43.24 +0.02 (0.05%)
After hours: 4:11PM EDT
|Bid||43.21 x 1100|
|Ask||43.21 x 1100|
|Day's Range||42.39 - 43.40|
|52 Week Range||26.19 - 45.86|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.19|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||14.28|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Glassdoor, an online job and recruiting site, has revealed the highest paying companies in 2019
(Bloomberg) -- Boris Johnson’s lawyer promised the Supreme Court the government will file a statement overnight on what it will do if it loses the landmark case over its suspension of Parliament. The second of three days of hearings has finished in the landmark case, which has the potential to derail Johnson’s Brexit strategy and even curtail his premiership.Key Developments:Day 2 of court hearings has concluded; third and final day is Thursday, but the Supreme Court hasn’t given a date for a rulingGovernment lawyer James Eadie promised written statement on Johnson’s plans if he loses, after the court warned it would be “entirely inconvenient” if it wasn’t provided before the hearings endPound drops as much as 0.5% after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the risk of a no-deal Brexit is “palpable”German Chancellor Angela Merkel hasn’t given up a Brexit dealFoster Says DUP Prepared to be ‘Flexible’ (8:15 p.m.)Democratic Unionist Party Leader Arlene Foster said her party -- which three times voted down Theresa May’s Brexit deal -- is prepared to be flexible and countenance solutions to the Brexit impasse that apply only to Northern Ireland -- so long as there is an element of local consent.“We are prepared to be flexible and look at Northern Ireland specific solutions achieved with the support and consent of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland,” Foster said in a speech in Dublin, according to extracts emailed by her office. “We want to have prosperous trading relationships across the island and allow businesses to get back to investing in the future with confidence.”Foster said she wants Britain to leave the EU with a deal, and that a no-deal Brexit “is no-one’s preferred outcome and is not of itself a final destination.” But she also warned that no deal will be reached that involves a backstop -- whether U.K.-wide or Northern Ireland-specific. The EU so far has refused to countenance removing the backstop -- a fallback position that will apply if future trade terms can’t be agreed -- from the deal.Day 2 Ends With Appeal to Judges’ ‘Better Nature’ (4:30 p.m.)The second day of arguments in the Supreme Court case looking at whether Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was lawful has ended.Aiden O’Neill, representing Scottish lawmakers, urged the judges to “listen to the angels of your better nature” and rule Johnson’s suspension unlawful. He challenged the court to stand up for the U.K. constitution and the union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.The third and final day of hearings is on Thursday, and judges have firmly asked the government to outline what it intends to do if it loses the case. The court will hear from leading Northern Irish and Welsh lawyers, as well as representatives of former Prime Minister John Major. There is still no indication when the judges will reach a decision.Testimony Veers to Shakespeare, Scottish Battles (3:20 p.m.)Aiden O’Neill, representing almost 80 Scottish lawmakers who won the case against the government in Edinburgh, opened with a rhetorical flourish, invoking “Macbeth” and taking the judges through ancient Scottish battles and fictional ones before laying out the importance of the symbolism of the union of the U.K. in the case.When he finally got to the crux of his argument, he said there is clear case law showing the top court can rule in this suit, and that the decision to suspend Parliament fundamentally changed the balance of the constitution because it allows Prime Minister Boris Johnson to alter the U.K.’s relationship with Europe without parliamentary scrutiny.“That cannot be at this time, in this manner, a lawful use of the power,” he said.The approach was unusual, and there was a sense he was talking to an audience beyond the court. But as lawyer and legal blogger Adam Wagner pointed out, the fact that the arguments had been made by Gina Miller’s lawyers on Tuesday meant O’Neill had some freedom to go “a bit off grid.”Merkel Still Holding Out for a Deal (2:45 p.m.)Asked about the fallout from Boris Johnson’s visit to Luxembourg on Monday, when he skipped a planned press conference and the European Union complained about the lack of U.K. proposals in the prime minister’s talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she’s still holding out for a negotiated Brexit.“I’ll say again now just as I said during Boris Johnson’s visit, that I continue to see the possibility of an orderly exit,” Merkel told reporters in Berlin. “This was also the goal of the meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker. I didn’t expect that the visit in Luxembourg would offer a solution.”Merkel, who spoke with Johnson by phone Tuesday and plans to continue the conversation next week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, said she’ll otherwise “wait to see how things develop.”“We are prepared for a disorderly exit, but I prefer an orderly exit with an agreement,” Merkel said.Coveney Warns Against Criticizing Johnson (2 p.m.)Criticizing Boris Johnson in public will not help to get a Brexit deal, Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney warned, days after Luxembourg leader Xavier Bettel did just that.Ireland and the EU are “in the business of trying to understand what are the limits of what Boris Johnson can offer” and whether the terms are “good enough to allow us to strike a deal,” Coveney said during a visit to Carlow, south east Ireland.Separately, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told lawmakers in Dublin he may meet Johnson when they are both in New York for the United Nations General Assembly next week. He said he’s also arranging to meet Arlene Foster, leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, “very soon.”Court Demands Johnson’s Plan If Defeated (1:30 p.m.)Just before finishing, Eadie turned to the question of what the court could order and how the government might respond if the ruling goes against it. It was an issue that concerned the judges on the first day of the hearing, with one asking if Boris Johnson might prorogue Parliament for a second time.The government must provide the court with its plan in the event of defeat and “it will be entirely inappropriate if you don’t do it by the end of tomorrow,” Judge Brenda Hale, the president of the court, said.Eadie responded that the government will work on its reply overnight as Judge Robert Reed spoke up to note that the issue could be a “very difficult question” for the judges.Judge Questions Lack of Government Witness (1:20 p.m.)Judge Nicholas Wilson asked James Eadie why no senior government official had come forward with a witness statement to back up the cabinet minutes outlining the reasons for the suspension of Parliament. Had that been done, the government’s evidence would have more weight in the court’s eyes.“No one has come forward from your side to say that this is true,” Wilson said. “Isn’t it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement saying this is true?”Eadie countered: “My Lords, you have the witness statement you have,” referring to the document from a government lawyer. It would be unusual for a senior official to be called to give evidence in a case like this, Eadie said, and any application for that to happen would “be resisted like fury.”Denmark Ramps-Up No-Deal Preparations (12:35 p.m.)Denmark is ramping up preparations for a no-deal Brexit amid concerns at Boris Johnson’s strategy and estimates that divorce without an agreement could cost the Nordic nation as much as 1.3% in lost growth over the next 5-10 years.“The new British government’s approach is worrying,” Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod told reporters in Copenhagen as he announced the creation of an emergency task force of officials from eight ministries.The Foreign Ministry estimates that around 60,000 Danish jobs, or 2% of the labor force, relies on exports to the U.K.. Tax authorities have hired 50 new staff and the government will spend 10 million kroner ($1.5 million) on a new public awareness campaign.Judges Question ‘Post Hoc’ System of Control (12:20 p.m.)Two judges challenged government lawyer James Eadie’s suggestion that Parliament could address any harm stemming from its suspension after it is recalled. Justice Brian Kerr called it a “post-hoc system of control,” and Justice Jill Black also questioned the idea.But Eadie said that Parliament “can resume all the functions of control it had beforehand.” Eadie effectively argued that the 17 days between Parliament is due to be recalled for a Queen’s speech and the Oct. 31 Brexit deadline would be enough to address any issues.“There is time, and it’s up to Parliament and the government to legislate what they consider necessary,” he said.Barnier: U.K. Must Provide ‘Robust’ Solutions (11:40 a.m.)Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said the U.K. government must accept the need for “legally robust solutions” in any withdrawal accord, and said the two sides shouldn’t be wasting time “pretending to negotiate.”“We are building a treaty, we’re not making a speech” Barnier told the EU Parliament in Strasbourg. “It’s finding solutions that work, and that’s something that we’ve communicated to Boris Johnson and his team.”Barnier’s comments echo those of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (see 8:40 a.m.), who demanded the U.K. provide its proposals for an alternative solution to the contentious backstop -- the fallback measure designed to keep the Irish border free of checks after Brexit -- as soon as possible. A British official said Tuesday the government is still sounding out the bloc on its ideas for the border before submitting written proposals.Tytti Tuppurainen, European affairs minister of Finland -- which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency -- said in the same debate that achieving the U.K.’s orderly withdrawal must remain the bloc’s priority “until the very last moment, given the negative consequences of a hard Brexit.”German Businesses Toughen No-Deal Tone (11:30 a.m.)The influential German BDI industry lobby group said it would rather have a hard Brexit on Oct. 31 than accept another delay that leads nowhere, even if -- as the group expects -- it trims economic growth by 0.5 percentage points and leads to the loss of nearly 100,000 jobs.“With every delay, the cost of preparations increase,” Director General Joachim Lang said Wednesday at a press briefing in Berlin. He accused Boris Johnson’s government of “playing with fire,” and said it shouldn’t be given an extension without a plan in place to avoid a no-deal split with the EU.Despite the tougher tone, the BDI, which estimates German companies have spent billions of euros on preparations, said it still sees a no-deal Brexit as the “worst of all possible outcomes.”Who Better Than Court to Protect Parliament? (11:15 a.m.)Justice Nicholas Wilson asked government lawyer James Eadie who was “better placed to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty” than the Supreme Court.Eadie replied: “It’s no good simply turning up and shouting about parliamentary sovereignty, because parliamentary sovereignty can mean a number of things.”The exchange goes to the heart of the case, which is trying to determine whether the government’s five-week suspension of Parliament was unlawful.‘Treasury Devil’ to Open Day 2 for Government (10:15 a.m.)James Eadie, the government’s go-to lawyer in major pieces of litigation -- a role known as the “Treasury Devil” -- is due to kick off the second day of hearings at the Supreme Court. Aidan O’Neill then presents on behalf of 80 Scottish lawmakers, who secured the ruling in Edinburgh that the government’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful.The government’s main contention is the issue has no place being decided by judges, and that Johnson has acted within his powers. The decision to prorogue Parliament was one of “high policy and politics, and not law,” they argue.“The appeals would also involve the courts identifying and enforcing a new constitutional convention as to the length of prorogation, which the courts have no jurisdiction to do,” lawyers led by Eadie said in their written arguments.Both the Scottish and English challengers -- who lost their separate case in the High Court in London -- argue the issue falls squarely in the jurisdiction of the court to deal with and that Johnson abused his executive powers.“It is not, and cannot be, right that the executive can exercise its powers so as to remove itself from accountability to Parliament in relation to decisions of high constitutional -- and potentially irreversible legal, economic and social -- impact,” lawyers for Joanna Cherry in the Scottish case said.Sturgeon Doubts Johnson’s Brexit Ideas (9:30 a.m.)Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon cast doubt on Boris Johnson’s proposal to replace the so-called Irish backstop, and said the prospects of a Brexit deal “have to be slim.”“We will have to see what unfolds over the next few weeks, but it’s a very limited form of Northern Ireland-only backstop he appears to be talking about,” Sturgeon told reporters in Berlin, where she is due to meet German officials. “It’s very difficult to see how Boris Johnson can secure a deal that satisfies the European Union and commands a majority” in Parliament.On the Supreme Court hearings in London, Sturgeon said that a ruling for the government would effectively mean a “government can suspend Parliament at any time it wants.” Conversely, a loss for Johnson would mean he “will have been found to have acted unlawfully” and would have to consider his position.Speaking at the German Council on Foreign Relations on the fifth anniversary of the Scottish independence referendum, Sturgeon predicted that “over the next few years,” Scotland will become an independent member of the EU. “We are living in extraordinary and unprecedented times in the U.K,” she said.Juncker: Sticking Point Is Still the Backstop (8:40 a.m.)In his briefing to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, on Monday’s talks with Boris Johnson, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the main sticking point remains -- as it has for months -- the so-called backstop provision for the Irish border. He demanded the U.K. provide its proposals for an alternative solution in written form as soon as possible.Juncker said that while the discussions with Johnson in Luxembourg were “friendly, constructive and, in part, positive,” the risk of the U.K. leaving the bloc without an agreement at the end of October is “palpable.” The pound fell 0.3% after Juncker’s comments.A British official said on Tuesday the government is sounding out the bloc on its ideas for the Irish border before submitting its plans in written form.Carney Could Be Asked to Extend Term on Brexit: FT (Earlier)Bank of England Governor Mark Carney could be asked to extend his term past Jan. 31 if Brexit is delayed again, the Financial Times reported, citing people familiar with the matter it didn’t identify.The newspaper cited a government official as saying the process of choosing Carney’s successor is going “very slowly,” while an expected election in the fall makes it likely that a decision would not be made until a new government was in place.Responding to the report, the Treasury said “the process is on track and we will make an appointment in due course.”Earlier:Johnson Struggles in Supreme Court on Day One of Suspension CaseRecord Numbers Seek Debt Help With U.K. on Brink of BrexitEurope Hunts For Boris Johnson’s Plan: Brexit Bulletin\--With assistance from Stuart Biggs, Thomas Penny, Alan Crawford, Ian Wishart, Chris Reiter, Jonathan Stearns, Morten Buttler, Peter Flanagan and Dara Doyle.To contact the reporters on this story: Jeremy Hodges in London at email@example.com;Jonathan Browning in London at firstname.lastname@example.org;Franz Wild in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson at firstname.lastname@example.org, Stuart Biggs, Thomas PennyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Using geotagged tweets, researchers found four types of social connectedness in big U.S. cities, exemplified by New York, San Francisco, Detroit, and Miami.
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Federal Reserve policy makers lowered their main interest rate for a second time this year and Chairman Jerome Powell said that “moderate” policy moves should be sufficient to sustain the U.S. expansion.“We took this step to help keep the U.S. economy strong in the face of some notable developments and to provide insurance against ongoing risks,” Powell told reporters Wednesday after the Fed cut its benchmark rate by a quarter percentage point to a range of 1.75% to 2%. “Weakness in global growth and trade policy have weighed on the economy.”Treasury yields rose, the dollar rallied and U.S. stocks reversed earlier losses after Powell made clear that policy makers did not expect to need deep rate cuts. The chairman has been under relentless public pressure to reduce rates from President Donald Trump, who returned to Twitter minutes of the FOMC’s announcement to say policy makers had failed again by not cutting more and had “No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision!”The Federal Open Market Committee decision didn’t alter expectations among futures traders for another 25 basis-point cut this year.Powell left the door open to “a more extensive sequences of cuts” if needed, but stressed this was not what officials expect. Instead, he described the situation as one “which can be addressed and should be addressed with moderate adjustments to the federal funds rate.” Fed officials maintained their pledge to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion."“Although household spending has been rising at a strong pace, business fixed investment and exports have weakened,’’ the FOMC said.Five officials in updated quarterly forecasts wanted to keep rates unchanged, while five saw a quarter point as appropriate this year and seven wanted a half point.The Fed board also took a separate step to calm this week’s strains in money markets and avert harm to the economy, lowering the interest rate on excess reserves to 1.8%. Earlier Wednesday the Fed injected $75 billion of liquidity to ease a crunch, and key rates pulled back from elevated levels.Global RiskPowell is trying to sustain the expansion despite slowing global growth that’s been chilled by uncertainty over U.S. trade policy, fanning fears of recession. Manufacturing has been hit hard, particularly in Germany, which prompted the European Central Bank to ease policy last week.Click here for World Interest Rate ProbabilityKansas City Fed chief Esther George and Boston’s Eric Rosengren dissented against the reduction, as they did in July, preferring to keep rates unchanged. There was a new dissent by James Bullard of St. Louis, who preferred a half-point cut.Powell’s committee is split between those who don’t think cuts are needed because domestic spending is solid and those worried by global weakness and inflation running persistently under their 2% goal.“This statement seems carefully crafted to be silent on that question,” said David Wilcox, a former senior Fed economist and now at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “There is no clue here as to whether this is the end of the line.”Fed officials also released new quarterly forecasts:The median estimate saw the benchmark rate hold steady after today’s move at 1.9% and remain there until the end of 2020, then rise to 2.1% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2022. That’s just under the Fed’s longer-run “neutral’’ federal funds rate estimate, which was unchanged at 2.5%.The unemployment rate was forecast to end this year about 3.7%, up a tenth from June, and finish 2020 at that level. The longer-run estimated jobless rate remained at 4.2%.Participants continued to forecast that they wouldn’t reach their 2% inflation goal until 2021.The Fed’s back-to-back rate cuts reverse the tightening last year and follow a wave of easing this year by other central banks. In addition to the ECB, some analysts expect the Bank of Japan to act at its meeting Thursday.U.S. central bankers, who added the reference to exports, worry that uncertainty over trade is denting investment and could slow hiring. Private-sector job growth has slowed from last year.At the same time, consumption -- which accounts for most of the economy -- appears strong with retail sales rising 0.4% in August and sentiment indicators relatively solid. Financial conditions have remained easy since the July meeting, although the dollar has resumed gains against major currencies.\--With assistance from Katherine Greifeld, Nancy Moran, Matthew Boesler, Christopher Condon, Katia Dmitrieva, Reade Pickert and Vince Golle.To contact the reporters on this story: Craig Torres in Washington at email@example.com;Rich Miller in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Alister Bull at email@example.com, Jeff Kearns, Ben HollandFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The salary totals are yet another example of the bruising battle Bay Area employers face for talented workers, especially in the tech industry.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Mark Zuckerberg’s cryptocurrency project, Libra, has become the regulatory equivalent of a pinata: Everyone is lining up to hit it with a stick. France’s finance minister Bruno Le Maire calls it an assault on sovereignty and a risk to financial stability, an attack backed up by his German counterpart Olaf Scholz who dubbed it a “parallel currency.” You can see their point.Across the Atlantic, U.S. Democrats and Republicans — including President Donald Trump — have called for tough scrutiny of the Facebook Inc. payments system, whose potential 2-billion strong user base could threaten the U.S. dollar’s supremacy.Facebook’s attempt this week to debunk the argument that it’s encroaching on government turf, via a Twitter thread from its blockchain boss David Marcus, won’t allay these fears. Marcus’s depiction of Libra as a system “running on top of” existing currencies rather than supplanting them — that is, a digital token backed by a basket of assets including dollars, euros, yen and the like — is exactly what has spooked politicians and central bankers. Libra is a so-called “stablecoin,” meaning its value will be anchored to the hard currencies that back it — similar to Singapore’s currency peg and unlike Bitcoin with its wild swings in value. But that doesn’t mean Libra’s rise would be good for those underlying currencies. If it took off, Libra would have a bigger potential user base than the combined populations of China, the U.S. and the EU. A mighty, privately-backed cryptocurrency would have all sorts of consequences on the enforcing of economic sanctions or regulation of global trade, as well as on central banks’ ability to respond to crises or recessions. Libra could gain great influence over countries with weak or unstable currencies that might otherwise lean toward the dollar or euro. That this would all be led by a tech industry that has frequently trampled consumer privacy underfoot is another worry, even if safeguards were put in place to keep the social media behemoth at arm’s length.Rather than debate with Zuckerberg, some central bankers seem to be mulling the idea of grabbing the Libra idea for themselves and setting up an alternative. If the problem with such a currency is Facebook, why not make one yourself that’s Facebook-free?The Bank of England governor Mark Carney floated last month the idea of a “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency,” one backed by a basket of reserve currencies but without the “fundamental” problems raised by Libra. This week Benoit Coeure, a European Central Bank executive, called on other central bankers to join forces and look into issuing digital currencies to fend off the private stablecoins. You can see why this might be preferable to digital coins run by Facebook, Amazon.com Inc. or Apple Inc. Ideally, central bank cryptocurrencies would have the convenience of digital cash and would probably do a better job of reining in illicit transactions and money laundering. They would let a central bank keep a tighter grip on financial stability too. And the risk of “digital dollarization,” in which countries find themselves falling under the sway of powerful digital tokens, is lessened.There are, nonetheless, trade-offs with any digital currency whomever issues it. National sovereignty might be protected but at what cost? A more efficient payments system may look cheaper but it would put central banks in a new role, one that would require more staff and better cyber-defenses. These are not things you naturally associate with cash-starved public institutions.The “sovereignty” of citizens could be eroded too as cash became more traceable. And we have no idea how it would perform in a financial panic. A digital bank run might be very ugly.These are political and social questions. It’s good for regulators to be grappling with them now rather than letting Facebook do what it likes. It doesn’t make the answers any easier, though. A central banker’s Bitcoin is no magic bullet.To contact the author of this story: Lionel Laurent at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Brussels. He previously worked at Reuters and Forbes.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
“Sand and death” was his take on Syria this year, and, with that, the Horace of Mar-a-Lago brought home a couple of thousand soldiers. Each president since the end of the cold war was elected on a sand-and-death view of the Middle East. Bill Clinton thought foreign adventures a luxury when the home front needed care.
(Bloomberg) -- Cboe Global Markets Inc.’s BZX exchange has withdrawn a proposal to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to list and trade shares of a Bitcoin investment vehicle.A proposed rule change that would have allowed BZX to list and trade SolidX Bitcoin Shares issued by the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust was withdrawn by the exchange on Sept. 13, according to an SEC filing.Gabor Gurbacs, director of digital asset strategy at VanEck Associates, tweeted in response to CoinDesk’s earlier report of the withdrawal that the firm continues “to work closely with regulators and market participants to get one step closer every day” to a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund.“This is not bad news in my view just a different process,” Gurbacs said later in response to questions from Bloomberg. The institutionally oriented VanEck SolidX 144A Bitcoin product “is a good step toward a full publicly traded ETF,” he said.Earlier this month, VanEck and SolidX Management LLC said in a statement that they had found a workaround for some large investors by using Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. The VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust 144A Shares are the first Bitcoin product for institutions that is cleared and features the same creation-and-redemption process common with traditional ETFs, according to the statement.The SEC had in August delayed a decision on approving the Bitcoin ETFs, extending until Oct. 18 the period to consider whether listing rules could change to allow the funds to start trading. Other applications for approval have also been delayed. The agency rejected an exchange’s request last year to list a Bitcoin ETF backed by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.Bitcoin dropped about 1% to $10,173 as of 7:30 a.m. in New York. The digital token has almost tripled this year, after tumbling 74% in 2018 and surging 1,400% in 2017. \--With assistance from Alastair Marsh and Vildana Hajric.To contact the reporter on this story: Joanna Ossinger in Singapore at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Christopher Anstey at email@example.com, ;Dave Liedtka at firstname.lastname@example.org, Andreea Papuc, Cormac MullenFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
When Jillian York, a 36-year-old American activist, was on vacation in February, she received an unexpected text. York, who works in Berlin for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights non-profit group, did not.
People briefed on the extent of the damage at Abqaiq, which processes more than 70 per cent of the kingdom’s normal output, have warned it could take months before full production is restored. — dropping more than 7 per cent — after Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister, said the kingdom had restored half of the lost production and would fully restore output by the end of September. Amin Nasser, chief executive of Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, said production was building up at both Abqaiq and a smaller facility at Khurais that was also hit in the weekend’s strikes.
FT subscribers can click here to receive FirstFT every day by email. First off: FT.com is free to read for everyone today. If you have a friend or colleague who would be interested in any articles curated ...
“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.” With this sentence, the US Business Roundtable , which represents ...
While President Trump is “locked and loaded” and “waiting to hear” from Saudi Arabia about who was behind last weekend’s drone attacks on two of the Kingdom’s oil plants, Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard fired off an attack of her own on Twitter.
This article was originally published on 19 April 2019 Luke answers readers’ questions on design and stylish living every fortnight. Email him at email@example.com or follow him on Instagram @lukeedwardhall ...
Pizza Hut Cheez-It Pizza is a thing now and we don't really know what to think.Source: Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock.com Alright. Just work with me here. Imagine a Cheez-It for me. Now just take that and scale it up. Make it big enough to cover the palm of your hand. Sound good? But now that the Cheez- It is so large, it has all this empty space inside of it. So we fill that up with mozzarella cheese, and toss in some pepperoni if that's your preference. That is what the new Pizza Hut Cheez-It Pizza is. Also, you can dip it in marinara.Honestly, this seems like a weird one to me. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it sounds bad. I've had plenty of weird food concoctions during my 28 years of life and there's been stranger ones. Still, I have to really wonder how well this promotion will go.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips * 7 Momentum Stocks to Buy On the Dip Let's take a journey on over to Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) to see how its users are reacting to the Pizza Hut Cheez-It Pizza. * "I am confused by the . . . scale of these. are they cheez-it-size mini-pizzas or regular-size slices enveloped by giant cheez-its? @pizzahut why are you doing this?" * Pizza Hut and Kellogg creating a stuffed Cheez-It pizza, because when you think good pizza, you think "cheddar" and "cracker," and when you think snack, you think of a whole delivered "pizza" " * "Deleted my search for personal trainers so that i could look up pizza hut's cheez it pizza… accurately describes my motivation." * "So it's Cheez-it flavored crust stuffed with mozzarella? I'll try it!" * "Pizza Hut is offering a Cheez-It stuffed pizza. Holy constipation that sounds like something I gotta try!"No matter the case, the Yum Brands (NYSE:YUM) chain seems to have an interesting menu item in the Pizza Hut Cheez-It Pizza. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 7 Momentum Stocks to Buy On the Dip * 7 Dow Titans Breaking Higher * 5 Growth Stocks to Sell as Rates Move Higher As of this writing, William White did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities.The post Pizza Hut Cheez-It Pizza Is Now a Thing appeared first on InvestorPlace.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The House Judiciary Committee brought in President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Tuesday as part of what it’s now calling an impeachment investigation. Indeed, the committee subpoenaed Lewandowski, former White House staff secretary Rob Porter and former White House deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn to discuss clear evidence of obstruction of justice by Trump in attempting to shut down the Justice Department’s investigation of Russian campaign interference.Porter and Dearborn didn’t show up after the White House instructed them not to. Lewandowski did, but he refused to answer most questions under White House instructions. In each case, the White House made assertions of executive privilege that went far beyond any interpretation that’s ever been claimed. Or, as Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland put it while questioning Lewandowski, it was a “tooth fairy” privilege that doesn’t actually exist. Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York eventually made the key point, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Timothy L. O’Brien noted in a tweet, in response to prodding from another committee Democrat, Eric Swalwell of California:Indeed, as Nadler added, obstruction of a Congressional inquiry was part of the three counts of impeachment voted by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 against President Richard Nixon, which would certainly have been overwhelmingly adopted by the full House before an overwhelming Senate vote to remove him if Nixon hadn’t resigned first. In other words, whatever Trump did or didn’t do in response to the Russia inquiry, he is now fully engaged (as Nixon was in the months before he resigned on Aug. 9, 1974) in a a coverup of a coverup.And that is legitimate grounds for impeachment and removal.As it happens, there’s plenty of evidence of obstruction of the Russia probe, which the Democrats attempted to dramatize in their questions to Lewandowski. He didn’t say much, but he did confirm that the description of obstruction detailed by the report that Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller delivered in April was, to the extent it involved him, accurate. That is: The president used Lewandowski as part of his scheming to shut down investigations into his campaign, and more broadly into Russian interference with the 2016 election. The crucial point here is that Republicans in Congress are unmoved by any of this. What’s important to understand is just how much all of this undermines the rule of law. The president certainly did something that looks like obstruction of justice. The Mueller report said that it was obstruction of justice. And yet congressional Republicans are ignoring it. And they are actively cooperating with the president’s attempts to stretch executive privilege to the point where the president would be immune from any congressional and perhaps judicial oversight at all. Whether or not Tuesday’s hearing has any effect on public or media opinion, it is further evidence of the president’s abuse of power, and legitimate cause for removing him.That’s in theory. In reality, we’re still pretty far from actually getting to impeachment. Democrats continue to have difficulty using oversight hearings to make their points. They are getting better: Committee members asked good questions on Tuesday or used their five-minute turns to highlight the key points of the Mueller report and the case against Trump. But Nadler stumbled at the beginning, not seeming to know exactly how to deal with Lewandoski’s entirely expected refusal to answer questions. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all carried the beginning of the hearing live, but all three cut away after an hour or so, missing some of the more effective questions. What’s more urgent than the eventual decision on impeachment — which, remember, won’t actually do anything to slow Trump down as long as Republicans in the Senate are unlikely to even take it seriously — is whether Trump will get away with obstructing Congress and inventing ever-expanding claims of executive privilege. It appears at this point that the courts will weigh in, with the Democratic House choosing to look for answers there rather than attempting to cite anybody for contempt, which would be subject to enforcement by a Trump Justice Department that’s unlikely, to put it mildly, to follow through.The danger is that if the courts side with Trump then they’ll be establishing that the president is, for all practical purposes, above the law. It would be better if Congress, Democrats and Republican together, made it clear that such conduct is unacceptable. But without that, House Democrats, and the rule of law, just don’t have a lot of good options.To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., ahead of a congressional hearing on violent content, revealed the charter for an independent oversight board that will make irreversible decisions about what posts stay up and come down, even if the company disagrees.The board, which Facebook started talking about in January and which will begin to hear cases early next year, represents the first real check on Facebook’s power to decide who gets a voice on its site. Its members -- at least 11 people at any given time and fully staffed at 40 -- will be the final word on controversial cases that affect Facebook’s 2.7 billion users. The board’s charter outlines a vision that is easier said than done.The members will “exhibit a broad range of knowledge, competencies, diversity and expertise” with no “actual or perceived” conflicts of interest that would affect their decisions on user content, according to the charter revealed Tuesday. They will “collaborate in decision-making to foster an environment of collegiality, and issue principled decisions and policy recommendations using clearly articulated reasoning.” The committee deciding on cases will include one member from the region of the post in dispute.Facebook spent months deliberating with outside experts to ensure the board acts independently, even though members are paid indirectly by the tech giant. Funding is channeled through a trust and the trustees can’t fire board members if they make bad content decisions, only if their conduct is poor. At stake is the trust of Facebook’s users, who sometimes don’t understand why posts are removed, or why questionable content they report remains online.The company is also dealing with increasingly damaging types of content -- like posts to recruit terrorists or influence elections. On Wednesday, executives from Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Google will testify before a Senate committee on violent content and extremism, after a string of mass shootings, some of which were broadcast live on social media.Kate Klonick, an assistant professor at St. John’s University Law School, has been embedded at Facebook to observe the oversight board’s creation, including sitting in on meetings with staff. She described a notable update: The board can provide feedback on Facebook policies, and the company will review that and write a public statement explaining why it did or did not change a policy as a result.“That’s actually kind of a huge deal,” Klonick said. “That’s probably the most accountable we’ve ever seen Facebook.”There are still elements that are unclear, according to Klonick. The charter references “bylaws” -- the “operational procedures of the board” -- and a Code of Conduct outlining the “norms, procedures, and proper practices” expected of board members. Neither exists right now, but both will be important to start the board off in the right direction with the right set of principles, she said.To contact the reporters on this story: Sarah Frier in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org;Kurt Wagner in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair Barr, Molly SchuetzFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Is Twitter stock a buy now? Check out the stock's fundamental and technical metrics to figure out if the stock should be on your watchlist.
The first day of fall is approaching and InvestorPlace is celebrating with a collection of fall quotes to share.Source: Artens / Shutterstock Fall isn't here quite yet. The first day of fall will take place on Sept. 23, 2019, which is next Monday. It will then last all the way through December 21, 2019. It's funny, you would think that fall is already here. What with all the pumpkin spice that has been making its way onto store shelves and cafe menus.Check out the following happy first day of fall quotes to share on Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) and other forms of social media.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsHappy First Day of Fall Quotes "Fall has always been my favorite season. The time when everything bursts with its last beauty, as if nature had been saving up all year for the grand finale." -- Lauren DeStefano, Wither * 7 Momentum Stocks to Buy On the Dip Happy First Day of Fall Quotes "But when fall comes, kicking summer out on its treacherous ass as it always does one day sometime after the midpoint of September, it stays awhile like an old friend that you have missed. It settles in the way an old friend will settle into your favorite chair and take out his pipe and light it and then fill the afternoon with stories of places he has been and things he has done since last he saw you." -- Stephen King, Salem's LotHappy First Day of Fall Quotes "I cannot endure to waste anything so precious as autumnal sunshine by staying in the house." -- Nathaniel Hawthorne, The American Notebooks * 7 Tech Stocks You Should Avoid Now Happy First Day of Fall Quotes "Listen! The wind is rising, and the air is wild with leaves, We have had our summer evenings, now for October eves!" -- Humbert WolfeHappy First Day of Fall Quotes "Autumn carries more gold in its pocket than all the other seasons." -- Jim Bishop * 7 Discount Retail Stocks to Buy for a Recession As of this writing, William White did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities.The post Happy First Day of Fall 2019: 5 Fall Quotes to Celebrate Autumn appeared first on InvestorPlace.
(Bloomberg) -- Want the lowdown on European markets? In your inbox before the open, every day. Sign up here.Facebook Inc. is once again defending Libra -- this time against fears that the envisioned cryptocurrency could replace sovereign currencies from the U.S. dollar to the Euro and threaten central banks’ control over money creation.David Marcus, the executive leading the project, posted a series of tweets the same day members of the Libra Association met with regulators convened by a G-7 working group in Switzerland. He argued that creating Libra isn’t the digital equivalent of printing U.S. dollars or minting new euros. The simple existence of Libra, he says, doesn’t create new value.Facebook’s crypto plans, unveiled in June, have faced intense push-back from regulators all over the world. One of the biggest concerns is that the new digital currency will be used by smugglers, drug dealers and terrorists. Another is that the social media giant, which has run afoul of regulators over user data in the past, should not be trusted to handle sensitive financial information. Facebook has said repeatedly it would be just one of many companies managing the new currency.“Recently there’s been a lot of talk about how Libra could threaten the sovereignty of nations when it comes to money,” Marcus tweeted. “Libra will be backed 1:1 by a basket of strong currencies. This means that for any unit of Libra to exist, there must be the equivalent value in its reserve,” he tweeted. “As such there’s no new money creation, which will strictly remain the province of sovereign nations.”Currency competition is yet another sticking point for wary regulators.In a follow-up call after Marcus’s tweets, Christian Catalini, the lead economist inside Facebook working on Libra, declined to say whether or not the issue came up during Monday’s meeting. But he did say that this element of Libra is one of many that are “misunderstood or not correctly interpreted.”“All of the design of Libra is really around being a complement of fiat [currencies], not a substitute,” he said.Why Everybody (Almost) Hates Facebook’s Digital Coin: QuickTakeLibra does not yet exist, and Facebook has pledged that it will not launch until regulators are appeased. It hopes to start the currency sometime in 2020. Facebook shares were little changed Tuesday in New York at $186.70.The concern from regulators is that giving over the control of currency creation to Facebook -- or any private company -- would strip governments of one of their greatest assets: monetary policy. The response from central banks has varied from active engagement as in the case of Singapore, to China considering its own equivalent.In a blog post from July on Harvard Law School’s forum for “corporate governance and financial regulation,” three professors who wrote a paper about regulating Libra argued that it posed a threat to sovereign governments.“Once Libra becomes well established in some countries, national governments will lose control of their money supply and lose monetary policy as a tool of economic expansion or contraction,” the post reads. “They will also lose the capacity, in times of severe uncertainty, to impose capital controls to prevent capital flight. All of these changes may well prove highly destabilising to the entire global financial system.”Catalini disagrees. He says that even for countries whose currency is not part of Libra’s reserve, there is little fear of Libra replacing local tender because of how the digital coin will be used. Its main purpose, Catalini says, is to help with payments that include lots of fees or burdens, like cross-border money transfers. It will be less useful for day-to-day commerce, he added.“It’s unlikely that Libra will be used locally because the local currencies have better properties” for local commerce, he said.(Updates with shares in eighth paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Kurt Wagner in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Edwin Chan, Joanna OssingerFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.