate. As you can see in the following charts from Reuters’ energy expert John Kemp, Asia’s coal-fired generation has risen drastically in the last 20 years, even as it has receded in the rest of the world.  (The flattening recently is almost certainly due to Covid, with a sharp upward resumption nearly a given.) The worst part is that burning coal not only emits CO2—which is not a pollutant and is essential for life—it also releases vast quantities of nitrous oxide (N20), especially on the scale of coal usage seen in Asia today. N20 is unquestionably a pollutant and a greenhouse gas that is hundreds of times more potent than CO2.  (An interesting footnote is that over the last 550 million years, there have been very few times when the CO2 level has been as low, or lower, than it is today.)  Some scientists believe that one reason for the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice in recent decades is due to the prevailing winds blowing black carbon soot over from Asia.  This is a separate issue from N20 which is a colorless gas.  As the black soot covers the snow and ice fields in Northern Canada, they become more absorbent of the sun’s radiation, thus causing increased melting.  (Source:  “Weathering Climate Change” by Hugh Ross) Due to exploding energy needs in China this year, coal prices have experienced an unprecedented surge.  Despite this stunning rise, Chinese authorities have instructed its power providers to obtain coal, and other baseload energy sources, such as liquified natural gas (LNG), regardless of cost.  Notwithstanding how pricey coal has become, its usage in China was up 15% in the first half of this year vs the first half of 2019 (which was obviously not Covid impacted). Despite the polluting impact of heavy coal utilization, China is unlikely to turn away from it due to its high energy density (unlike renewables), its low cost (usually) and its abundance within its own borders (though its demand is so great that it still needs to import vast amounts).  Regarding oil, as we saw in last week’s final image, it is currently importing roughly 11 million barrels per day (bpd) to satisfy its 15 million bpd consumption (about 15% of total global demand).  In other words, crude imports amount to almost three-quarter of its needs.  At $80 oil, this totals $880 million per day or approximately $320 billion per year.  Imagine what China’s trade surplus would look like without its oil import bill! Ironically, given the current hostility between the world’s superpowers, China has an affinity for US oil because of its light and easy-to-refine nature.  China’s refineries tend to be low-grade and unable to efficiently process heavier grades of crude, unlike the US refining complex which is highly sophisticated and prefers heavy oil such as from Canada and Venezuela—back when the latter actually produced oil. Thus, China favors EVs because they can be de facto coal-powered, lessening its dangerous reliance on imported oil.  It also likes them due to the fact it controls 80% of the lithium ion battery supply and 60% of the planet’s rare earth minerals, both of which are essential to power EVs.     However, even for China, mining enough lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, aluminum and the other essential minerals/metals to meet the ambitious goals of largely electrifying new vehicle volumes is going to be extremely daunting.  This is in addition to mass construction of wind farms and enormously expanded solar panel manufacturing. As one of the planet’s leading energy authorities Daniel Yergin writes: “With the move to electric cars, demand for critical minerals will skyrocket (lithium up 4300%, cobalt and nickel up 2500%), with an electric vehicle using 6 times more minerals than a conventional car and a wind turbine using 9 times more minerals than a gas-fueled power plant.  The resources needed for the ‘mineral-intensive energy system’ of the future are also highly concentrated in relatively few countries. Whereas the top 3 oil producers in the world are responsible for about 30 percent of total liquids production, the top 3 lithium producers control more than 80% of supply. China controls 60% of rare earths output needed for wind towers; the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70% of the cobalt required for EV batteries.” As many have noted, the environmental impact of immensely ramping up the mining of these materials is undoubtedly going to be severe.  Michael Shellenberger, a life-long environmental activist, has been particularly vociferous in his condemnation of the dominant view that only renewables can solve the global energy needs.  He’s especially critical of how his fellow environmentalists resorted to repetitive deception, in his view, to undercut nuclear power in past decades.  By leaving nuke energy out of the solution set, he foresees a disastrous impact on the planet due to the massive scale (he’d opine, impossibly massive) of resource mining that needs to occur.  (His book, “Apocalypse Never”, is also one I highly recommend; like Dr. Koonin, he hails from the left end of the political spectrum.) Putting aside the environmental ravages of developing rare earth minerals, when you have such high and rapidly rising demand colliding with limited supply, prices are likely to go vertical.  This will be another inflationary “forcing”, a favorite term of climate scientists, caused by the Great Green Energy Transition. Moreover, EVs are very semiconductor intensive.  With semis already in seriously short supply, this is going to make a gnarly situation even gnarlier.  It’s logical to expect that there will be recurring shortages of chips over the next decade for this reason alone (not to mention the acute need for semis as the “internet of things” moves into primetime).  In several of the newsletters I’ve written in recent years, I’ve pointed out the present vulnerability of the US electric grid.  Yet, it will be essential not just to keep it from breaking down under its current load; it must be drastically enhanced, a Herculean task. For one thing, it is excruciatingly hard to install new power lines. As J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest has written: “Grid expansion can be a hornet’s nest of cost, complexity and NIMBYism*, particularly in the US.”  The grid’s frailty, even under today’s demands (i.e., much less than what lies ahead as millions of EVs plug into it) is particularly obvious in California.  However, severe winter weather in 2021 exposed the grid weakness even in energy-rich Texas, which also has a generally welcoming attitude toward infrastructure upgrading and expansion. Yet it’s the Golden State, home to 40 million Americans and the fifth largest economy in the world, if it was its own country (which it occasionally acts like it wants to be), that is leading the charge to EVs and seeking to eliminate internal combustion engines (ICEs) as quickly as possible.  Even now, blackouts and brownouts are becoming increasingly common.  Seemingly convinced it must be a role model for the planet, it’s trying desperately to reduce its emissions, which are less than 1%, of the global total, at the expense of rendering its energy system more similar to a developing country.  In addition to very high electricity costs per kilowatt hour (its mild climate helps offset those), it also has gasoline prices that are 77% above the national average.  *NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard. While California has been a magnet for millions seeking a better life for 150 years, the cost of living is turning the tide the other way.  Unreliable and increasingly expensive energy is likely to intensify that trend.  Combined with home prices that are more than double the US median–$800,000!–California is no longer the land of milk and honey, unless, to slightly paraphrase Woody Guthrie about LA, even back in the 1940s, you’ve got a whole lot of scratch.  More and more people, seem to be scratching California off their list of livable venues.  Voters in the reliably blue state of California may become extremely restive, particularly as they look to Asia and see new coal plants being built at a fever pitch.  The data will become clear that as America keeps decarbonizing–as it has done for 30 years mostly due to the displacement of coal by gas in the US electrical system—Asia will continue to go the other way.  (By the way, electricity represents the largest share of CO2 emission at roughly 25%.)  California has always seemed to lead social trends in this country, as it is doing again with its green energy transition.  The objective is noble though, extremely ambitious, especially the timeline.  As it brings its power paradigm to the rest of America, especially its frail grid, it will be interesting to see how voters react in other states as the cost of power leaps higher and its dependability heads lower.  It’s reasonable to speculate we may be on the verge of witnessing the Californication of the US energy system.  Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, please be aware the IEA (International Energy Agency) has estimated it will cost the planet $5 trillion per year to achieve Net Zero emissions.  This is compared to global GDP of roughly $85 trillion. According to BloombergNEF, the price tag over 30 years, could be as high as $173 trillion.  Frankly, based on the history of gigantic cost overruns on most government-sponsored major infrastructure projects, I’m inclined to take the over—way over—on these estimates. Moreover, energy consulting firm T2 and Associates, has guesstimated electrifying just the US to the extent necessary to eliminate the direct consumption of fuel (i.e., gasoline, natural gas, coal, etc.) would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion.  Again, taking into account how these ambitious efforts have played out in the past, I suspect $29 trillion is light.  Regardless, even $18 trillion is a stunner, despite the reality we have all gotten numb to numbers with trillions attached to them.  For perspective, the total, already terrifying, level of US federal debt is $28 trillion. Regardless, as noted last week, the probabilities of the Great Green Energy Transition happening are extremely high.  Relatedly, I believe the likelihood of the Great Greenflation is right up there with them.  As Gavekal’s Didier Darcet wrote in mid-August:  ““Nowadays, and this is a great first in history, governments will commit considerable financial resources they do not have in the extraction of very weakly concentrated energy.” ( i.e., less efficient)  “The bet is very risky, and if it fails, what next?  The modern economy would not withstand expensive energy, or worse, lack of energy.”  While I agree this an historical first, it’s definitely not great (with apologies for all the “greats”).  This is particularly not great for keeping inflation subdued, as well as for attempting to break out of the growth quagmire the Western world has been in for the last two decades.  What we are seeing in Europe right now is an extremely cautionary case study in just how disastrous the war on fossil fuels can be (shortly we will see who or what has been a behind-the-scenes participant in this conflict). Essentially, I believe, as I’ve written in past EVAs, we are entering the third energy crisis of the last 50 years.  If I’m right, it will be characterized by recurring bouts of triple-digit oil prices in the years to come.  Along with Richard Nixon taking the US off the gold standard in 1971, the high inflation of the 1970s was caused by the first two energy crises (the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution).  If I’m correct about this being the third, it’s coming at a most inopportune time with the US in hyper-MMT* mode. Frankly, I believe many in the corridors of power would like to see oil trade into the $100s, and natural gas into the teens, as it will help catalyze the shift to renewable energy.  But consumers are likely to have a much different reaction—potentially, a violently different reaction, as I noted last week.  The experience of the Yellow Vest protests in France (referring to the color of the vest protestors wore), are instructive in this regard.  France is a generally left-leaning country.  Despite that, a proposed fuel surtax in November 2018 to fund a renewable energy transition triggered such widespread civil unrest that French president Emmanuel Macron rescinded it the following month. *MMT stands for Modern Monetary Theory.  It holds that a government, like the US, which issues debt in its own currency can spend without concern about budgetary constraints.  If there are not enough buyers of its bonds at acceptable interest rates, that nation’s central bank (the Fed, in our case) simply acquires them with money it creates from its digital printing press.  This is what is happening today in the US.  Many economists consider this highly inflationary. The sharp and politically uncomfortable rise in US gas pump prices this summer caused the Biden administration to plead with OPEC to lift its volume quotas.  The ironic implication of that exhortation was glaringly obvious, as was the inefficiency and pollution consequences of shipping oil thousands of miles across the Atlantic.  (Oil tankers are a significant source of emissions.)  This is as opposed to utilizing domestic oil output, as well as crude from Canada (which is actually generally better suited to the US refining complex).  Beyond the pollution aspect, imported oil obviously worsens America’s massive trade deficit (which would be far more massive without the six million barrels per day of domestic oil volumes that the shale revolution has provided) and costs our nation high-paying jobs. Further, one of my other big fears is that the West is engaging in unilateral energy disarmament.  Russia and China are likely the major beneficiaries of this dangerous scenario.  Per my earlier comment about a stealth combatant in the war on fossil fuels, it may surprise you that a past NATO Secretary General* has accused Russian intelligence of avidly supporting the anti-fracking movements in Western Europe.  Russian TV has railed against fracking for years, even comparing it to pedophilia (certainly, a most bizarre analogy!).  The success of the anti-fracking movement on the Continent has essentially prevented a European version of America’s shale miracles (the UK has the potential to be a major shale gas producer).  Consequently, the European Union’s domestic natural gas production has been in a rapid decline phase for years.  Banning fracking has, of course, made Europe heavily reliant on Russian gas shipments with more than 40% of its supplies coming from Russia. This is in graphic contrast to the shale output boom in the US that has not only made us natural gas self-sufficient but also an export powerhouse of liquified natural gas (LNG).  In 2011, the Nord Stream system of pipelines running under the Baltic Sea from northern Russia began delivering gas west from northern Russia to the German coastal city of Greifswald.  For years, the Russians sought to build a parallel system with the inventive name of Nord Stream 2.  The US government opposed its approval on security grounds but the Biden administration has dropped its opposition.  It now appears Nord Stream 2 will happen, leaving Europe even more exposed to Russian coercion.  Is it possible the Russian government and the Chinese Communist Party have been secretly and aggressively supporting the anti-fossil fuel movements in America?  In my mind, it seems not only possible but probable.  In fact, I believe it is naïve not to come that conclusion.  After all, wouldn’t it be in both of their geopolitical interests to see the US once again caught in a cycle of debilitating inflation, ensnared by the twin traps of MMT and the third energy crisis? *Per former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasumssen:  Russia has “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”. Along these lines, I was shocked to listen to a recent podcast by the New Yorker magazine on the topic of “intelligent sabotage”.  This segment was an interview between the magazine’s David Remnick and a Swedish professor, Adreas Malm.  Mr. Malm is the author of a new book with the literally explosive title “How To Blow Up A Pipeline”.   Just as it sounds, he advocates detonating pipelines to inhibit fossil fuel distribution.  Mr. Remnick was clearly sympathetic to his guest but he did ask him about the impact on the poor of driving energy prices up drastically which would be the obvious ramification if his sabotage recommendations were widely followed.  Mr. Malm’s reaction was a verbal shrug of the shoulders and words to the effect that this was the price to pay to save the planet. Frankly, I am appalled that the venerable New Yorker would provide a platform for such a radical and unlawful suggestion.  In an era when people are de-platformed for often innocuous comments, it’s incredible to me this was posted and has not been pulled down.  In my mind, this reflects just how tolerant the media is of attacks on the fossil fuel industry, regardless of the deleterious impact on consumers and the global economy. Surely, there is a far better way of coping with the harmful aspects of fossil fuel-based energy than this scorched earth (literally, in the case of Mr. Malm) approach, which includes efforts to block new pipelines, shut existing ones, and severely restrict US energy production.  In America’s case, the result will be forcing us to unnecessarily and increasingly rely on overseas imports.  (For example, per the Wall Street Journal, drilling permits on federal land have crashed to 171 in August from 671 in April.  Further, the contentious $3.5 trillion “infrastructure” plan would raise royalties and fees high enough on US energy producers that it would render them globally uncompetitive.) Such actions would only aggravate what is already a severe energy shock, one that may be worse than the 1970s twin energy crises.  America has it easy compared to Europe, though, given current US policy trends, we might be in their same heavily listing energy boat soon. Solutions include fast-tracking small modular nuclear plants; encouraging the further switch from burning coal to natural gas (a trend that is, unfortunately, going the other way now, as noted above); utilizing and enhancing carbon and methane capture at the point of emission (including improving tail pipe effluent-reduction technology); enhancing pipeline integrity to inhibit methane leaks; among many other mitigation techniques that recognize the reality the global economy will be reliant on fossil fuels for many years, if not decades, to come.  If the climate change movement fails to recognize the essential nature of fossil fuels, it will almost certainly trigger a backlash that will undermine the positive change it is trying to bring about.  This is similar to what it did via its relentless assault on nuclear power which produced a frenzy of coal plant construction in the 1980s and 1990s.  On this point, it’s interesting to see how quickly Europe is re-embracing coal power to alleviate the energy poverty and rationing occurring over there right now - even before winter sets in.  When the choice is between supporting climate change initiatives on one hand and being able to heat your home and provide for your family on the other, is there really any doubt about which option the majority of voters will select? Tyler Durden Tue, 10/26/2021 - 19:30.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytOct 26th, 2021

The Seven Secrets of Indra Nooyi’s Success

The former PepsiCo CEO shares details from her life and career in her book My Life in Full: Work, Family, and Our Future. Indra Nooyi struggles to be heard over the sounds of outdoor dining, midtown traffic, and a fountain gushing down the wall. That’s clearly rare for the former PepsiCo CEO—so she beckons the restaurant’s owner and asks if he can shut off the water. He obliges, and Nooyi proceeds to regale us, a table of female journalists at the helm of various New York media, with anecdotes from her just-released book, My Life in Full: Work, Family, and Our Future. The whole lunchtime interaction—assess problem, determine what’s in your control, improve outcome, go forth with grace—is signature Nooyi. Her book delves even further into this exacting style punctured by compassion, loyalty, and deep relationships that get results. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] I confess to having studied Nooyi for a long time now. I’ve watched her interviews, live and on YouTube, during my own career trajectory. A manager training I once attended spent hours dissecting Nooyi’s ability to peer around corners and lead a company through change. Then there’s the South Asian connection: a member of our own community ascended to a Fortune 50 company who proudly credits her childhood in Chennai and the role of extended family in making it all possible. For years, my people proudly (and wrongly) asserted that the 65-year-old executive wears a sari in the boardroom. Thankfully, her book debunks the myth: After feeling like a misfit in oversized polyester outfits, she chose the traditional Indian dress for an internship interview, landed the job, and donned the sari for the rest of the summer. Eventually, she transitioned to Western attire, and her sartorial choices gained style and confidence as her career progressed. Read more: A Woman of Color Cannot Save Your Workplace Culture Back stories like that are the hallmark of this part memoir, part clarion. We’ve heard a lot from Nooyi over the last two decades, talks distilled into tweetable headlines and soundbites on work-family balance. As a woman of color, a mother of two girls, an immigrant success story, she describes feeling almost a moral obligation to show up at speeches, panels, awards ceremonies, seminars, and guest lectures during her 12-year tenure as CEO. Life in Full stitches it all together and offers the context sometimes only possible in hindsight. The fast-paced narrative is as much a blueprint to getting ahead at work as an appreciation of the friends and family along for the journey. I found seven themes in particular surfaced repeatedly, together buoying Nooyi’s remarkable life: It’s okay to love work. Perhaps in all the reams written on the juggle, especially for women, the part that often feels shafted is the work itself. Nooyi’s love of the job—from walks on factory floors to battles with activist investors—is so apparent and infectious. Anyone who has fist-pumped after an excellent quarter or convinced a supervisor to implement their strategy will love the gusto with which Nooyi both throws herself into the work and celebrates wins. She also uses wonky but relatable examples to explain how to predict and embrace change in the bigger picture. Nooyi recounts walking into supermarkets and Walmarts to assess Frito-Lay packaging and placement on shelves and watching parents and kids at birthday parties shunning soda as precursors to PepsiCo’s focus on healthier products. She also remembers working long hours and skipping vacation to dive into the guts of a billion-dollar-plus proposal to overhaul enterprise software, and why it is so important for leaders to understand all aspects of what they are approving. Sharing the love of the work with the ones you love feels necessary and important, especially for children to understand why their mom is away: She loves you, but she also loves her work. It’s okay to talk about your family at work. Similarly, Nooyi seemingly effortlessly centers family in the workplace. There are subtle but important examples; for years, she kept a dry-erase board in her office just for the kids. Everyone from her bosses to her assistants helped in times of crisis, such as by offering to do school pickup. There are also the ways Nooyi recognized the families of her staffers. She recounts writing letters to the parents of colleagues to thank them for their role in their child’s stellar performance. These “report cards,” she says, were beloved and drew loyalty from staff and their families. She also thanked the spouses of her direct reports, and notes, “these letters released a lot of emotion.” Hire experts. Over and over, Nooyi finds herself in jobs or situations where she lacks expertise in an industry or product. It’s how she responds, also over and over, that is so brilliant. She doesn’t BS her way through presentations; she turns to experts. Nooyi matter-of-factly mentions that after she went to Motorola, two community college professors came twice a week to her office, one to explain how automobiles work and the other to discuss “solid-state physics and electronics.” You see how this instinct serves her well over time as she moves to PepsiCo. There, she turns to experts in design, science, and technology. Eventually, she hires a chief scientific officer, saying the role can help reduce salt in chips and add whole grains to Cheerio’s. But more importantly, she says, “science could be at the heart of reimagining the global food system.” Men have a role to play. At critical junctures in Nooyi’s career, men have preemptively jumped in and offered their support. When her father was dying, one boss offered six months paid leave. Importantly, the men initiated such support, she says, because “as a young consultant, I had zero leverage in asking for any kind of benefit that would help me through a difficult time.” When she was pregnant and working as a consultant, she recounts: “For my last meeting with Trane, Bill Roth, the CEO, chartered two planes to bring his entire executive team to our offices in Chicago. The meeting would typically have happened in his own boardroom, but I was nine months pregnant and couldn’t travel. Bill wanted me to be part of BCG’s final presentation to his company.” You can sense their immense respect for her at the root of the life-changing gestures. But imagine if such accommodation were the norm and not the exception. Would more women stay in the workforce? Similarly, Nooyi praises her father-in-law and husband for their lack of adherence to Indian tradition around gender roles. After marriage, her father-in-law said to her: “Indra, don’t give up your job. You have all this education, and you should use it. We will support you in any way we can.” Leave the crown in the garage. Nooyi repeatedly says being a mother is one of her most cherished roles. But one night, after being named president of PepsiCo, she comes home and her mother orders her to go get milk. Nooyi is annoyed, feeling like she can’t even revel in this newfound title and success. Her mother responds: “You may be the president or whatever of PepsiCo, but when you come home, you are a wife and a mother and a daughter. Nobody can take your place. So you leave that crown in the garage.” Such humility might not be expected of men, but Nooyi accepts this as a small price to keep peace on the home front. Another subtle point in the anecdote: Nobody will be as honest or hard on you as your mother. Care needs to be prioritized by everybody right now. While the brunt of the book dwells on Nooyi’s journey, she issues a call for action—rooted in deep study of states, companies, and countries with more family-friendly policies— for both prioritizing and training care workers like never before. Both in the book and in her lunch with journalists, Nooyi cites concern about two related crises. Women leaving the workforce and choosing not to have children, she says, will be disastrous for the economy, citing Japan as an example of our potential fate. She writes: “We must expand the future-of-work conversations that dwell on robotics and artificial intelligence to include another critical dimension of our success: how to shift our economies to better integrate work and family and ensure that women get equal pay and share power.” Purpose is everything. I have written reams during the pandemic on how purpose is the single most important motivator for the modern workforce. Nooyi was early to this trend. Her transformation of PepsiCo rested on a concept called “Performance with Purpose.” She writes: “PwP would transform the way PepsiCo made money and tie our business success to these objectives: Nourish. Replenish. Cherish.” Purpose translates, thus, not just to business objectives but life itself. Over the last year, retirement from PepsiCo a distant memory, Nooyi was working endless hours on a Covid task force. Her mother—the same woman who’d once said to leave the crown in the garage—seemed to have a change of heart. The need for home and work to accommodate each other might be more needed than ever. “You are someone who wants to help the world and not many people are like you,” her mother said. “I don’t think you should worry about the house so much. You have to give back as much as you can.”.....»»

Category: topSource: timeOct 12th, 2021

Healthcare Trust responds to activist investor"s urging to put itself up for sale

Healthcare Trust of America Inc. said Monday that it regularly reviews its strategic plan and opportunities to enhance shareholder value. "We are open minded and committed to delivering superior returns for all HTA shareholders," the real estate investment trust that owns and operates medical office buildings said in a statement. The statement was in response to activist investor Elliott Investment Management L.P.'s letter to the HTA's board urging the company to explore a sale of the company, given the "long-term underperformance" relative to its peers, the broader REIT sector and stock market. "After we were first contacted by Elliott, members of HTA's management team and board held several discussions with representatives of Elliott to better understand their views, and those views were immediately shared with the full HTA board," the company said. The stock rose 2.1% in afternoon trading. It has rallied 17.6% year to date, while the SPDR Real Estate Select Sector ETF has run up 22.3% and the S&P 500 has advanced 16.8%.Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchOct 11th, 2021

Anthony Fauci says one line from "The Godfather" has shaped his career

In the documentary "Fauci," Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals that a line from "The Godfather" shaped his career: "It's not personal. It's strictly business." The line "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business," comes from the 1972 film "The Godfather." IMDb/Paramount Pictures In a new documentary, called "Fauci," Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals that a line from the movie "The Godfather" has guided his career. It's a classic quote: "It's not personal. It's strictly business." See more stories on Insider's business page. "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."The deadpan line, delivered by a young Al Pacino in the iconic 1972 film "The Godfather," has been a guiding principle for a different type of leader: Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci, an even-keeled public servant, leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and has served under six presidents, including Joe Biden and Donald Trump. He explains why "The Godfather" line has stuck with him in a new National Geographic documentary, titled "Fauci," which is now streaming on Disney Plus. Dr. Anthony Fauci during an interview at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. National Geographic for Disney+/Visko Hatfield "When someone attacks, I don't immediately fight back. That's not my style. You don't get into the fray," Fauci says in the film. "And over the years, which became decades, that became the mantra, using 'The Godfather' as the great book of philosophy: 'It's nothing person, it's strictly business.'" Anthony Fauci has served under six US presidents. AP Photo/Alex Brandon Fauci's long tenure in Washington may be a testament to his mantra's power."Tony Fauci doesn't come in the Oval Office to say, 'I'm going to make you look good politically.' He's not a politician," former President George W. Bush explains in the documentary. "Tony Fauci says, 'I think we can solve this problem. Here are the facts. And here's my recommendation for a way forward.'" President Joe Biden receives a briefing from Fauci on February 11, 2021, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz During Fauci's 50-plus-year career, he has worked on infectious-disease threats including Ebola, Zika, and anthrax, as well as the epidemic that first put him in the crosshairs of activists in the 1980s and 1990s: HIV/AIDS.The documentary depicts how, as deaths mounted during the HIV/AIDS crisis, Fauci met with representatives from the group Act Up to hear their concerns. The activists peppered Fauci with targeted questions about the slow pace of scientific research into HIV/AIDS treatment and accused him of causing their friends' deaths. Members of the activist group Act Up march through Times Square in New York on April 6, 1992. AP Photo/Andrew Savulich "The criticism, the hostility, it didn't really seem to faze him," David Barr, an AIDS activist, recalls in the documentary.Peter Staley, an AIDS activist and early member of Act Up, adds: "My first impression is that we're dealing with Brooklyn here. He got a complete grilling and continued the conversation."The documentary shows footage from those early meetings, in which Fauci responds to the accusations from Barr, Stanley, and others."This is where I disagree with you," Fauci told them at the time. "This is nothing personal, strictly business."In reflecting on that moment, present-day Fauci says in the film: "We didn't agree on everything in that first meeting. But their instincts were right, and that started a series of dialogues that did not stop the demonstrations." Fauci sits behind his desk in his office in Bethesda, Maryland, 1988. Leif Skoogfors/Corbis via Getty Images Archival footage shows what those demonstrations looked like. Protestors surrounded the NIH - Fauci's workplace - with signs and banners, shouting, "Typical day at the NIH, watching people die!" and "The NIH is lying. Women with AIDS are dying!" "I started to feel - and my staff thought I was completely nuts - almost an affinity to them," Fauci recalls of the demonstrators."I started to put myself into their shoes," he adds. People with AIDS were being told they had months to live, but scientific research was expected to take years. Fauci summed up the activists' point of view about the slow pace of research as, "Thank you very much, but I'm going to be dead." Fauci lectures President Ronald Reagan (left) and other members of the President's Commission on AIDS. Photo by Diana Walker/Getty Images The documentary also shows how Fauci brought scientists and AIDS activists together to work on clinical research and drug development, forging a patient-scientist relationship that has since extended beyond AIDS research.In a speech Fauci gave at the time, which is depicted in the film, he said: "Activists are mistaken when they assume that scientists do not care about them. This is devastating to a physician scientist who has devoted years to AIDS research, particularly when they themselves see so many of their own patients suffering and dying. On the other hand, scientists cannot dismiss activists merely on the basis of the fact that they are not trained scientists ... We must join together."Fauci watches footage of that speech in the documentary."During that speech, I'm saying something and you have the activists clap. Then then I say something, and the scientists clap. The beauty of it is that at the end of it, everybody was clapping," he says.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytOct 7th, 2021

"They are starting to get more and more desperate": Greta Thunberg responds to a Canadian oil company accused of creating a vulgar cartoon depicting her in a non-consensual sex act

Associated Press A photo of a sticker circulated online that showed 17-year-old climate activist Great Thunberg engaged in a non-consensual sex a.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderMar 1st, 2020

Enzo Biochem responds to "misleading" statements from activist hedge fund

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytJan 13th, 2020

Red Robin"s stock soars toward biggest-ever one-day gain; co. responds to activist calls for strategic review

Shares of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. rocketed 31.1% in afte.....»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchJun 13th, 2019

Bed Bath & Beyond responds to "public attack" from activist group

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMar 26th, 2019

Yelp responds to activist investor SQN Investors presentation pushing co. to "unlock value"

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit or the quote page for more information about this breaking news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchJan 16th, 2019

Will You Play It Fast And Loose?

Will You Play It Fast And Loose? Authored by MN Gordon via, “How should I play that one, Bert?  Play it safe?  That’s the way you always told me to play it: safe… play the percentage.  Well, here we go: fast and loose.  One ball, corner pocket.  Yeah, percentage players die broke, too, don’t they, Bert?” – Fast Eddie Felson, The Hustler QT2 Master Plan Stopping the excess is always much harder than starting it.  But sometimes it must be done.  And done all the way.  Half measures avail nothing. On June 1, 2022, Fed Chair Jay Powell commenced Quantitative Tightening (QT) Part 2.  “Brace yourself,” was the advice of JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon.  Were his banker cohorts listening? The master plan for QT2 was for the Fed to reduce its holdings of Treasury notes and mortgage-backed securities by a combined $47.5 billion per month for the first three months (July thru August 2022).  Then, by September 2022, the Fed would start reducing its balance sheet by a total amount of $95 billion a month (i.e., $60 billion in Treasuries notes and $35 billion in mortgage-backed securities). Wells Fargo Investment Institute took the Fed at its word and even projected that its balance sheet could shrink by almost $1.5 trillion by the end of 2023.  Taking it down to around $7.5 trillion. To anyone with a memory that extends back longer than two years, it was obvious that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell the Fed would contract its balance sheet to $7.5 trillion by the end of 2023.  At the time, we remarked, “We’ll bet dollars to doughnuts this never happens.” Our certainty was not based on any special insight about the future.  It was merely the recognition that QT1 flamed out early. Specifically, it took 24 months for the Fed to reduce its balance sheet by $800 billion between October 2017 and September 2019 (in the wake of a $3.5 trillion expansion).  That was before QT1 abruptly ended in repo-madness. QT2 Fail Like all plans of central planners, the QT2 plan laid out by the Fed to extinguish nearly double the ‘assets’ in 19 months that were terminated in 24 months during QT1 was nothing but a pipe dream.  Clearly, something was bound to break well in advance of the Fed hitting a balance sheet of $7.5 trillion. By now we all know what broke.  Silicon Valley Bank broke.  As did Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and Credit Suisse.  More banks could fail too, even in the face of mega bailouts being engineered by activist central banks. With respect to the Fed’s balance sheet, after peaking at over $8.9 trillion in April 2022, it fell roughly $626 billion through the end of February 2023.  As of March 15, 2023, the Fed’s balance sheet had jumped $300 billion.  And by the time you’re reading this, or shortly after, we’ll know how many more hundreds of billions in credit the Fed has created out of thin air to liquify the financial system. In short, QT2 was a complete and utter failure.  Of the $626 billion reduction that occurred, $300 billion was added back – in a matter of days.  This massive increase marks the return of Quantitative Easing (QE).  It also surfaces an important question. How much Fed credit creation – out of thin air – will be needed to stem the banking crisis? One trillion dollars, $5 trillion, $10 trillion? Your guess is as good as ours.  In matters like this, however, it is always best to think in big, round numbers.  So, don’t be surprised when the Fed’s balance sheet eclipses $20 trillion over the next several years. Inflation Deflation Inflation of the money supply is inflation in the truest sense.  It’s what comes first.  Asset price inflation and consumer price inflation then follow in wild and unpredictable ways. Are these massive new additions to the Fed’s balance sheet inflationary? By definition, yes.  As the inflation of the Fed’s balance sheet supplies additional credit to the financial system.  But how will this inflation impact asset and consumer prices? This is to be determined. The immediate concern is credit contraction and debt deflation.  The forces causing banks to go belly up are relentless.  As TradeSmith recently noted, the money supply (M2) is contracting for the first time in the modern era.  Liquidity has disappeared from the marketplace. For example, for investors holding the $17 billion of Credit Suisse’s additional tier 1 (AT1) bonds, the banking crisis is deflationary.  This includes retail investors in Asia, PIMCO, Invesco, and Legg Mason, among others.  Their investment – principal, interest, the whole nine yards – has been written down to diddly-squat. But what about for SVB depositors, including those with accounts above and beyond FDIC insurance limits?  Is the BTFP bailout inflationary when depositors are merely being made whole? Make of it what you will.  The moral hazard of it all, which rewards bankers for going hog-wild speculating with customer deposits, is a disaster. What is clearly inflationary, and what is explicitly driving consumer prices higher, is the massive amount of deficit spending being racked up by Washington.  The federal government has already spent $723 billion more than it collected in revenue in fiscal year 2023.  Yet the fiscal year hasn’t even reached the mid-point. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the FY 2023 deficit is projected to hit $1.4 trillion.  This is on top of the $1.38 trillion deficit accumulated in FY 2022.  Thus, as the credit market contracts, and banks fail, consumer prices will remain elevated. Will You Play It Fast And Loose? With consumer price inflation just off its highest levels in over 40 years, we suppose the massive deficit spending combined with the broadening scope of the bank bailouts will be a tailwind for rising consumer prices.  This is especially true as shameful opportunists like Senator Elizabeth Warren use the politics of the bank crisis to justify creative ways to inject printing press money into the economy. But at the moment, we expect the real action will be in asset prices.  And there’s great uncertainty in how it will all play out. Those expecting Fed liquidity to pump up the stock market should moderate their enthusiasm.  That time will come.  But first, there’s plenty of wreckage in the debt market that needs to reconciled, written off, or bailed out. This week Fed Chair Powell, following the federal open market committee meeting, hiked the federal funds rate 25 basis points to a range of 4.75 to 5 percent.  This, no doubt, is deflationary for the debt market.  It furthers the negative carry problem that banks foolishly got themselves in. Still, what could Powell do?  Inflation is out of control.  It must be restrained.  Shortsighted decisions made during the COVID Panic must be corrected.  Moreover, with Washington spending like drunken sailors, Powell must hold the line as long as politically feasible. Ultimately, it’s a losing cause.  Interest payments on the national debt during the current fiscal year are up 29 percent year over year.  Soon enough, the Fed will have to cut rates to bail out Washington – inflation be damned. In the interim, a hardcore stock market panic is in store.  We expect this will be one for the history books.  We also expect it will provide buying opportunities of a lifetime, which most people will miss out on.  Are you psychologically prepared to buy when the time is right? At the point of maximum fear, when the sky is falling, the world is ending, and shares of Bank of America trade below $8, what will you do? Will you play it safe?  Or will you play it fast and loose? *  *  * As the financial system falls apart and the economy slips into a recession, a great distraction will be needed to control the masses.  In this regard, is Washington secretly provoking China to attack Taiwan?  Are your finances prepared for such madness?  Answers to these important questions can be found in a unique Special Report.  It’s called, “War in the Strait of Taiwan?  How to Exploit the Trend of Escalating Conflict.”  You can access a copy for less than a penny. Tyler Durden Sun, 03/26/2023 - 18:30.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nyt14 hr. 31 min. ago

2 Software Giants to Buy if Rates Have Peaked

Based on the Fed Fund Futures curve, traders now believe that the Fed is actually done raising interest rates With the ongoing banking distress and slowly declining inflation, it looks like the Federal Reserve may be close to finished with rate hikes. Some investors fear that the problems in the banking sector may push the economy closer to a recession, and the Fed themselves likens the situation to an additional rate hike.Based on the Fed Fund Futures curve, traders now believe that the Fed is actually done raising interest rates. The curve now shows an 89% chance of policy makers leaving the baseline Fed Funds Rate unchanged at the next meeting. If this is true it will have major implications for the market and economy.If interest rates traders are correct about the expectations of the Fed, it is likely that long-dated securities, like technology stocks may begin a bull run. Using the Zacks Rank, I have identified two software stocks with high ranks, and strong near-term expectations. Furthermore, both show very promising technical chart setups, which provide high risk-return trades.Image Source: CME GroupPegasystemsPegasystems PEGA is a customer relationship management software company that focuses on transaction-intensive enterprises. PEGA software enables organizations to deliver high-quality, consistent customer service across all major engagement channels. The company's customers represent a wide range of industries, including banking and financial services, insurance, healthcare management, and telecommunications.After a brutal performance in 2022, where Pegasystems stock experienced an -80% correction, the stock has come out strong this year. YTD PEGA stock is up 30%, far outperforming the broad market indexes.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchPegasystems is also a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) stock, indicating upward trending earnings revisions. Over the last 60 days analysts have revised earnings expectations significantly higher. Current year sales are expected to grow 6% YoY to $1.4 billion, while earnings are projected to climb 88% to $1.35 per share.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchPEGA is trading at a one-year forward sales multiple of 3x, which is significantly below the industry average 7x, and its five-year median of 6x. It seems PEGA stock got caught up in the hype of the post-covid boom, pushing its valuation to unreasonable levels. The -80% correction has brought the valuation back to much more compelling levels.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchThe price action in PEGA stock has carved out a very interesting technical pattern. Building a clear cup and handle pattern, the stock looks like it can easily breakout to the $60 area. It is key that the stock breakout out above the handle high of $48. If it trades back below $44, the trade would be invalid, and likely signal further rate hikes.Image Source: TradingViewSalesforceSalesforce CRM is also a customer relationship management software company, hence the stock ticker. There is no doubt that Salesforce and Pegasystems are in direct competition with each other. Fortunately for both, the enterprise software industry is massive, so there is likely room to address a respective niche. Salesforce products are easier to use and developing tools on the software much simpler. Alternatively, Pegasystems is more useful for the developers who are interested in getting into the nitty gritty of creating complex workflows.During the most recent quarterly report Salesforce surprised analysts and showed a much larger profit than was expected. After investments from activist investors pressured management to prioritize profits in the rapidly changing economic environment, CRM laid off about 10% of its workforce. As challenging as it was it seems to have worked well for the company.Salesforce is a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) stock, indicating upward trending earning revisions. Current quarter sales are expected to grow 10% to $8.2 billion, while earnings are projected to climb 64%. Additionally, analysts are in unanimous agreement in upgrading CRM’s earnings, which have been revised higher by as much as 30%.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchSalesforce is trading at a one-year forward earnings multiple of 39x, which is above the industry average of 29x, and well below its five-year median of 124x.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchCRM has a similar technical setup to PEGA, building out a cup and handle pattern. The large earnings gap up made the price action a bit sloppier, but the levels are there, nonetheless. There is clear resistance at the $190 level, so if price can breakout above there it should really get going. The setup would be invalid if it can’t trade above there, or if it goes down below the $170 level.Image Source: TradingViewConclusionThe stock market seems to be on a precipice. Interest rates and Fed policy are going to be critical to the future path of stocks, especially tech stocks like those discussed here. Keep a close eye on where rates go, and what the Fed policy makers say. Most importantly, make a trading plan, define your risk, and stick to the plan. Zacks Names "Single Best Pick to Double" From thousands of stocks, 5 Zacks experts each have chosen their favorite to skyrocket +100% or more in months to come. From those 5, Director of Research Sheraz Mian hand-picks one to have the most explosive upside of all. It’s a little-known chemical company that’s up 65% over last year, yet still dirt cheap. With unrelenting demand, soaring 2022 earnings estimates, and $1.5 billion for repurchasing shares, retail investors could jump in at any time. This company could rival or surpass other recent Zacks’ Stocks Set to Double like Boston Beer Company which shot up +143.0% in little more than 9 months and NVIDIA which boomed +175.9% in one year.Free: See Our Top Stock and 4 Runners Up >>Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Salesforce Inc. (CRM): Free Stock Analysis Report Pegasystems Inc. (PEGA): Free Stock Analysis ReportTo read this article on click here.Zacks Investment Research.....»»

Category: topSource: zacksMar 26th, 2023

NLPC Says Disney Board Of Directors Has Failed

Shareholders Asked to Vote FOR ‘Communist China Audit As the Walt Disney Co (NYSE:DIS) celebrates its 100th anniversary, it is so thoroughly unmoored from its mission and the values on which it was founded that we are urging shareholders to vote AGAINST the entire board of directors, including CEO Bob Iger. Q4 2022 hedge fund letters, […] Shareholders Asked to Vote FOR ‘Communist China Audit As the Walt Disney Co (NYSE:DIS) celebrates its 100th anniversary, it is so thoroughly unmoored from its mission and the values on which it was founded that we are urging shareholders to vote AGAINST the entire board of directors, including CEO Bob Iger. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get Our Activist Investing Case Study! Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below! (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q4 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences and more   In fact, we find nothing redeeming about the company’s governance prior to this year’s April 3 annual meeting, as detailed in a lengthy proxy memo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 15. From our proxy memo: Disney Board Of Directors Has Failed Disney’s re-nominated Board members have presided over the degradation of the company’s reputation and its intellectual/creative properties; and have allowed the Company’s wholly unnecessary involvement in divisive political issues that drive away customers and audiences. Disney bends over backwards to accommodate its radical progressive employees and their agendas, bashing American history and values, while at the same time bowing to brutal communist dictatorial regimes abroad. Click here to read our proxy memo. Disney’s failed board will be reelected but we feel the only appropriate critique of the company’s governance is a frontal assault on its credibility. Our proxy memo, drafted by NLPC’s Paul Chesser, is more than 11,000 words. It is an authoritative account of the transformation of an American institution that parents could trust into a vehicle for embracing “woke” causes, including the promotion of sexuality and transgenderism to children.   We are also urging a FOR vote for our own shareholder proposal (#5) for a “Communist China Audit.” This resolution did very well last year, and Disney fought tooth and nail to exclude it from its proxy this year. After failing to get it thrown out, the company changed the proposal’s name to obscure its intent until we threatened to file a complaint with the SEC. To vote, it will only take a minute. You probably received an email recently from your broker. The subject line of the email we received from our broker Fidelity was “The Walt Disney Company Annual Meeting.” We voted by clicking on links right in the email. It’s easy! You can also vote by calling ‌1-8‌0‌0‌-‌4‌5‌4‌-‌8‌6‌8‌3‌. The Left took over Corporate America through activism like this sustained over two decades. It is now our turn. Your support of our Corporate Integrity Project allows to engage and fight these battles......»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkMar 24th, 2023

Sam Altman responds to Elon Musk"s criticism of OpenAI: "I mean, he"s a jerk," but "he does really care"

ChatGPT creator Sam Altman waved off Elon Musk's criticisms of OpenAI, but said Musk is "feeling very stressed" about humanity's future. OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman rejected Elon Musk's criticism about pursuing "maximum-profit."Lucy Nicholson/Reuters Sam Altman rejected Elon Musk's criticism that OpenAI is now pursuing "maximum-profit." OpenAI's CEO said on Kara Swisher's podcast that Musk has "his style" but "he does really care." Altman also said that OpenAI is "independent" from Microsoft despite their "multi-billion dollar" tie-up. Sam Altman hit back at OpenAI cofounder Elon Musk's criticism that the ChatGPT creator had become a "maximum profit company" amid its multi-billion dollar partnership with Microsoft. The OpenAI CEO said his company is "independent" from Microsoft, and noted that the big tech giant doesn't have a seat on OpenAI's board. Altman made the comments on an episode of the "On With Kara Swisher" podcast that was posted on Thursday, and was responding to Musk's complaint on Twitter last month that OpenAI "has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft." "Most of that is not true, and I think Elon knows that," Altman said on Swisher's podcast.  But, he said they'd talked, and suggested that Musk's rebuke came from a place of concern. "To say a positive thing about Elon, I think he really does care about a good future with AGI," said Altman, referring to an abbreviation for artificial general intelligence, a goal of creating AI capable of "thinking" like humans.  "I mean, he's a jerk, whatever else you want to say about him — he has a style that is not a style that I'd want to have for myself," Altman told Swisher. "But I think he does really care, and he is feeling very stressed about what the future's going to look like for humanity." Musk did not respond to Insider's emailed requests for comment. Representatives for Microsoft did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. A representative for OpenAI declined to comment before Altman's remarks to Swisher. OpenAI released GPT-4 this month, describing it as a significant advancement over prior versions, and touting its ability to excel in a variety of major exams including the SAT and the bar exam. GPT-4 is available for those with the $20/month ChatGPT plus subscription, though there's a waitlist for the GPT-4 API.Altman also told Swisher that the company was trying to measure the risks of AI with its benefits in structuring how it is releasing the tools to the public. "I don't think it would be good right now for us to open-source GPT-4, for example," he told Swisher. "I think that would cause some degree of havoc in the world, or at least there's a chance of that — we can't be certain that it wouldn't." Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderMar 24th, 2023

Trump"s niece tries to sabotage his Waco rally by flooding the 2024 campaign with bogus ticket requests

Mary Trump attempts to torpedo her uncle's campaign event in Waco by rallying folks to make fake reservations and then not show up on Saturday night. Political activist Mary L. Trump; former US President Donald TrumpGetty Images Trump's estranged niece is urging people to get tickets to his campaign rally in Waco and then bail. "Let's fill the venue with empty seats," Mary Trump implored Twitter users. Teenage TikTokers did something similar in June 2020, messing with a Trump rally in Tulsa. Mary L. Trump is working to deflate the turnout for her uncle's upcoming 2024 campaign rally in Waco, Texas by booking fake seat requests from expected no-shows. —Mary L Trump (@MaryLTrump) March 24, 2023"Let's fill this venue with empty seats," the estranged niece of the embattled former president urged her followers online. The rally shrinking effort strikes at the heart of one of Donald Trump's weirdest obsessions: crowd size. In June 2020, anti-Trump TikTokers took credit for sticking him with rows of empty seats during what was supposed to be a comeback rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The lackluster attendance so infuriated Donald Trump that he bashed then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski for being so "stupid, stupid, stupid." Mary Trump followers quickly responded, writing back on Twitter that they'd punked the twice-impeached former president by claiming seats for their pets, asked for seats under the guise of adult film star and alleged Donald Trump paramour Stormy Daniels, and prank names like Holden Magroyn. —Chris Andrew (@1chrisandrew1) March 24, 2023Others advised her to let the younger generation ruin Donald Trump's weekend by spreading the request to TikTok. Several House Republicans from the Texas delegation are also expected to leave Donald Trump hanging this weekend, telling Insider that myriad scheduling conflicts make meeting up simply impossible.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderMar 24th, 2023