3.78k followers • 19 symbols Watchlist by Motif Investing
Companies returning cash to shareholders can win the favor of current and potential investors.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
General Mills, Inc.
Eaton Corporation plc
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
Brown & Brown, Inc.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
Franklin Resources, Inc.
The New York Times Company
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.
ABM Industries Incorporated
Barnes Group Inc.
Cathay General Bancorp
United Airlines Holdings (UAL) warned on Wednesday that it may lay off as many as 36,000 workers, or 45% of its workforce.
In the latest trading session, Delta Air Lines (DAL) closed at $27.01, marking no change from the previous day.
SALLIE MAE TO RELEASE 2020 SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL RESULTS ON JULY 22
As COVID cases surge across the US, vacationers have started to rethink their travel plans
Chief executives of eight defense companies including Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies Corp have asked the U.S. government to ensure that billions of dollars are not taken from the Pentagon's budget to shore up firms hit by COVID-19 without being replaced with new funds. Pentagon funds were given to defense companies to pay the salaries of highly skilled workers, preventing them from being laid off or poached by better-funded competitors. At least several billion dollars will be needed to replace the funds to be spent on supporting the workforce and other coronavirus-related adjustments, the companies said in separate letters to the Pentagon and White House.
(Bloomberg) -- DocuSign Inc.’s $38 million acquisition of Liveoak Technologies will expand the company’s digital signature offerings as more people look to do notarized transactions remotely because of Covid-19.Liveoak’s technology will enable notarized transactions over video, helping DocuSign more fully address the needs of the estimated 4-5 million notaries in the U.S., Morgan Stanley analyst Stan Zlotsky said in a note. It’s an “opportune time for the launch of the new solution” with 23 states already accepting remote online notary and many others working on temporary legislation during the pandemic, he said.The service will likely be used in the near term by large enterprises with in-house notaries but could expand to address the entire market over time, Zlotsky said.Shares of the San Francisco-based company are trading at a record and rose another 3% on Wednesday after the deal was announced. Morgan Stanley maintains an equal-weight rating on DocuSign and a price target of $170, about 17% below the current price.For 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.
Cathay (CATY) possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Franklin Resources (BEN) has an impressive earnings surprise history and currently possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely beat in its next quarterly report.
GIS vs. MKC: Which Stock Is the Better Value Option?
Airlines including the likes of Delta Air Lines (DAL) and United Airlines (UAL) sign letters of intent regarding federal loans under the CARES Act.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Facebook Inc. still doesn’t get it.A widely anticipated meeting on Tuesday between the social media giant and the civil rights groups behind the recent Facebook ad boycott — including the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP and Color of Change — did not go well. The New York Times reported CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg met for about an hour on a video-conference call, but offered little in terms of concessions related to their policies for managing content on their social networks.A negative response came swiftly. “It was abundantly clear in our meeting today that Mark Zuckerberg and the Facebook team is not yet ready to address the vitriolic hate on their platform,” the groups said in a statement. “Instead of actually responding to the demands of dozens of the platform’s largest advertisers that have joined the StopHateForProfit ad boycott during the month of July, Facebook wants us to accept the same old rhetoric, repackaged as a fresh response.”The representatives said Facebook offered to address just one of the groups’ 10 demands — the company was willing to create a position focused on promoting civil rights — but it didn’t promise to do so at the asked-for C-suite level. Otherwise, the company did not give an inch for the other nine demands, according to the groups.Frankly, Facebook’s inaction is not a surprise. The company has gone to this “hunkering down” playbook many times in the past. The old aphorism that says incentives often drive behavior seems to hold true for this tech giant. And on a pure dollars-and-cents level, the company is incentivized to do as little as possible.We all know the worst types of content — such as hate speech, misinformation and false conspiracies, along with the outrage surrounding them — tend to be more viral and generate more page-views for social media firms. The upside for Facebook in elevating such engaging content is obvious, but the downside to society as a whole is vast — from mental-health issues to giving rise to scientifically discredited ideas such as the anti-vaxer movement. The brains of millions go down these poisonous rabbit holes. Given Facebook’s recent stock performance, Zuckerberg may feel even less pressure now. After a brief decline late last month, amid the frantic coverage of advertiser pledges to pull ads from Facebook’s platforms, the shares are now back near all-time highs again. At the end of it all, the boycott was mainly about headline risk, not significant sales risk for Facebook. Last week, I argued Facebook should act on the back of a sea-change in perception and beliefs after the recent wave of protests over racial injustice, adding the true risk for the company was the prospect of future political blow-back, not a near-term revenue hit. That view still stands.The strange thing is, meeting the civil rights groups’ demands isn’t such a big lift for a company with Facebook’s resources. Most of them are simply common sense. Following the meeting Tuesday, the civil rights groups reiterated them. Here’s a brief selection:Provide audit of and refund to advertisers whose ads were shown next to content that was later removed for violations of terms of service. Isn’t that just good customer service? Wouldn’t that assuage Facebook’s advertisers worried about brand safety placement, giving them confidence Facebook will take content moderation more seriously?Stop recommending or otherwise amplifying groups or content from groups associated with hate, misinformation or conspiracies to users. Not a big ask.Enable individuals facing severe hate and harassment to connect with a live Facebook employee. That’s just a question of being willing to spend some money for something worthwhile.Unfortunately, it looks like Facebook will keep disappointing its critics. Last week, Zuckerberg told his employees that advertisers will eventually return and they will not change their policies under duress, according to The Information. “I tend to think that if someone goes out there and threatens you to do something, that actually kind of puts you in a box where in some ways it's even harder to do what they want because now it looks like you're capitulating,” the executive reportedly said.For now, he may feel a sense of vindication. But instead of focusing on how it looks and establishing bad precedent, perhaps Zuckerberg should instead reassess his thinking and come to terms to this reality: The moral fabric of our society is fraying amid the disinformation propagated on his platform.There may be a ray of light, however, small. Facebook said it will release its independent civil rights audit report on Wednesday after a two-year review of its policies and practices.There may be a ray of light, however, small. Facebook released an independent civil rights audit report on Wednesday after a two-year review of its policies and practices. While the auditors commended the company on some positive improvements, the report questioned Facebook’s “full-throated commitment” in upholding civil rights. They said the company needed to do much more in addressing hate speech against minority groups, prohibiting white nationalism advocacy and protecting against voter suppression. On Tuesday ahead of the report’s release, Sandberg explained in a blog post that the company has heeded some of the recommendations and will do more, but won’t make all the changes the auditors asked for.There is still room for real action. Let’s hope Facebook decides to do the right thing.(The penultimate paragraph of this piece was updated to include new details from the civil-rights audit.)This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tae Kim is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Barron's, following an earlier career as an equity analyst.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.
We’ve spent more time at home than ever over these past few months and not only have we finished all the puzzles, baked countless loaves of banana bread and tie-dyed our sweatpants, we’ve also watched our home décor go stale in front of our eyes. To help add a little "je ne sais quoi" to your day and a much-needed design refresh, Oui™ by Yoplait® is paying homage to its French-Style roots by launching the Oui Heritage Workshop, a four-part crafting series to celebrate its limited-edition Heritage Collection, a line up of three uniquely designed glass pots inspired by different aspects of French heritage.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The Berkeley Center for Law and Business held its annual “fraud fest” a few weeks ago — virtually, of course — and there was a new item on the agenda. Along with the usual panels about whistle-blowers and short sellers, the organizers added a panel titled “Fraud and Covid-19.” “The pandemic is the perfect storm for fraud,” one of the panelists said, and who can doubt it? The federal government hastily pushed hundreds of billions of dollars out the door in the largest bailout in U.S. history with only the most vague requirements for recipients; bankers working from home doled out those billions to small businesses; regulators loosened rules to help institutions get through the crisis. As my colleagues Timothy L. O’Brien and Nir Kaissar noted recently, “the White House has made it easier for government insiders to obtain bailout loans from the Small Business Administration, creating a raft of conflicts of interest.”That certainly sounds like a recipe for financial fraud. “A crisis is like the fog of war,” said Thomas Curry, the former comptroller of the currency during President Barack Obama’s administration. “Banks redirect resources to critical areas and neglect other risks that bite you down the road.”Before becoming comptroller, Curry was on the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It was from that perch that he watched the financial crisis unfold — and became one of the financial regulators frantically trying to keep the U.S. financial system from melting down. The government ultimately gave the big banks billions in bailout loans and other forms of support, such as buying their toxic securities. But once the crisis was averted, Congress, regulators, and the press all began to dig into scandals that were previously unnoticed: the abuse of subprime mortgages by the big financial players; the craven behavior of the credit-rating companies; the willingness to mislead investors who bought those toxic securities, and so on. According to the boutique investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, banks were fined a staggering $243 billion for their misdeeds during the financial crisis. (Bank of America leads the pack with $76.1 billion in fines.)Those fines inflicted some pain, but they weren’t the most consequential result of the financial misdeeds that were exposed. The larger issue was the enormous resentment and anger they generated in a broad swath of the country. People on both sides of the political divide were furious that the big banks were being saved despite bad behavior that helped create the financial crisis. Meanwhile, millions of bank customers lost their homes to foreclosure. The financial crisis and its aftermath helped bring about the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements and helped pave the way for Donald Trump’s presidency.So here we are again, in the middle of another crisis, only this one is being overseen by an administration that doesn’t seem to care much about corruption or fraud. Early on, Trump removed Glenn Fine, the acting Pentagon inspector general, from taking charge of a group that was supposed to monitor the pandemic relief effort, replacing him with someone more to his liking. Nobody is monitoring the White House’s involvement in procuring N-95 masks and other scarce personal protective equipment. And only on Monday did the Treasury Department finally release the names of companies that received PPP funds. Guess what? One recipient was the law firm of Kasowitz Benson Torres, where one of the name partners, Marc Kasowitz, has represented Trump for years. The firm received between $5 million and $10 million, according to the New York Times.As for the banks, the SBA has put them in a terrible spot, giving them the responsibility of hastily vetting the hundreds of thousands of businesses seeking PPP funds. Even with the best of intentions, it is inevitable that scam artists found ways to bilk the banks out of PPP loans. Indeed, prosecutors have already arrested a handful of executives for doing so.The larger issue is that, just like in 2008, regulators aren’t focused on preventing misconduct. Instead, their focus is on making sure banks have the ability to lend — even if it means loosening rules that were designed to make banks safer. In late March, for instance, the Federal Reserve relaxed several lending rules, including one that measured counterparty credit risk. And in early April it loosened capital requirements. “The Fed has been trying to say to the banking community that in this crisis environment we don’t want the constraints we normally put on you. We don’t want to hamper your ability to lend to clients,” said Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who served as Trump’s first chief economic adviser.What’s more, Cohn said, banking is not a business that is meant to be conducted from home. “Banks need people to be working together in a cooperative fashion and watching and listening to each other,” he told me. “That is what the Fed would call a first line of defense: Overhearing conversations, looking at presentations, or looking at the way you talk to a client. Or calling a compliance officer – ‘Can you guys look at this?’ When people are sitting in their bedrooms,” he added, “there is no one there to look over their shoulder.” Bankers operating on their own is a recipe for trouble.When the pandemic finally ends, there are going to congressional investigations, newspaper exposes and special commissions all taking a look back at what happened to the trillions of dollars the federal government spent to keep the economy from collapsing. Indeed, if the Democrats sweep the White House and Congress, the reckoning could well begin even before the virus has been conquered. (Can you just imagine Elizabeth Warren as chair of the Senate Banking Committee?)For starters, they’ll want to know whether bankers siphoned off money to their friends, whether they threw people who should have been granted mortgage forbearance out of their homes and whether money meant for small businesses wound up helping any of the president’s businesses. Banks will be especially vulnerable because they were the villains during the last crisis. If significant bank misconduct is uncovered during a Covid-19 post-mortem, said Stephen Scott, the founder of Starling Trust Sciences, a risk-management company, “there will be pitchforks.” The country is much more polarized than it was in 2008, and much angrier, too. If it turns out that the billions of dollars intended to help out-of-work Americans was diverted by fraud, it will make the aftermath of the financial crisis look like a picnic.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."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.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Mary Trump, a trained clinical psychologist and the niece of the president of the United States, knows of what she speaks.“It’s difficult to understand what goes on in any family — perhaps hardest of all for the people in it. Regardless of how a parent treats a child, it’s almost impossible for that child to believe that parent means them any harm,” she observes in her new book, “Too Much and Never Enough,” as she parses the legacy of the patriarch, Fred Trump Sr. “Abuse can be quiet and insidious just as often as, or even more often than, it is loud and violent. As far as I know, my grandfather wasn’t a physically violent man or even a particularly angry one. He didn’t have to be; he expected to get what he wanted and almost always did.”Mary’s father, Fred Trump Jr., was crushed by those expectations and by his struggle with alcoholism, which she lays out in harrowing and courageous detail. (As a child, she once encountered her father laughing while aiming a shotgun at her mother’s face, for example.) Fred Jr.’s demise is a key narrative arc of the book, but the two people who loom largest over the entire affair are Fred Sr. and one of his other sons, Donald — both of whom she describes as deeply intertwined, driven and disturbed.“Financial worth was the same as self-worth, monetary value was human value,” Mary writes. “The more Fred Trump had, the better he was. If he gave something to someone else, that person would be worth more and he less. He would pass the attitude on to Donald in spades.”In a book filled with firsthand accounts of dysfunctional family gatherings, references to decades of unsettling reporting about the Trumps, documentation of financial grifting, and many episodes of parents and siblings jousting with one another over money, egos and abandonment, Mary draws a portrait of a surreal, scarred clan that might have been forgotten had one of its members not found his way into the White House. But the fact that Donald morphed from huckster to celebrity to president makes her account seminal and indispensable.Mary’s clarity, training, discipline and sharp eye help make her a reliable narrator, and she’s a fluid, witty writer to boot. Much of what’s she’s written about I’ve covered as a journalist and an author (Donald unsuccessfully sued me for libel for my 2005 biography, TrumpNation). Everything in her book that I’m familiar with is spot on. There is plenty in the book, however, that I wasn’t aware of, and I suspect that’s the reason the president and his siblings have gone to court to try to halt its publication. The Trumps know that Mary’s understanding of her family is authentic — she’s a true insider in an era when “insider” accounts of the president are a dime-a-dozen — and that what she’s written is likely to be indelible.The subtitle of Mary’s book is “How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” and she makes her case diligently and chronologically.Fred Sr. was steely and unforgiving, while his wife, Mary, lived in his shadow, emotionally distant and demanding. The Queens mansion where Donald grew up as his father’s favorite is an intimidating pile that Mary calls The House. In the basement of The House, Fred Sr., a teetotaler, kept an elegant bar outfitted with everything but alcohol and guarded by a collection of life-sized wooden statues of Native American chiefs standing along a wall. An oil painting of a lovely Black nightclub singer with “generous swaying hips” backed by a Black jazz band hung on a wall nearby. That was apparently as close as Fred Sr. wanted Black people to get to his family. The son of a German immigrant, he slurred any person of color seeking to rent an apartment from him as “die Schwarze.” Roy Cohn, the infamous lawyer and mob confidante, came into the Trumps’ lives when Fred Sr. and Donald retained him to battle a Justice Department probe of racial discrimination at Trump properties in the 1970s.Fred Sr. ruled the roost, and in Mary’s view he did so as a sociopath, driving her father to ruin and forcing her Uncle Donald to adapt to his binary, winner-take-all view of the world. Losing was unacceptable, and the power of positive thinking was everything. “Just give it a quarter of a turn on the mental carburetor,” Fred Sr. advised Fred Jr. as the way to conquer alcoholism. Mary writes that after Fred Jr. died, the Trumps apparently schemed to disinherit her and her brother, cutting off their health insurance when they wouldn’t play along.Donald, more than any of his four siblings, reveled in Fred Sr.’s hothouse. He stole one of his brother’s trucks as a child just so he could see how anguished his brother might become. He bucked authority as a teenager, prompting his parents to send him to military school. According to Mary, he paid someone to take the SAT exams for him so he could get into a better college. When Fred Sr. slipped into dementia soon before dying, Donald, strapped for cash, maneuvered unsuccessfully to push his siblings aside and gain control of an estate worth several hundred million dollars. Although Donald’s entire career was built on Fred Sr.’s wealth and connections, Donald treated his father dismissively in his final years. Then again, Fred Sr. treated most people dismissively, and Donald is what Mary describes as a “Frankenstein’s monster,” shaped by his father’s pathologies. Fred Sr. lacked the marketing savvy and media know-how of his son, so he helped push Donald into the spotlight and risked the family fortune along the way so he could bask in his son’s glory. Donald thrived on the attention and took advantage of the license afforded by his father’s wealth, eventually adopting “cheating as a way of life.” Mary takes the media to task for searching for a “strategy” in anything Donald does and for soft-pedaling what she describes as multiple psychological disorders, which, by her account, check a variety of boxes in diagnostic manuals. She thinks that Donald, at a minimum, suffers from an “antisocial personality disorder” and a longstanding but undiagnosed learning disability.“The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for,” she writes.Mary’s understanding of her family was also shaped by reporting in the New York Times. A landmark expose the Times published in 2018 about the Trump family’s tax dodging and financial chicanery relied on her as a key source. She provided the paper with pivotal documentation that showed how the Trumps used a shell company to skim millions from the family business to avoid estate and income taxes. It was the Times’s forensic work, using her documentation, that revealed the skimming to her and to readers – and also made her realize that her aunts and uncles had most likely been cheating her out of significant sums of money as well.For all of that, the tone of Mary’s book isn’t bitter. She maintains a sense of humor about some of the absurdities she’s encountered (Donald was slow to pay her when she helped ghostwrite one of his books) and is forgiving, to a point, about the myriad shortcomings of her various relatives. But she is clearly disappointed. The book is ultimately a melancholy account of aunts and uncles who openly disdain Donald but are afraid to get in his way. The book quotes Donald’s eldest sister, Maryanne, a former federal judge, saying that Donald “has no principles. None!” Maryanne is also quoted dismissing the possibility that her brother will be elected president: “He’s a clown — this will never happen.” The fact that Donald was elected also informs the book’s melancholy, with Mary stunned that tens of millions of voters were capable of embracing or overlooking her uncle’s “blatant racism” and his “casual dehumanization of people.”Other observers have picked up on some of this over the years, of course. Liz Smith, the late New York gossip columnist, had a street-smart understanding of Trump. “There’s something about him that’s ever juvenile. It’s hard to believe he’s a grown-up person who went to college,” she once told me. “He’s like a kid, and he’s got that brash, narcissistic thing that works for him. He has enormous appeal to the masses because of that.”But Mary understands that’s not a benign matter anymore. “Donald today is much as he was at three years old: incapable of growing, learning or evolving, unable to regulate his emotions, moderate his responses, or take in and synthesize information,” she writes. “This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism; Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be. He knows he has never been loved.”Writ large — on an international stage amid a pandemic and social upheaval, and with the powers of the presidency at Donald’s disposal — those resentments metastasize into something wildly menacing.“He has suffered mightily,” Mary writes of Donald’s worldview, “and if you aren’t doing all you can to alleviate that suffering, you should suffer too.”This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Timothy L. O'Brien is a senior columnist for Bloomberg Opinion.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.
Top Chinese energy firms have mandated investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to act as advisors for multi-billion dollar deals transferring key oil and gas pipeline assets into a national energy infrastructure giant, four sources said. Overseen by a government vice premier, underlining the project's importance for Beijing, Beijing aims to complete the asset transfers and start operation of the new entity - valued by industry analysts at more than $40 billion - by the end of September, oil industry officials said. The mandates come after China announced in late 2019 that it would establish an entity known as National Oil and Gas Pipeline Company by combining pipelines, storage facilities and natural gas receiving terminals operated by China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), China Petrochemical Corp (Sinopec Group) and China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC).
Credit Suisse wants to raise its China securities joint venture stake to 100% and increase its market share after getting the regulatory green light to take a majority holding, the head of its Asia business said. Switzerland's second-largest bank is also looking to hire more staff and invest in China, the world's second-biggest economy, as its most significant business opportunity in the world, its APAC boss Helman Sitohang told Reuters. China has gained in relevance for Credit Suisse and other international banks after Beijing fast-tracked the opening of its financial markets to foreigner investors.
Also, Paychex earnings disappoint, and Becton, Dickinson was granted authorization for a 15-minute COVID-19 test.
A big uptick in new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. is putting pressure on the nascent airline industry recovery.
The Treasury Department previously announced agreements with the first group of airlines last week. The latest airlines to reach agreements are Delta Air Lines (NYSE: DAL), United Airlines Holdings (NASDAQ: UAL), JetBlue (NASDAQ: JBLU), Southwest Arlines (NYSE: LUV), and Alaska Air Group (NYSE: ALK).
Is (GIS) Outperforming Other Consumer Staples Stocks This Year?
(Bloomberg) -- Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Airlines Holdings Inc. are among major airlines that may tap a federal loan program as the industry copes with the coronavirus pandemic damages, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. have also told the agency that they may need a share of the $25 billion pandemic relief loan program that Congress allotted for the industry. Last week, the Treasury Department said that American Airlines Group Inc., Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, SkyWest, and Spirit Airlines also indicated that they may take the federal aid, with American confirming it would borrow the funds. An undisclosed amount is available to the airlines “if they so choose,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.The government’s loan program is designed as a backstop and the companies still have the option to look for private financing, or forgo the loan completely, according to the Treasury Department.The loans come with strings attached, including curbs on executive pay, a government stake and limits on payroll reduction.“These airlines are among the companies most heavily affected by the disruptions to social and economic activity caused by the pandemic,” Mnuchin said in the statement.For 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.