|Bid||36.49 x 1800|
|Ask||36.62 x 1800|
|Day's Range||36.39 - 36.83|
|52 Week Range||31.46 - 41.90|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.42|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||5.96|
|Earnings Date||Feb 5, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.52 (4.12%)|
|1y Target Est||47.39|
Goldman Sachs analysts are expecting a pickup in economic growth in 2020. The economists see real GDP growing at a 2.3% clip in early 2020 with an average full year growth rate of 2.1% for 2020.
California said on Monday it will halt all purchases of new vehicles for state government fleets from GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and other automakers backing U.S. President Donald Trump in a battle to strip the state of authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. Last month, GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and members of the Global Automakers trade association backed the Trump administration's effort to bar California from setting its own emission standards, which are significantly stricter than the Trump Administration proposal's preferred option.
The news comes less than two months after GM officials confirmed plans to build a $175 million plant in Brookville that will bring 100 new jobs to the region.
California said on Monday it will halt all purchases of new vehicles for state government fleets from GM, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and other automakers backing U.S. President Donald Trump in a battle to strip the state of authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. Between 2016 and 2018, California purchased $58.6 million in vehicles from General Motors Co , $55.8 million from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV , $10.6 million from Toyota Motor Corp and $9 million from Nissan Motor Co .
Long before the pistons for General Motors Co V-6 engines reach the U.S. No. 1 automaker's Romulus, Michigan plant, they are seasoned international travelers. The parts make four international border crossings in all, without a single tariff levied. "They already have their passports," said Jim Bovenzi, GM's executive director of global supply chain on a recent tour of the Romulus plant.
Investing.com - U.S. futures pointed to a higher opening Monday, as positive chatter on the trade front helped boost investor confidence.
In our opinion one of the best tools for ordinary investors who are on the hunt for new ideas is 13F filings. Once every quarter hedge funds with at least $100 million in total positions in publicly traded US stocks are required to open the kimono and disclose the number of shares and the total […]
The leaders of the UK’s major political parties, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, will face off in their first televised debate. Mr Johnson, UK prime minister and Conservative party leader, and Labour’s Mr Corbyn will go head-to-head in a live debate on November 19.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As recently as March, Daimler AG, the German carmaker, promised to put 10,000 autonomous taxis on the streets by 2021. But this week, Daimler chairman Ola Kaellenius announced that the company was taking a “reality check” on the project and focusing on self-driving long-haul trucks instead. It’s fine that self-driving cabs aren’t coming as fast as some expected — and it’s even better that Silicon Valley-style big talk appears to be going out of fashion.Kaellenius’s “reality check” has some solid business reasons: Daimler is cutting costs and can’t commit to a large, capital-intensive project without a clear idea of what kind of first-mover advantage it might confer. But mostly, it comes because of a long-obvious technical problem. Making sure self-driving cars aren’t a menace in city traffic is a job that’ll take more than a couple of years. Investigators are still trying to get to the bottom of the March 2018 accident in which a driverless Uber killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona, and it appears Uber Inc.’s cars had been involved in dozens of previous nonfatal incidents in the course of the same testing program. No one wants to be in the same situation as Uber — so General Motors Co. subsidiary Cruise won’t be launching self-driving taxis in San Francisco this year, as previously promised, and maybe not next year, either. There's been lots of news stories about Waymo Llc, an Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, launching a self-driving taxi service in Arizona, and in April, it even put an app for it on the Google Play store. But in September, Morgan Stanley lowered Waymo’s valuation because of delays in the commercial use of its technology, and last month, Waymo chief executive John Krafcik said driverless delivery trucks could come before a taxi service.For European carmakers, which have to deal with older cities not laid out on a grid, launching autonomous taxi services appears even more daunting than for Americans. They know it’s a long way from Tempe to Amsterdam or Rome. That’s one reason Volkswagen AG, a latecomer to self-driving development, isn’t worried about being overtaken. Alexander Hitzinger, chief executive of Volkswagen’s autonomous-vehicle subsidiary, said in a recent interview that even an industry pioneer such as Waymo was “a long way away from commercializing the technology” and that Volkswagen’s autonomous vehicles would be developed by the mid-2020s.That time frame may be no more realistic than the previous hype about big 2019 and 2020 launches. Autonomous car developers can complain all they want about unpredictable human drivers and pedestrians who are causing all the accidents with their flawlessly superhuman creations, but nobody is going to clear the cities of people to give self-driving cars a spotless safety record. And making sure that, after millions of hours of training, artificial intelligence is finally able to drive like a human after a few hundred hours on the road, is not all that’s required for robotaxis to be viable. There's still the whole matter of figuring out how to reduce rather than increase urban congestion by using cars that don't “think” like humans.It’s also dangerous to adopt any kind of specific framework for the launch of automated truck services, even though that’s an easier project than taxis because the routes are fixed. The presence of humans in what is still a predominantly human world has rather unpredictable consequences for robot behavior. And the first movers have an obvious disadvantage: Like Uber with a taxi, they can get burned in ways that could set the whole business back years, and the earnings potential is unclear.None of this means, of course, that self-driving development has failed or even hit a dead end. Given enough time and a few technological breakthroughs, autonomous vehicles will be safe around actual people in actual winding, narrow, crowded streets. Engineering challenges exist to be overcome. The problem isn’t with the tech, which is moving along at a reasonably rapid pace, but with how that progress is communicated.Nobody forced experienced managers at venerable companies such as Daimler or GM to make overly optimistic statements about self-driving taxi launches. Waymo is a cash-burning startup, and it’s difficult to hold it responsible for getting ahead of itself. But the adults in the room look silly for having tried to play catch-up. There’s no reason for the big car companies to make any promises on self-driving at all. Unlike with vehicle electrification, which is part of many countries' climate policies, there’s no regulatory pressure to eliminate human drivers. And autonomous mobility-related business models are purely theoretical at this point.It would be enough for companies involved in autonomous car development to say they’re working on it. Pretty much all the big players are, to some extent. The time for any other kind of announcement will come when someone is really ready to launch a commercial service, whenever that may be. No rush.To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion's Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The United Auto Workers union said on Friday that rank-and-file members at Ford Motor Co have voted in favor of a new four-year labor contract with the No. 2 U.S. automaker. Talks with FCA are expected to begin on Monday, a UAW spokesman said. The union said 56.3% of Ford's hourly workers voted to approve the deal, which allowed the company to avoid a strike like the one that cost its larger rival General Motors Co about $3 billion (£2.3 billion).
The bank calls the ride-hailing startup a top internet pick—comparing Lyft (ticker: LYFT) to the likes of (AMZN) (AMZN) and (MTCH) (MTCH). Analyst Doug Anmuth has an $85 price target for the shares, up about 100% from recent levels. Of course, Lyft is a platform-technology company.
It's usually a mistake to bet against Elon Musk. The recent performance of Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock is a good example.Source: Sheila Fitzgerald / Shutterstock.com True, Elon Musk may say some wacky things and make some big mistakes. But in the end, he always seems to find ways to achieve his lofty goals.Earlier in the year, TSLA appeared to be in a bleak situation, and there was many questions about its outlook. How would it become profitable? Was its production system stable? And what about the departure of its high-level executives?InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips * 7 Silver and Gold Stocks to Buy That Offer Contrarian Upside But Elon Musk relishes challenges. And since Tesla's third-quarter earnings report, TSLA stock has been a rocket, going from $254 to $350, putting its market cap at $63 billion.In Q3, TSLA posted a profit, which was a huge surprise. Musk noted that the company would have more profitable quarters soon.Elon Musk has been focused on bringing down costs and finding ways to increase the company's profitability through growth. In the meantime, demand for the Model 3 has been rising.According to InvestorPlace columnist Luke Lango: "Central to the long-term bull thesis on TSLA stock is that Tesla has been selling, still is selling, and will continue to sell more and more of its signature electric vehicles." The AI AdvantageThe competition is certainly getting more intense, as car makers like GM (NYSE:GM), Ford (NYSE:F), BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz ramp up their own electric-car efforts. What's more, Tesla's foray into the Chinese market will meet with lots of resistance as well, since there are over 480 EV companies in the country!Granted, Tesla has some major competitive advantages. TSLA has a premium brand, a deeply loyal customer base, talented engineers and a strong Intellectual Property foundation.But Tesla's expertise in AI could be its biggest advantage. From its early days, the company built its cars with systems that collect enormous amounts of data,using sensors and over-the-air updates. As a result, it's been able to use much more powerful AI systems.A big part of Tesla's AI efforts, of course, occurred in conjunction with the creation of Autopilot. That system enables cars to automatically drive to designated locations. It also enables cars to park themselves. Finally, cars with Autopilots can be summoned with smartphones.To pull this off, Tesla has installed on-board computers with 40 times the power of prior systems and sophisticated AI.It's true that real autonomous driving is still not imminent. But Tesla is definitely aggressively trying to reach that goal. For example, the company recently acquired DeepScale, which is a cutting-edge developer of neural network systems.For the most part, DeepScale's focus is on solving the extremely tough problem of energy consumption with AI chips The Bottom Line on TSLA StockThe irony is that Elon Musk has said that AI is more dangerous than nuclear war! But then again, he has a tendency to exaggerate a great deal.But it's good to see a CEO who is freewheeling and creative. More importantly, AI will likely be a difference maker when it comes to the next-generation cars launched by TSLA. For now, Tesla's competitors are mostly playing catch-up.Tom Taulli is the author of the book, Artificial Intelligence Basics: A Non-Technical Introduction. Follow him on Twitter at @ttaulli. As of this writing, he did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 7 Silver and Gold Stocks to Buy That Offer Contrarian Upside * 7 Earnings Reports to Watch Next Week * 5 Online Retail Stocks to Buy on the Dip The post Why Artificial Intelligence Is a Secret Weapon for Tesla Stock appeared first on InvestorPlace.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has proposed taking back some of the spectrum long promised to automakers and re-allocating it to other wireless uses, according to people familiar with the matter.It’s a potentially significant development in a years-long debate that saw automakers fight to retain frequencies they’ve barely used. Carmakers say they’re poised to finally use the airwaves to connect vehicles and infrastructure to prevent collisions.The FCC sent the proposal to the Transportation Department in recent days, said two people who asked not to be identified discussing the private deliberations. If DOT agrees, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai could set a Dec. 12 vote on the proposal to modify the grant of airwaves it made 20 years ago.The Transportation Department has long resisted the idea and remains concerned and will likely oppose the FCC’s latest plan, one of the people said.Representatives for both agencies declined to comment.Cable providers who offer Wi-Fi for customers’ wireless use are hungry for spectrum as digital technology transforms everything from cars to video feeds and household appliances.More airwaves are needed to help “deliver a future of ubiquitous connectivity,” Charter Communications Inc. said in a Nov. 12 filing. Charter’s network supports more than 300 million devices, the Stamford, Connecticut-based company said.Auto industry companies including General Motors Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Denso Corp. spent more than a decade developing vehicle-to-vehicle, or “V2V,” communications systems to link cars, roadside beacons and traffic lights into a seamless wireless communication web to avoid collisions and heed speed limits. Yet deployments have been few, and no major automakers produce cars using the technology in the U.S.The auto industry has broadly shifted to favor a newer technology based on cellular systems, in part because it offers a path to transition to 5G systems in the future, proponents of the FCC’s plan say.Ford announced earlier this year that it will outfit all its new U.S. models starting in 2022 with cellular vehicle-to-everything technology. The system would enable Ford’s cars to communicate with one another about road hazards, talk to stop lights to smooth traffic flow and pay the bill automatically while picking up fast food.Automakers and their allies last year asked the FCC to let them use part of the band for cellular-based technology - rather than the Wi-Fi format the agency mandated in 1999 - while preserving all of the airwaves for transportation safety. In a petition the companies said the newer, cellular technology is more reliable, with greater range.The airwaves could be used for fast communications including machine-to-machine links, and smart city applications such as smart cameras, traffic monitoring and security sensors, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, a trade group for companies including Comcast and Charter, told the FCC in a Sept. 25 filing.(Updates with Charter filing in seventh paragraph.)\--With assistance from Keith Naughton.To contact the reporters on this story: Ryan Beene in Washington at email@example.com;Todd Shields in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at email@example.com, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Industrial production fell 0.8% in October from September, far worse than economics forecasts for a 0.4% decline. Remove autos from the calculation, and industrial production dipped just 0.1%
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If the U.S. is going to make a big dent in income inequality and raise living standards for the middle class, it’s going to need a multipronged approach. Higher taxes and more spending on health care will help. Minimum-wage laws can raise pay for workers at the bottom without reducing employment much, but they only benefit a relatively small slice of the workforce. But something else is needed.One big idea is to bring back unions and collective bargaining. Several teams of economists have examined the historical record and concluded that unions were important in reducing inequality. But although unions are still important in the public sector, in the private sector they’ve been almost wiped out.People argue about the cause of the decline. Some blame weak enforcement of labor laws or the rise of state right-to-work laws. Others blame global competition and technology. But Martin Manley, an entrepreneur who previously served as assistant secretary of the Labor Department under President Bill Clinton, thinks he has the answer. In a new book titled “A Better Bargain: Organizing Employers and Workers to Grow America’s Middle Class,” Manley argues that the U.S. union system was doomed from the start.Before 1935, Manley notes, there were several types of collective bargaining in the U.S. But the one that ended up being enshrined in law, in the National Labor Relations Act, was called enterprise bargaining. Under that law, workers at each workplace have to vote to unionize; if they do, all workers at that workplace are covered by the union contract. If they reject the union down, however, there’s no collective bargaining.This system has a huge downside: competition. Suppose the workers at a McDonald’s want to form a union. The managers know that if the workers unionize, wages will go up and prices for hamburgers at that McDonald’s will rise. That will put the restaurant at a competitive disadvantage versus the non-unionized Burger King down the street, eventually resulting in layoffs. The managers will make this argument to the workers, who probably will find it convincing.If both the McDonald’s and the Burger King could coordinate and unionize together, competition would be no problem; wages would rise and the profits of the two giant corporations might fall while consumers paid higher prices for burgers. But because U.S. labor law forces each workplace to act independently on unionization, they can’t effectively coordinate. The situation is even worse for companies such as General Motors that face international competition because there’s no way for GM workers to coordinate with Volkswagen workers in Europe or Toyota workers in Asia.Manley has a two-pronged solution to this problem. Both pieces would require a major rewrite of U.S. labor law. And both would involve a shift from enterprise-level bargaining to sectoral bargaining, with negotiations taking place in an entire industry, not individual workplaces or companies.The first piece is industry associations — groups of companies in the same industry and region that bargain collectively with their workers all at once. Though it might seem counterintuitive to let employers collaborate like this, it would remove the competitive threat that unions represent, because the resulting agreements would constrain all businesses equally. Manley suggests that industry associations could also collaborate to create more efficient and flexible labor markets by providing worker training, sharing knowledge about workers across company lines and so on.Second, Manley would make unions nonexclusive. Under his preferred system, an industry association would bargain simultaneously with all the organizations that workers in that industry belonged to, be they unions, worker co-ops, professional associations or advocacy groups. The various worker groups would be awarded representation at the negotiating table proportional to their membership (which could overlap). Manley envisions various worker groups competing with each other for members by offering services other than wage bargaining.These are good ideas. To really be effective, they’ll require one crucial element: that workers who don’t belong to any organization are all covered by the contracts that result from sector-level labor negotiations. A law like this is the reason that the French and German workforces are still mostly covered by collective bargaining, despite falling unionization:If combined with Manley’s idea for competing labor organizations and proportional representation in negotiations, sectoral bargaining would undo the decades-long decline in private-sector collective bargaining almost overnight. It wouldn’t require unions to rebuild their membership; all it would need is a few worker organizations to pop up and start bargaining on behalf of everyone. At first, these early movers would get almost all the seats at the negotiating table, which would induce other workers to form other organizations to get a piece of the action.Presidential candidates such as Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren have backed sectoral bargaining, showing that the idea is catching on. Innovative ideas like Manley’s could allow sectoral bargaining to take root even faster and to be carried out in a way that many employers would embrace. Ultimately, a more cooperative relationship between workers and management would result in a more sustainable system for supporting the middle class.To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
U.S. retail sales rebounded in October, but consumers cut back on purchases of big-ticket household items and clothing, which could temper expectations for a strong holiday shopping season. The report from the Commerce Department on Friday pointed to a moderate pace of consumer spending that probably remains sufficient to offset some of the drag on the economy from a downturn in the industrial sector. "Consumers are easing off their spendthrift ways from the second quarter and are adopting more prudent attitudes, perhaps still nervous over trade tensions and the slowing of hiring -though that still remains robust," said Robert Frick, corporate economist at Navy Federal Credit Union in Vienna, Virginia.
Navistar's (NAV) 2019 revenues and adjusted EBITDA are likely to be hit by $140 million and $15 million, respectively, owing to the UAW strike.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. manufacturing output slumped in October by the most in six months as an auto workers’ strike at General Motors Co. curtailed vehicle production and the trade war continued to weigh on other factories.The 0.6% decline in output followed a 0.5% decrease the previous month, Federal Reserve data showed Friday. Excluding the 7.1% drop in motor vehicle output, which was the largest since January, factory production decreased a more modest 0.1% for a second month.Total industrial production, which also includes output at mines and utilities, slumped 0.8% in October, the largest setback since May 2018.Key InsightsThe data are consistent with other reports showing cracks in the factory sector as producers grapple with sluggish global demand, slower business investment and the U.S.-China trade war. The Institute for Supply Management’s gauge contracted three straight months, while a separate index showed global manufacturing shrank in October for a sixth month.All major market groups, including consumer goods and business equipment, reported declines in output for at least a second month.Factory production may rebound next month as the striking United Auto Workers reached an agreement with GM late in October. Overall the strike cost the company nearly $3 billion and lasted 40 days.Aside from the slump in automaker output, production also retreated at makers of computers, electrical equipment, chemicals, apparel and fabricated metals.Get MoreThe median forecast of economists in the Bloomberg survey for manufacturing output called for a 0.7% decline.Of the three main industrial production groups, mining dropped for a second month on weakness in the oil patch, while utilities registered the sharpest drop since June.Capacity utilization, measuring the amount of a plant that is in use, fell to 76.7% from 77.5%. Capacity utilization at manufacturers decreased to 74.7%, the weakest since September 2017.The Fed’s monthly data are volatile and often get revised. Manufacturing, which makes up about three-fourths of total industrial production, accounts for about 11% of the U.S. economy.(Adds graphic)\--With assistance from Chris Middleton.To contact the reporter on this story: Katia Dmitrieva in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Scott Lanman at email@example.com, Vince GolleFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings on the Class A1, Class A2 and Class B Notes issued by Rongteng 2019-3 Retail Auto Loan Securitization, a domestic transaction backed by a pool of auto loans originated by SAIC-GMAC Automotive Finance Company Limited (SAIC-GMAC) in China. When assigning the ratings, Moody's analysis focused, among other factors, on (1) the characteristics of the securitized pool; (2) the macroeconomic environment; (3) the lack of historical performance data during the economically distressed period; (4) the parental support available to the servicer; (5) the potential disruption to the issuer's cash flow in case of a servicer termination event, and the mitigants to support timely payments on the Class A1, Class A2 and Class B Notes (collectively, "the senior notes"); (6) the protection provided by credit enhancement against defaults and arrears in the securitized pool; and (7) the legal and structural integrity of the transaction.