|Bid||41.83 x 800|
|Ask||42.38 x 800|
|Day's Range||41.52 - 42.16|
|52 Week Range||40.71 - 59.01|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.97|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||5.14|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.72 (1.72%)|
|1y Target Est||63.00|
Billionaire hedge fund managers such as David Abrams, Steve Cohen and Stan Druckenmiller can generate millions or even billions of dollars every year by pinning down high-potential small-cap stocks and pouring cash into these candidates. Small-cap stocks are overlooked by most investors, brokerage houses, and financial services hubs, while the nearly unlimited research abilities of […]
A new contract extension to keep the ‘World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party’ in Jacksonville will be in place “very soon”, according to the city’s director of public affairs Nikki Kimbleton. Kimbleton declined to give more details on current contract negotiations when asked. Athletic directors Greg McGarity (Georgia) and Scott Stricklin (Florida) also declined to comment.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. is poised to impose sanctions on Turkey as soon as Monday in response to the nation’s advance into Syria, according to people familiar with the matter, days after President Donald Trump cleared the way for Turkey to launch its offensive by pulling American forces from the area.The initial round of penalties would most likely be aimed at a wide range of individuals and was prepared for Trump’s approval, according to one of the people. The departments of State, Defense and Treasury worked over the weekend to draft the terms, the people said.The Trump administration is leaving open the option of penalties aimed at military transactions, arms exports and energy shipments to the Turkish military, two people said. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.The move is an effort to contain the damage from Trump’s decision to stand aside if Turkey entered northern Syria, essentially giving Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a green light to carry out the operation. Erdogan says the offensive is necessary to push back Kurdish militants and resettle refugees, but the rapid advance into Syria has drawn international condemnation and accusations of war crimes.Trump’s decision exposed American-allied Kurdish militias to attack, risking a resurgence of Islamic State and a slaughter of the Kurds. Kurdish forces that previously fought alongside the U.S. have warned they may no longer be able to secure camps and prisons holding Islamic State jihadists, including Europeans whose home countries don’t want them back.Lira FallsThe Turkish lira lost as much as 0.94% to session low 5.9384 per dollar. The currency soon pared its drop, down 0.62% to 5.9197 per dollar at 3:32 p.m. New York time. Month-to-date, the lira has sunk more than 4.5%, the worst performer among 24 emerging-market currencies tracked by Bloomberg.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Friday that the administration was also weighing sanctions against Turkish financial institutions, a move that would hit its economy hard because they are heavily reliant on the dollar. Yet since Mnuchin’s remarks, critics have warned that any new measures from the U.S. would have limited effect because telegraphing sanctions would encourage asset flight.”The time lag allows adversaries and targets to set the conditions on the ground,” said Eric Lorber, a former sanctions adviser in Mnuchin’s Treasury department. “This means that sanctions on Turkey face significant obstacles to success, namely that Turkey may be able establish advantageous facts on the ground before sanctions have a chance to seriously bite.”Treasury and the White House declined to comment.Trump has defended his decision to withdraw troops, tweeting on Monday that the U.S. was “not going into another war with people who have been fighting with each other for 200 years.” He also suggested the Kurds may be releasing prisoners “to get us involved.”Trump later tweeted: “Some people want the United States to protect the 7,000 mile away Border of Syria, presided over by Bashar al-Assad, our enemy. At the same time, Syria and whoever they chose to help, wants naturally to protect the Kurds.”But Trump’s decision was met with fierce criticism from allies in Washington, including Senator Lindsey Graham. The South Carolina Republican has been working on legislation to sanction Turkey for the invasion and said Sunday that he spoke with Trump about it over the weekend.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is among lawmakers concerned that Trump will not impose strong enough sanctions.“As we find ourselves in a situation where the President gave a green light to the Turks to bomb and effectively unleashed ISIS, we must have a stronger sanctions package than what the White House is suggesting,” Pelosi tweeted Monday.Execution of KurdsAsked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about videos circulating that appear to show the execution of some Kurds, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said if true, they “would be war crimes” -- raising questions about whether talk of imposing economic sanctions may be coming too late.Esper said the U.S. learned in the past 24 hours that Turkey is likely to attack further south and to the west in Syria, and that Kurdish forces are looking to cut a deal with Syria and Russia to counterattack against the Turks in the north.The defense secretary said he spoke with Trump on Saturday night, and that after discussions with the national security team, the president directed the start of the withdrawal of forces from northern Syria but not the entire country. Trump and Esper are scheduled to meet again on Tuesday.(Updates with Trump tweet in 11th paragraph.)\--With assistance from Nick Wadhams and George Lei.To contact the reporters on this story: Jennifer Jacobs in Washington at email@example.com;Saleha Mohsin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Alex Wayne at email@example.com, Justin Blum, Joshua GalluFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Working in the media can be lots of fun, but it hasn’t been the greatest place to build a career over the past two decades. Employment at print publishers has plummeted with the rise of the internet, and broadcasters have downsized too. The jobs created in new media, which in Bureau of Labor Statistics’ employment data fall mostly in the ungainly category of internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals, come nowhere close to making up for the losses elsewhere since 2000.Still, there is one old media sector that has been holding up just fine: There are 11% more jobs in motion picture and sound recording industries in 2019 than there were in 2000.It sure isn’t the music business that’s driving these gains: according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in the industry is down almost 40% since 2001. There has been an increase in employment in motion picture and video exhibition, which may in part be due to the rise of more labor-intensive movie theaters that serve alcoholic beverages and nice food.(5) But most of job gains have come in motion picture and video production. In other words, Hollywood!The numbers above understate the total employment effect, as more jobs in motion picture and video production also mean more jobs for accountants, carpenters, caterers and all sorts of other people. And while we call it “Hollywood,” lots of the jobs are actually in New York, Atlanta and other locales.But it’s the trajectory that interests me here. Why has film and TV production held up so much better than other legacy media industries? And what’s up with that rise in the 1990s, the long flat stretch after 2000, and the rise from 2013 through 2017?In answer to the first question, Hollywood catered to a national, even global audience almost from the beginning, and thus hasn’t suffered from the collapse of local media business models in the way that newspapers and parts of broadcasting have. Relatedly, it also wasn’t so advertising-dependent, and thus has been less vulnerable to Facebook and Google’s conquest of the advertising industry. And while competition from user-generated media and video games has taken screen time away from Hollywood’s products and will continue to do so, there’s clearly still a lot of demand for high-quality narrative video.As for why Hollywood employment has risen over some periods but not others, I took a stab at annotating the chart.OK, the 1990s employment gains probably weren’t all or even mostly about HBO’s “The Larry Sanders Show.” That acclaimed comedy was an early (although far from the earliest) landmark in the rise of original series paid for by cable channels, which provided a lucrative new outlet for makers of TV series who previously had only the three big broadcast networks to sell to. Others included cartoons such as Nickelodeon’s “Ren and Stimpy” (which premiered in 1991) and MTV’s “Beavis and Butt-Head” (1993), and early reality series such as MTV’s “The Real World” (1992) and “Road Rules” (1994). Later in the decade came HBO’s high-end scripted series “Sex and the City” (1998) and “The Sopranos” (1999). Boom times for U.S. movie makers may have had as much or more impact on the 1990s jobs numbers than TV did. Domestic ticket sales rose after a flat 1980s, foreign markets grew in importance and the rise of the DVD created a big new revenue stream. From 1990 to 1998, according to consulting firm Monitor Deloitte, the number of U.S.-developed theatrical films rose 67%, from 319 to 534, while the number of U.S.-developed TV productions of all sorts rose 36%, from 397 to 541. Those higher production volumes brought pressure to cut costs. One reaction was to do more filming abroad. Another was to increase reliance on reality shows, which usually require a lot fewer people (especially unionized people such as actors and writers) than scripted programs. Competition-based reality TV first took off in Europe in the 1990s, and after CBS brought “Big Brother” (originally from the Netherlands) and “Survivor” (from the U.K. and Sweden) to the U.S. in 2000, the format for a time seemed destined to completely take over broadcast TV here. Hollywood was able to keep employment steady through this reality-TV onslaught thanks to overseas movie markets plus continued growth in the number of scripted shows on cable, but the trend did not seem to be the industry’s friend.Then Netflix came to the rescue with “House of Cards,” the first of a flood of original programming that it and rival streaming providers commissioned to lure and keep customers. The number of scripted series for television nearly doubled from 2011 to 2018, according to FX Networks, with streaming services accounting for the vast majority of the gains.Can it continue? The 495 scripted series that aired in 2018 amounted to only a modest rise over 2017’s 487, a slowdown that seems to be reflected in the jobs numbers. The past few years might turn out to have been “peak TV,” and peak employment in motion picture and video production might turn out to have come and gone.Or it might not. This has proved to be quite the resilient industry, after all. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is still projecting a 5.5% increase in motion picture and video industry(2) employment through 2018. The narrow occupational categories expected to see the biggest employment gains are:film and video editors, 3,800 new jobs producers and directors, 3,000 new jobsPart of what’s going on is that social media networks, YouTube and other nontraditional content channels — and advertisers —are hungry for programming that doesn’t require Hollywood-level production budgets but does still need people to create, direct, edit and produce it. These generally aren’t Martin-Scorsese-type jobs. Still, if you’ve always wanted to direct, it’s nice to know that you needn’t give up hope just yet.(1) The number of waiters and waitresses working in motion picture and video industries has risen from 510 in 2010 to 3,510in 2018, and the number of bartenders from 150 to 1,910.(2) That is, including distribution, exhibition and post-production as well as production.To contact the author of this story: Justin Fox at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Justin Fox is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He was the editorial director of Harvard Business Review and wrote for Time, Fortune and American Banker. He is the author of “The Myth of the Rational Market.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Iran said missiles struck one of its tankers in the Red Sea, the latest in a series of attacks on oil infrastructure in the region that have roiled energy markets.The Islamic Republic’s tanker company initially said the attacks probably came from Saudi Arabia, but later withdrew the claim. The incident, which caused a spill and a jump of as much as 2.6% in crude prices, comes weeks after a devastating attack on major Saudi oil facilities that Riyadh blamed on Tehran.Tensions have been rising steadily in the region since U.S. President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from an international nuclear deal with Iran and imposed harsh sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Although so far all sides have said they want to avoid war, there’s a growing risk to supplies from the world’s most important oil-producing region.“The market has been entirely too complacent given that we are one security incident away from a war,” said Helima Croft, chief commodities strategist at RBC Capital Markets.The Sabiti, a tanker capable of carrying 1 million barrels a of crude, was damaged on Friday near the Saudi port of Jeddah after being hit by suspected missiles, Iranian state media said. The explosions on the tanker occurred between 5:00 and 5:20 a.m. local time damaging two of its main oil tanks, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.A spokesman for the National Iranian Tanker Company, initially said in a call with Iran’s Press TV that the missiles probably came from the direction of Saudi Arabia. NITC later withdrew that claim in a statement.The ship was hit twice within a 30-minute interval from the east of the Red Sea near its crossing route, Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said on Telegram. The Iranian authorities presented no further evidence of the nature or origin of the attack.The Saudi Ports Authority confirmed that an incident involving a tanker had occurred near the port of Jeddah overnight, but was unable to verify if the vessel was Iranian, according to a press officer.After initially saying the spill from the tanker had been halted and the damage minimized, the Iranian oil ministry’s Shana news service said crude was again flowing into the Red Sea. No one has provided any assistance to the damaged ship, Al-Alam news channel reported, citing Nasrollah Sardashti, head of NITC.Oil AttacksThe Sabiti was fully laden with crude and heading toward the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, according to Florian Thaler, chief executive of data analytics firm OilX. On its previous voyages it has carried Iranian crude to the East Mediterranean he said.According to tanker-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg, the vessel was under way using its engine and heading south at a speed of 9.6 knots as of 8:45 a.m. London time. Its destination was listed as Larak, an Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz.Oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel in London after the attack. Despite the growing risk to Middle Eastern supplies, crude prices have been depressed by fears of an economic slowdown due to the U.S.-China trade dispute. Brent is still lower than it was before the Sept. 14 drone and missile strikes on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities last month that briefly cut global supplies by 5%, the worst sudden disruption in history.In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” last month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman warned that conflict between his country and Iran would lead to a “total collapse of the global economy” and should be avoided. The Foreign Ministry of China, which gets a significant proportion of its oil imports from the Persian Gulf, urged restraint on Friday in order to safeguard peace and stability in the area.The attack on the Sabiti came a day before Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan is scheduled to visit Tehran for talks on how to reduce tensions with Saudi Arabia, Iranian lawmaker and member of the parliamentary commission for national security, Heshmattolah Falahatpisheh, said in an interview with the semi-official Iranian Labour News Agency. Khan was one of several leaders who unsuccessfully tried to broker dialogue between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the United Nations General Assembly last month.The Pentagon said on Friday that it’s sending more U.S. forces to the Middle East to “assure and enhance the defense of Saudi Arabia” against Iran. Overall about 3,000 personnel are being deployed or having their missions extended in the region, including a previously promised delivery of additional Patriot and Thaad missile defense systems.(A previous version of this story corrected the job title and company name of Florian Thaler.)\--With assistance from Dan Murtaugh, Dandan Li, Golnar Motevalli, Verity Ratcliffe, Dana Khraiche, Julian Lee, Chloe Whiteaker and Adrian Leung.To contact the reporters on this story: Golnar Motevalli in Tehran at firstname.lastname@example.org;Arsalan Shahla in Dubai at email@example.com;Yasna Haghdoost in Beirut at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ramsey Al-Rikabi at email@example.com, James Herron, Christopher SellFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- A core biographical element of Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech — that in the 1970s she lost a job as a public school teacher when her pregnancy became apparent — came in for scrutiny this week after a conservative website, the Washington Free Beacon, went hunting through 1971 New Jersey school board records.Never mind that the records don’t contradict Warren’s story, or that it took place years before the national Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, or that other teachers at her school told CBS that there was a “rule” that pregnant teachers had to leave once they started to show. The doubts raised about this story create a cloud of dishonesty around Warren, just as the Ukraine affair stirs up a murk of corruption around Joe Biden. That’s the way politics works in 2019: Mud doesn’t have to be real to stick to you.But the mudslinging at Warren’s early-career story of pregnancy discrimination is particularly pernicious, because it besmirches not only her, but also all working women. More than 80% of women become mothers, and most have jobs when they find out they’re pregnant. Nonmothers may be seen by employers as “potential mothers” — hence the how-are-we-still-discussing-this advice that a woman should remove her wedding ring before a job interview. The accusation that Warren lied will gain traction because many people believe a bigger lie — that claims of pregnancy discrimination and sexism are exaggerated.But to this day, significant bias against mothers and mothers-to-be persists. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Joan C. Williams and Amy Cuddy observe that although people generally understand that explicitly stating their biases at work is a bad idea, “many remain surprisingly open about their bias against one subset of employees: caregivers, particularly working mothers.”A study led by Shelley Correll at Cornell and published in 2007 found that mothers were expected to be more credentialed and committed than other employees, but offered less money: $11,000 less than childless women and $13,000 less than fathers. Mothers were half as likely to be hired as equally qualified nonmothers were. These findings align with decades of research finding that mothers and visibly pregnant women are seen as less competent than childless women, while fathers pay no such price. The gender pay gap widens so much with a first child — starting in the year before the birth — that many researchers have concluded it’s essentially a motherhood penalty.Pregnant women often find that discrimination begins as soon as they disclose their pregnancy, or, as in Warren’s case, as soon as they can no longer hide it. Erin Murphy’s boss at Glencore told her during a performance review that she was “one of the hardest working” people on the team, as well as “diligent, conscientious and determined.” After she got pregnant with her first child, he told her it would “definitely plateau” her career, something he seems to have personally ensured.For lower-earning women, announcing a pregnancy can lead not to a plateau, but a cliff. The Center for Work Life Law issued a report in 2011 — 40 years after Warren lost that job — finding that such women can still lose their jobs with shocking speed. A receptionist at a day spa was fired within hours of sharing the happy news; a telephone operator the following day; a restaurant worker within two weeks. According to complaints filed, the women’s managers justified these actions by saying the pregnant women were “too moody” or “less agile,” explaining that they were coming up on a busy season or protesting that they couldn’t afford to offer even an unpaid leave. One boss simply blurted, “That’s not going to work.”Bigger, better-lawyered companies tend to be savvier about how they go about this, stopping short of “firing,” but the results are the same. Rachel Mountis was an award-winning salesperson for Merck, and in 2009 was promoted for her stellar results. The next year, though, she became pregnant, and the company laid her off only weeks before her due date, calling it a downsizing. In 2017, pregnant Walmart warehouse employee Whitney Tomlinson said that after she asked for an unscheduled break and a bit of help with the heavy lifting, her supervisors pressured her to apply for unpaid leave, called her a “liability,” and then told her she couldn’t return to work until she gave birth. Try affording that on $15 an hour.Opposition researchers want to neutralize Elizabeth Warren’s personal story precisely because it’s a powerful one. But what makes it powerful isn’t that it’s unusual. It’s that it’s so infuriatingly common.To contact the author of this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mary Duenwald at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Sarah Green Carmichael is an editor with Bloomberg Opinion. She was previously managing editor of ideas and commentary at Barron’s, and an executive editor at Harvard Business Review, where she hosted the HBR Ideacast. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Quibi is adding to its lineup of content partners, announcing its second programming deal with a news organization in as many days. Jeffrey Katzenberg’s forthcoming mobile-first platform is partnering with CBS News on "60 in 6," a weekly news show that will deliver "60 Minutes"-style stories in about six minutes, tailored for a mobile platform and audience and coming from a dedicated team of correspondents and producers. "This is a perfect opportunity to bring '60 Minutes'' style of storytelling, in-depth reporting and investigative journalism to a new audience," said the program's executive producer Bill Owens in a statement.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Last October, a few days after the murder of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, I found myself in the thicket of TV cameras outside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. Standing a few dozen feet from the scene of the crime, I marveled at the international attention being devoted to the killing of a member of my professional tribe—and wondered how long this interest would last.A few weeks, I guessed, maybe a couple of months; my professional cynicism doesn’t allow for much optimism.For journalists, murder is an occupational hazard. In the year of Khashoggi’s murder alone, 53 journalists were killed, at least 34 of them as a direct consequence of their work. Only a handful of those murders made the international headlines — the four Capital Gazette journalists shot dead by a gunman in Annapolis, Raed Fares of Radio Fresh, assassinated by the regime in Syria — and even then, just for a few days. I reckoned the Khashoggi killing would fade from the collective memory in the same way.It’s a safe bet that the people responsible for the killing, from those who ordered and planned it to those responsible for its execution and the botched cover-up that followed, were hoping that the world would quickly forget another dead journalist. Their professional cynicism allows for optimism.Yet that one murder refuses to fade away. When I returned to the consulate on the evening of the first anniversary of Khashoggi’s killing, there was another thicket of cameras. As I stood there, I used my phone to read about memorial events and demonstrations in Paris, Berlin and The Hague. For journalists, this is a comfort. For the Saudi authorities, it is a continuing crisis: Khashoggi is Banquo’s Ghost, haunting the kingdom and its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.The specter of the murdered columnist has cast an ectoplasmic pall over efforts by the Saudi prince to deflect blame. A United Nations rapporteur assigned to investigate Khashoggi’s murder reiterated on Monday that Prince Mohammed “has a responsibility in relationship to the killing.” The CIA believes he gave the order.Last week, MBS — as the prince is commonly known — tried again to change the narrative. In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” he allowed that, since the killing had taken place “on my watch,” he had responsibility. But he undercut his case by arguing that he could not know what all 3 million of his government’s officials were doing at any given time.The questioning about Khashoggi must be especially frustrating for MBS at a moment when Saudi Arabia badly needs the world’s attention — and sympathy. Less than a month has passed since the kingdom’s largest oil installations were disabled by attacks, the presumed handiwork of Iran. And in less than a month, his pet project — the initial public offering of Saudi Aramco, potentially the world’s most valuable firm — will be put to the test. It also clouds the recent flurry of economic and social reforms MBS has instigated. If the prince is given to introspection, he might ask himself why the world won’t let him be rid of this meddlesome journalist. He can, if he is so inclined, pick from any number of explanations: the brazenness of the killing; the ineptitude of the killers; the doggedness of the U.S. media, and especially of the Washington Post; the outrage of the American Congress; the opportunism of Turkish authorities, and especially of MBS’s bete noire, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.He might wonder, too, whether the steadfast support of President Trump is the boon it first appeared to be — or if the endorsement is more of a curse.MBS could also ponder whether it is possible, at this late date, to set things right: by allowing the trial of 11 suspects to take place under international monitoring, and by adding to their ranks his major domo, Saud al-Qahtani. Or, Prince Mohammed can pin his hopes to the passage of more time, and bet that the world will not be asking about Jamal Khashoggi a year from now. For all my professional cynicism, I wouldn’t be optimistic about that.To contact the author of this story: Bobby Ghosh at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Gibney at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Bobby Ghosh is a columnist and member of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board. He writes on foreign affairs, with a special focus on the Middle East and the wider Islamic world.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NEW YORK , Oct. 1, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS.A and CBS) announced today that it will report results for the third quarter 2019 before the market opens on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 ...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Health insurance stocks touched their lowest point of 2019 last week, with some in the market citing the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump and the rise of Senator Elizabeth Warren in Democratic presidential polls as twin reasons for the decline. The thinking is, anything that boosts Democrats’ chances in the 2020 election would be bad for the industry, with most of the party’s candidates calling for at least some type of shake-up to the current health-care system. And Warren’s support of “Medicare for All” makes her a particular threat to the status quo, as that type of sweeping plan would largely eliminate private insurance.The sector certainly would rather have the more moderate Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, so it’s not surprising to see investors get jittery as Warren gains ground on the former vice president. Some also worry that her pro-consumer and generally interventionist bent might put a damper on dealmaking. Whether it was those concerns or the prospect of drug-pricing reform, biotech shares had a rough week as well.Just how much of a threat would a Warren presidency pose to the current health-care system? A review of the Massachusetts senator’s policy position and recent messaging suggests a more nuanced attitude than many market participants fear. In fact, in many ways, she’s more a health-care cipher than firebrand.Warren has detailed and unique policy proposals for tackling many issues — from student debt to big tech to income inequality — but the health-care portion of her website is conspicuously sparse. It mentions her support for Medicare for All and guaranteed coverage but offers few details on her preferred structure, implementation, or financing of such a plan.As recently as this spring, Warren’s health-care message was relatively broad. She said on more than one occasion that there are multiple paths to universal and affordable coverage. Her position hardened at the first Democratic primary debate in June, when she said she was “with Bernie on Medicare for All” – referring to her support of a universal health plan like the one championed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders – but there’s still lingering ambiguity. After the most recent debate in September, Warren once again said she remains open to other options in answer to a CBS reporter’s question.What this means is that single-payer fans are free to assume she wants exactly what they do: universal government-financed coverage that’s free at the point of care. At the same time, more moderate voters and hopeful managed-care investors can see someone who might be open to more incremental steps. It’s arguably a savvy strategy; it gives Warren broader appeal and certainly doesn’t appear to be hurting her in the polls.An “all-of-the-above” approach arguably makes sense from a policy perspective. A four-year transition to a single-payer system gets mixed reviews from voters and might be hard to achieve, whereas concurrently working on easier-to-pass bills that boost the Affordable Care Act, introduce a public option, or allow Medicare buy-in could help a lot of people while Democrats hammer out the details of and build support for more significant change.None of this is to say that a Warren presidency would be insurer-friendly. Her rhetoric tends to single out the industry as profiteers that get in the way of care, and her pioneering research into high rates of medical bankruptcy is a big part of her political origin story. It’s also still early in the campaign, and as she fleshes out her plans in greater detail, they may confirm a more radical approach. But it’s hard to watch her campaign and believe that she would focus single-mindedly on the pursuit of universal health care as envisioned by Bernie Sanders at the expense of other policy priorities.To contact the author of this story: Max Nisen at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Max Nisen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, pharma and health care. He previously wrote about management and corporate strategy for Quartz and Business Insider.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman warned that war between his country and Iran would lead to a “total collapse of the global economy” and should be avoided.In comments that echo clear signals from the Trump administration that it doesn’t want to resort to conflict to punish Iran for disputed attacks on Saudi oil facilities, the prince said a “political and peaceful solution is much better than the military one.”“Oil prices will jump to unimaginably high numbers that we haven’t seen in our lifetimes,” he said of any war. Still, the world needed to take “strong and firm action to deter Iran” or see further escalations, the prince said in an interview for CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday.The U.S., Saudi Arabia and major European nations have all blamed Iran for the Sept. 14 aerial attacks on two Saudi oil installations, which knocked out almost 5% of global supply.But after weighing their possible responses, President Donald Trump opted first to tighten sanctions on Tehran, while the U.K., Germany and France have pushed for talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.Iran denies it carried out the strikes, saying they were the work of Yemen’s Houthi rebels who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition.Together with apparent efforts to build on a fledgling peace process in Yemen, the international moves have eased fears that the Middle East was sliding toward another catastrophic war.Favors Talkshttps://t.co/0i8faMZq2L pic.twitter.com/ELIgFgITUE— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) September 30, 2019 “If Iran stops its support of the Houthi militia, the political solution will be much easier,” the prince said. “Today we open all initiatives for a political solution in Yemen.”The oil facility attacks were motivated by “stupidity,” the prince said. “There is no strategic goal. Only a fool would attack 5% of global supplies.”He said he’s in favor of Trump and Rouhani holding face-to-face talks. Trump -- who won the White House vowing to remove the U.S. from wars overseas and faces re-election next year -- had talked up the possibility of meeting Rouhani until the attack on Saudi oil fields.Iran has repeatedly said it won’t negotiate with the U.S until it returns to the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump existed last year and lifts all sanctions.The war in Yemen has killed thousands and triggered one the world’s worst humanitarian disasters since Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates intervened in 2015 to restore an allied government ousted by the Houthis.The U.A.E. has signaled it will pull its forces from the conflict by the end of the year as the war threatened to ignite a catastrophic wider conflict with Iran. Last week, a Yemeni official said the Saudis had agreed a partial cease-fire.On the murder of government critic and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi last year, Prince Mohammed said he took “full responsibility.” Asked how he could have been unaware of the operation, he said he can’t know “what 3 million people working for the Saudi government do daily.”“This was a mistake,” the prince said. “And I must take all actions to avoid such a thing in the future.”The question of the prince’s role in the murder has particularly weighed on the kingdom’s relations with the U.S., a key ally. Trump has shielded the prince even as Congress condemned Saudi Arabia.Prince Mohammed first spoke publicly about the killing in October last year at an investor conference in Riyadh, calling it a “heinous crime” and promising that the killers would be brought to justice.To contact the reporter on this story: Hailey Waller in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Ludden at email@example.com, Tony Czuczka, Mark WilliamsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Media stocks were on the move on Tuesday after Wells Fargo initiated coverage on the space. CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS ), Walt Disney Co (NYSE: DIS ) and Fox Corp (NASDAQ: FOX )(NASDAQ: FOXA ) were among ...
(Bloomberg) -- Oil futures gained on Monday as traders weighed conflicting reports on how quickly Saudi Arabia will be able to restore its lost production.Futures rose 1% in New York. Saudi Arabia, which has reiterated it will bring back all lost output by the end of September following attacks on its oil facilities, is on course to fulfill the promise, according to Reuters. That comes after the Wall Street Journal over the weekend said repairs at damaged plants may take “many months.” Concerns over waning demand returned after a key European manufacturing index had its worst slump since the financial crisis.Some analysts and consultants, including Rystad Energy and FGE, have said they are skeptical about the kingdom achieving its target. Bank of America analysts said that a delay to the return of Saudi oil output, among other factors, could push Brent above $70/bbl.“People are going to be constantly looking for any signs that Saudi production is coming or going,” said Bob Yawger, director of the futures division at Mizuho Securities USA. “Add to that the poor German PMI numbers and the trade situation.”The market has been whipsawed by various data points and headlines even as geopolitical tensions mount in the Middle East. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif refused to rule out war following plans for increased U.S. troops and weapons in Saudi Arabia, he said in an interview with CBS.Manufacturing data from Germany and France fell far short of estimates, highlighting investors’ fears over the fragility of the global market. Last week, a Chinese trade delegation canceled a planned visit to farms in the U.S. heartlands, stirring concerns about renewed hurdles in the U.S.-China trade negotiations.See also: Saudi Aramco Reveals Scale of Damage From Oil AttacksBrent crude for November rose 49 cents to settle at $64.77 a barrel on the ICE Futures Europe Exchange and traded at a $6.13 premium to West Texas Intermediate.WTI for November delivery gained 55 cents to settle at $58.64 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after climbing 5.9% last week.The attacks set off an unprecedented flurry of activity in the oil futures markets last week, with both Brent and WTI contracts setting records in weekly aggregate volume with more than 17.2 million contracts traded.Saudi Arabia has said Iran “unquestionably sponsored” the attacks. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Monday that it was “plainly” clear the Islamic Republic was behind the strikes and said a new nuclear agreement needed to be negotiated, breaking ranks with European allies France and Germany, which are trying to preserve the 2015 agreement President Donald Trump withdrew from last year.The attack knocked out about 5% of global supply and led to the biggest price spike on record. The U.S. on Friday slapped terror-related sanctions on Iran’s central bank.Iran’s response has been a mix of defiance and an attempt to ease the tension. President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday the Persian Gulf nation would lay out a peace initiative for the region at the United Nations General Assembly that would involve a coalition of regional and foreign countries, while Zarif said “I’m not confident that we can avoid a war.”Read, The World’s Oil Security Blanket Has Been Torched: Julian Lee\--With assistance from Dan Murtaugh, Heesu Lee and Rakteem Katakey.To contact the reporters on this story: Catherine Ngai in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Robert Tuttle in Calgary at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Marino at firstname.lastname@example.org, Catherine Traywick, Jessica SummersFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
LOS ANGELES, Sept 22 (Reuters) - "Pose" star Billy Porter, sporting a crystal-studded black suit and an enormous hat, along with "Games of Thrones" stars Peter Dinklage, Maisie Williams and Gwendoline Christie were among early arrivals for television's Emmy awards on Sunday, where HBO's medieval fantasy series aims to crown its final season with a fourth best drama series statuette. Director Ava DuVernay and the five men known as the Central Park Five, whose wrongful arrests in New York three decades ago are dramatized in the Emmy-nominated "When They See Us," also walked the purple carpet in Los Angeles, along with "The Marvelous Mrs Maisel" lead actress Rachel Brosnahan.
(Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said the U.S. is “working diligently” toward a diplomatic resolution with Iran after accusing the Islamic republic of attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields, but that President Donald Trump is prepared to take other action if necessary.“Make no mistake about it, if we’re unsuccessful in that and Iran continues to strike out in this way, I am confident that President Trump will make the decisions necessary to achieve our objectives,” Pompeo said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one of multiple TV appearances ahead of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week.Top Pentagon officials on Friday said the U.S. will send a “moderate” number of troops to the Middle East and additional missile defense capabilities to Saudi Arabia in response to last weekend’s attack on oil facilities, which disrupted about 5% of global oil production.Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif refused to rule out military conflict in the Middle East, saying in an interview Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “I’m not confident that we can avoid a war.”Asked whether he’s confident of avoiding a war, Pompeo said, “we’re working towards that.” In a interview airing on CBS, Pompeo said the U.S. will respond in a way that reflects what he called “an attack by Iran on the world” and a “state-on-state act of war.” He said the U.S. is looking for a diplomatic resolution, while “apparently the Iranians are blood-thirsty and looking for war.”Pompeo said the U.S. maximum-pressure campaign, which includes sanctions on Iran’s central bank and sovereign-wealth fund, is working and that the Iranian economy will shrink by about 10% to 15% this year.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s still room for more sanctions.“Although we’re pretty much maxed out on Iran, we will begin to sanction third-party entities where we see violations,” he said.Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that economic sanctions aren’t enough because Iranians “would eat grass if that’s what it took” and that military action is also needed. He suggested targeting Iran’s oil refineries and that Iran knows it would never win a war with the U.S.“I don’t want a war with Iran, but I want them to stop, and the only way they’re going to stop is to pay a price,” Graham said. “And the price I want them to pay is to lose some of their military capability.”(Updates with Graham comments from ninth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Laura Litvan, Tony Capaccio, Glen Carey and Saleha Mohsin.To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Niquette in Columbus at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at firstname.lastname@example.org, Steve GeimannFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said he doesn’t plan to meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during the United Nations General Assembly this week, while leaving open the possibility that he might.“Nothing is ever off the table completely, but I have no intention of meeting with Iran,” the U.S. president told reporters at the White House on Sunday. “That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’m a very flexible person. But we have no intention. It’s not set up.”Trump had talked up the possibility of meeting Rouhani until the attack this month on Saudi oil fields, which the U.S. administration has blamed on Iran, which has denied involvement. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif refused in a CBS interview to rule out military conflict in the Middle East after the U.S. sent more troops and weapons to Saudi Arabia in response to last week’s attack.Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday it’s doubtful that Trump and Rouhani would meet at the UN sessions that begin on Monday in New York.“The president has always said he’d leave the door open but it’s highly unlikely given the current circumstances,” Mnuchin said in a CNN interview.To contact the reporters on this story: Jennifer Jacobs in Washington at email@example.com;Saleha Mohsin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Ludden at email@example.com, Tony Czuczka, Steve GeimannFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
LOS ANGELES, Sept 22 (Reuters) - "Game of Thrones" looks set to crown its final season with another best drama series Emmy on Sunday despite an array of new contenders jostling for the most prestigious awards in television. On a night that could see old favorites prevailing over the biggest lineup of first-time nominees in eight years, HBO political satire "Veep" and returning Emmy champ "The Marvelous Mrs Maisel" from Amazon Studios, along with their stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Rachel Brosnahan, are seen as frontrunners in the contest for best comedy series. Unless, that is, British comedian Phoebe Waller-Bridge can pull off an upset with one or both of her buzzy shows - female-driven BBC America thriller "Killing Eve" and Amazon comedy "Fleabag," which drew 20 Emmy nominations between them.
(Bloomberg) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif refused to rule out military conflict in the Middle East after the U.S. sent more troops and weapons to Saudi Arabia in response to an attack on oil fields the U.S. has blamed on the Islamic Republic.“I’m not confident that we can avoid a war,” Zarif said in an interview with CBS to be broadcast Sunday on its “Face the Nation” program. “I’m confident that we will not start one, but I’m confident that whoever starts one will not be the one who finishes it.”When asked to elaborate, Zarif said: “That means that there won’t be a limited war.”Zarif was interviewed in New York, where he will attend the United Nations General Assembly session. The U.S. said Friday it will send a “moderate” number of troops to the Middle East and missile defense capabilities to the Saudis in response to last weekend’s attack on oil facilities.Iran’s response has been a mix of defiance and an attempt to ease the tension. President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday the Islamic Republic would lay out a peace initiative for the region at the United Nations General Assembly that would involve a coalition of regional and foreign countries.His overture will likely be met with skepticism in Saudi Arabia and the U.S., where many believe that foreign policy is driven by the hardline Revolutionary Guard Corps. instead of the president and his top diplomat.U.S. and Saudi analyses of the attack have described the strike as complex, involving a mix of low-flying drones and cruise missiles coming from the north. The attack exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, despite the Kingdom having spent hundreds of billions of dollars on weaponry in recent years.American officials blame Iran for the attack that knocked out half the production of oil from a key Saudi field. Houthi rebels fighting a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen took credit for the attack.“I’m confident that Iran did not play a role,” Zarif said. Anybody who “conducts an impartial investigation will reach that conclusion,” he said.(Updates with Rouhani’s comments in fifth, sixth paragraphs.)To contact the reporters on this story: Steve Geimann in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org;Arsalan Shahla in Dubai at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Ludden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alaa Shahine, Abbas Al LawatiFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.