56.20 +0.68 (1.22%)
After hours: 7:54PM EST
|Bid||56.05 x 1100|
|Ask||56.20 x 1400|
|Day's Range||53.60 - 56.38|
|52 Week Range||42.86 - 69.29|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.90|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||11.79|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.32 (2.36%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Feb. 05, 2020|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- You know all those reports you get in the mail from investment funds and toss in a drawer or the shredder? Not your balances, but the detailed notices about investment strategies and the like? The U.S. Supreme Court just gave you another reason not to read them.Seriously.In Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, handed down Wednesday morning, the justices agreed unanimously to allow a lawsuit challenging the investment decisions by the administrators of Intel’s retirement plan. No big deal, right? Lawsuits happen all the time, and most of us don’t work for Intel.Here’s why the case matters: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA, a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty has to be filed within six years of "the last action which constituted a part of the breach," unless the beneficiary has actual knowledge of the actions in question, in which case the suit must be filed within three years. The Intel administrators argued that Christopher Sulyma's suit came too late because for more than three years before he went to court, they’d been sending emails disclosing their investment decisions and directing beneficiaries to sites where they could learn more. Sulyma responded that as far as he could remember, he hadn’t read any of the disclosures.Intel’s position was that Sulyma’s failure to read the documents was no excuse; Sulyma argued that the statute’s requirement of “actual knowledge” was’t met until he’d done the reading. The federal courts had split on the issue, and on Tuesday the Supreme Court resolved the dispute in favor of... providing an incentive not to find out how your retirement funds are being invested.OK, fine — as a technical matter, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the court merely applied ordinary canons of statutory interpretation. (I won’t bore you with the details.) And maybe the justices got the statute right. But, if so, then the incentives Congress created in enacting ERISA turn out to be downright peculiar.To see why, let’s consider what Sulyma’s lawsuit is actually about. After the 2008 financial crisis, the retirement plan’s administrators reduced holdings in stocks and bonds and increased investment in such alternative investments as commodities and hedge funds. The rest of the story everybody knows. The markets came roaring back. Suddenly, those alternative investments didn’t look so good; their results lagged the market. In Sulyma’s view, the plan administrators breached their fiduciary duty to beneficiaries such as himself.Maybe the administrators breached their duty, maybe they didn’t; that argument we can save for another day. All the Supreme Court decided is that the case can go forward.During December’s oral argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out, in apparent sympathy with Sulyma, that most people don’t read the disclosures they receive. “How do you have actual knowledge if you haven’t read it?” he asked.But that’s the point. Sure, few people bother to peruse the various disclosures they receive from investment managers, banks and other financial institutions. Most people don’t read detailed contracts before signing them either, but the court usually rejects the defense “I didn’t know what I was signing.” The judges justify the rule because it creates an incentive to read. In other words, the law tries to change rather than yield to the common behavior that Kavanaugh accurately described. We try to nudge people toward acquiring more information, rather than less.And the same is true across many areas of law. For instance, a tort plaintiff who is trying to prove that warning labels on a product were inadequate will lose the case if the real problem turns out to be that the labels were available but she didn’t bother to read them. A plaintiff who claims to have been injured by a vaccine cannot invalidate her waiver on the ground that she just glanced at it before signing. And a long line of cases agree that a borrower seeking to escape his obligations under a credit life insurance policy will not prevail if it turns out that he received regular disclosure statements but didn’t look at them.We could go on and on. The point is clear: As a general matter, the law prefers to provide incentives for people to read important documents. But not here.If the justices are right that this is the way Congress wanted things under the relevant provisions of ERISA, then Congress made a choice that makes no sense. The administrators did everything they could to provide Sulyma with notice of their investment decisions. And now he’s better off for ignoring their disclosures.Had Sulyma actually read the disclosures when the administrators made them — had he taken the time to peruse all those emails or study the documents on the recommended sites — his legal situation today would be worse. He’d have had actual knowledge of the investment decisions more than three years before filing his suit, so the statute of limitations would have expired. In short, a plaintiff who actually kept up with what was happening to his own money would be been penalized. That’s why the Sulyma decision, whether we blame the Supreme Court or Congress, gets the incentives inside-out. The court’s message is simple, but weird:If you’re worried about your retirement funds, don’t read all that stuff they send you. After all, you might want to sue one day.To contact the author of this story: Stephen L. Carter at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His novels include “The Emperor of Ocean Park,” and his latest nonfiction book is “Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.” For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Dividends are one of the best benefits to being a shareholder, but finding a great dividend stock is no easy task. Does Intel (INTC) have what it takes? Let's find out.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court sided with workers on the deadlines for suing their retirement plans, saying a three-year clock for suits doesn’t start to run just because the plan sends emails offering details about how the money is invested.The justices, voting unanimously in a case involving Intel Corp., said courts can’t assume workers read complicated materials that might provide reason to think their investments are being mishandled.The case centered on a U.S. employee-benefit law that gives workers three years to sue after they have “actual knowledge” of an alleged violation.“To have ‘actual knowledge’ of a piece of information, one must in fact be aware of it,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court. The law also has a separate six-year deadline that bars suits even if the worker didn’t have knowledge.Intel is fighting claims by ex-employee Christopher Sulyma that the company made overly risky investments, with too much money in hedge funds and private equity. Intel says the lawsuit was filed after a three-year statute of limitations had expired.Sulyma, who worked at Intel from 2010 to 2012, received emails more than three years before he sued pointing him to electronic documents that described the investments.But he says he doesn’t recall reading those documents and didn’t learn about Intel’s hedge-fund and private-equity investments until they became the subject of news reports in 2015, the year he sued in federal court in California. His suit seeks class-action status.Alito said employers defending suits can try to use other means, including electronic records, to show that particular workers actually saw investment disclosures.Federal appeals courts have been divided on the issue. One said Sulyma’s suit could move forward, while another said in a different case that employees don’t get more time just because they failed to read documents that were available to them.The case is Intel v. Sulyma, 18-1116.(Updates with excerpt from opinion in fourth paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at firstname.lastname@example.org, Laurie Asséo, Anna EdgertonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Intel (INTC) introduces broad portfolio to accelerate 5G network implementation. This move challenges Qorvo, and other semiconductor players involved in bringing 5G mainstream in 2020.
Zacks.com featured highlights include: Signet Jewelers, CACI International, Intel, Science Applications International and Best Buy Company
Demand from cloud computing companies have boosted sales of server chips, leading to strong results from Intel and its rival AMD Corp. Intel's Xeon chips have dominated the market for server chips, but AMD has been gaining ground since its re-entry into the business three years ago with rival EPYC processors that earned positive reviews https://www.extremetech.com/computing/296307-epic-win-amds-64-core-7nm-epyc-cpus-leave-xeon-lying-in-the-dirt.
7nm chip competition heats up with Samsung's (SSNLF) new facility line V1 which has commenced production of state-of-the-art mobile chips.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Microsoft, International Business Machines, Intel, Apple and Amazon.com
(Bloomberg) -- Researchers were able to trick a Tesla Inc. vehicle into speeding by putting a strip of electrical tape over a speed limit sign, spotlighting the kinds of potential vulnerabilities facing automated driving systems.Technicians at McAfee Inc. placed the piece of tape horizontally across the middle of the “3” on a 35 mile-per-hour speed limit sign. The change caused the vehicle to read the limit as 85 miles per hour, and its cruise control system automatically accelerated, according to research released by McAfee on Wednesday.McAfee says the issue isn’t a serious risk to motorists. No one was hurt and the researcher behind the wheel was able to safely slow the car.But the findings, from 18 months of research that ended last year, illustrate a weakness of machine learning systems used in automated driving, according to Steve Povolny, head of advanced threat research at McAfee. Other research has shown how changes in the physical world can confuse such systems.The tests involved a 2016 Model S and Model X that used camera systems supplied by Mobileye Inc., now a unit of Intel Corp. Mobileye systems are used by several automakers though Tesla stopped using them in 2016.Tests on Mobileye’s latest camera system didn’t reveal the same vulnerability, and Tesla’s latest vehicles apparently don’t depend on traffic sign recognition, according to McAfee.Tesla didn’t respond to emails seeking comment on the research.“Manufacturers and vendors are aware of the problem and they’re learning from the problem,” Povolny said. “But it doesn’t change the fact that there are a lot of blind spots in this industry.”To be sure, the real-world threats of such an occurrence today are limited. For one, self-driving cars are still in the development phase, and most are being tested with safety drivers behind the wheel. Vehicles with advanced driver-assist systems that are available now still require the human to be attentive.And the McAfee researchers were only able to trick the system by duplicating a certain sequence involving when a driver-assist function was turned on and encountered the altered speed limit sign. Manufacturers are also integrating mapping technology into systems that reflect the proper speed limit.“It’s quite improbable that we’ll ever see this in the wild or that attackers will try to leverage this until we have truly autonomous vehicles, and by that point we hope that these kinds of flaws are addressed earlier on,” Povolny said.In a statement, Mobileye said human drivers can also be fooled by such a modification and that the system tested by the researchers was designed to assist a human driver and not to support autonomous driving.Robust Redundancies“Autonomous vehicle technology will not rely on sensing alone, but will also be supported by various other technologies and data, such as crowd sourced mapping, to ensure the reliability of the information received from the camera sensor and offer more robust redundancies and safety,” the company said.The McAfee research follows similar academic work in what’s known as adversarial machine learning, a relatively new field that studies how computer-based learning systems can be manipulated. Researchers in 2017 found that placing four black and white stickers in specific locations on a stop sign could “trick” a computer vision system into seeing a 45 mile per hour speed limit sign, for example.The issue isn’t specific to Tesla or Mobileye, but is a broader weakness inherent in the advanced systems powering self-driving cars, said Missy Cummings, a Duke University robotics professor and autonomous vehicle expert, and researchers have shown that potentially serious malfunctions can be caused by changing the physical environment without accessing the system itself.“And that’s why it’s so dangerous, because you don’t have to access the system to hack it, you just have to access the world that we’re in,” she said.Cummings said McAfee’s findings illustrate why autonomous cars should be subjected to a “vision test” to evaluate whether self-driving systems can safely detect and respond to real-world situations created by other vehicles, pedestrians and other road users.Safety advocates have also urged U.S. auto safety regulators and lawmakers to include such an evaluation among other requirements in new automated vehicle legislation being developed in Congress.(Updates with context on automated vehicle legislation in penultimate paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Beene in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at firstname.lastname@example.org, John HarneyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
The global Artificial Intelligence in agriculture market may see CAGR of 26.2% from 2019-2024. Here are five stocks that are likely to benefit.