|Bid||29.21 x 1200|
|Ask||29.28 x 1200|
|Day's Range||29.01 - 29.27|
|52 Week Range||26.26 - 45.86|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.58|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||14.16|
|Earnings Date||Feb 6, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||34.66|
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump said Monday that he’s “strongly considering” testifying in his own impeachment inquiry, complimenting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the idea in a tweet after again insulting her and congressional Democrats for pursuing his removal from office.Trump indicated that he thinks his testimony -- possibly in writing -- would be a way to resolve the inquiry and get Congress focused on issues he’d like to advance before his 2020 re-election campaign, including a new North American trade deal and drug prices.Trump suggested during Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that he would testify to the special counsel. But after months of negotiation between his lawyers and Mueller, the president agreed only to answer a limited set of questions in writing.Pelosi said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Trump “has every opportunity to present his case,” including by testifying under oath or submitting a written statement to impeachment investigators.Trump and many congressional Republicans have demanded public testimony by the anonymous whistle-blower who first raised alarms about the president’s effort to force the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rivals. Pelosi said she wouldn’t allow the person’s identity to be exposed.“I will make sure he does not intimidate the whistle-blower,” the California Democrat said. “This is really important, especially when it comes to intelligence, that someone who would be courageous enough to point out truth to power and then through the filter of a Trump-appointed inspector general who found it of urgent concern” and “then took it to the next steps.”Several witnesses in the inquiry have corroborated the whistle-blower’s allegation that Trump sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into investigating a company once connected to former Vice PresidentJoe Biden’s son, Hunter. The effort was led by Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Wayne in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Alex Wayne at email@example.com, Kevin Whitelaw, Larry LiebertFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Do the poor suffer more from inflation than the rich? Recent reports to the contrary, the numbers are not complete enough to answer that question in a simple way. What’s clear is that diverging rates of price inflation are creating distinct winners and losers.Because the U.S. tech sector has advanced so much while many other parts of the economy have been relatively sluggish, the benefits from progress are now quite concentrated, though not in a way directly related to income. Rather, they accrue to people with a taste for a particular kind of novelty.Consider people who love to consume information, or as I have labeled them infovores. They can stay at home every night and read Wikipedia, scan Twitter, click on links, browse through Amazon reviews and search YouTube — all for free. Thirty years ago there was nothing comparable.Of course most people don’t have those tastes. But for the minority who do, it is a new paradise of plenty. These infovores — a group that includes some academics, a lot of internet nerds and many journalists — have experienced radical deflation.Another set of major beneficiaries is people who enjoy writing for fun (as distinct from professional writers). They can write to their friends or groups of friends on Whatsapp and Facebook, all day long, also for free. You might also put “people who love to argue” in this same lucky category, though whether that translates into lasting enjoyment is a question that we could … argue about.Lovers of variety are another big winner. You can use eBay to find that obscure collectible, or browse Amazon’s vast inventory, or watch a lot of different TV programs, ranging from Spanish-language news to curling to cooking shows. In short, it is a wonderful time for those who love to browse and sample. Maybe you discover a favorite category or genre and form a deep aesthetic commitment, or maybe you just want to keep on surfing. Either way, the opportunities are unprecedented.As a side note, I belong to all of those groups: I am an infovore, I write for fun (and for other reasons) and love variety. So I have been a big winner from the last 20 years, in a disproportionate and unrepresentative way — quite apart from any changes to my income.So who might be worse off in this new American world?People who like to spend time with their friends across town are one set of losers. Traffic congestion is much worse, and so driving in Los Angeles or Washington has never been such a big burden. In-person socializing is therefore more costly. On the other hand, the chance that you have remained in touch with your very distant friends is higher, due to email and social media. Those who enjoy less frequent (but perhaps more intense?) visits are on the whole better off for that reason. It is easier than ever to go virtually anywhere in the world and have someone interesting to talk to.Another group of losers — facing super-high inflation rates — are the “cool” people who insist on living in America’s best and most advanced cities. Which might those be? New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco? You can debate that, but they have all grown much more expensive. Many smaller cities, such as Austin, Washington and Boston, are going the same route. Alternatively, if you have more of a taste for isolation or desolation, or a high tolerance for boredom, your pocketbook is not being squeezed so tightly.Medical care is another area that has created big losers and winners. If you suffer from a common malady that simply requires care and attention from the medical establishment, you may well be worse off. The price of medical care is much higher, insurance coverage is by no means guaranteed, and the system has been growing more bureaucratic and arguably more frustrating.If, on the other hand, you have some kind of “frontier” condition, requiring innovative technology or new pharmaceuticals, your chances have never been better.What is the common theme here? It is that those who love or need “the new” are often doing relatively well. Those who value the old standbys — the crosstown friend, the Manhattan brownstone, the uncomplicated visit to the local doctor to have a broken ankle set — are in a more dubious position.As a result, there is an incentive to cultivate a taste for novelty. It’s fun, to be sure, but maybe also a bit confusing and alienating. So when people feel that way, and express it in unexpected ways, perhaps we should not be altogether surprised.To contact the author of this story: Tyler Cowen at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include "Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
is a nightmare for Xi Jinping. China’s president has made the restoration of his country’s power and dignity the central theme of his presidency. Deploying them against the demonstrators could plunge Hong Kong into a long-term insurrection, similar to Belfast in the 1970s or Algiers in the 1950s.
(Bloomberg) -- After weeks of Republican complaints that the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry relied on secondhand information, the centerpiece of this week’s public hearings is testimony from a man with a direct line to President Donald Trump.The political peril for Trump, who was dealt a series of setbacks last week, will be heightened as the House investigation accelerates with three days of public hearings starting Tuesday.No witness is more central than Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, a Trump donor and a confederate with Rudy Giuliani in back-channel diplomatic efforts for the president in Ukraine.Sondland, scheduled to testify Wednesday, has already amended his previous closed-door testimony once because of discrepancies with other witnesses. And now there will be new questions for him to answer about Trump’s pressure on the government in Kyiv to launch a probe entangling former Vice President Joe Biden and other political foes of the president.David Holmes, a member of the embassy staff in Kyiv, came forward last week to tell impeachment investigators that following a phone conversation between Sondland and Trump, the EU envoy told him the president “didn’t give a s--- about Ukraine” and that the president only cares about the “big stuff” that benefits him “like the Biden investigation” that Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was promoting.Testimony from Tuesday through Thursday will come from a disparate cast of witnesses, some of whom could prove pivotal to the impeachment inquiry, including officials from the State Department, the White House national security teams, and Vice President Mike Pence’s office.The hearings follow a rough week for Trump. Three career diplomats offered accounts that portrayed him as fixated on squeezing a political favor from Ukraine. Meanwhile, one-time confidant Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and new details emerged about a federal investigation of Giuliani. Trump has lashed out at some of the witnesses, which Democrats said amounted to witness intimidation. Through it all, however, Republican lawmakers stood firmly behind the president.Here’s a look at this week’s key witnesses:Gordon Sondland: Trump’s EnvoyHaving already amended his recollection of events, Sondland could prove unpredictable, for Trump and for Democrats.A wealthy hotel chain owner and major inauguration donor, Sondland was an outsider to the diplomatic corps when Trump nominated him as ambassador to the European Union.Democrats are certain to press him on Wednesday morning about his role as one of the “three amigos” who worked on the shadow Ukraine policy -- along with then-special Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry -- and especially his interactions with Trump.Republicans may attempt to undercut him by noting that he’s been inconsistent: first testifying he never thought there were any conditions on delivering aid to Ukraine and then revising that later.Democrats will focus on potential contradictions between his earlier testimony and statements by others. Sondland previously said he didn’t realize that Biden’s son, Hunter, was on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings and that a Trump demand for the company to be investigated might have political ramifications.“Everybody’s going to be trying to get their soundbite from Ambassador Sondland, and if it goes long enough, I think everyone is going to be able to declare victory,” said Representative Mark Meadows, a Republican who sat-in on Sondland’s closed-door testimony.Several other points are almost sure to come up: a May 23 meeting in which Trump urged him and Volker to talk to Giuliani about Ukraine; text messages he exchanged with acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who expressed concern about the military aid being tied to a political favor; and a conversation he had with Perry after his initial testimony that he said was to refresh his memory.But the biggest issue will be his July 26 call with Trump, which was overheard by Holmes, political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv. According to a copy of his statement obtained by CNN, Holmes testified that during the call that he could hear Trump ask, “So, he’s going to do the investigations?” It was a reference to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Holmes said Sondland told him that when it comes to Ukraine, Trump only cared about investigations involving Biden.“Sondland is important,” said Representative Peter Welch of Vermont, a Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. “He was the ambassador for Trump in his effort to get Ukraine to do his dirty work on the Bidens.”Alexander Vindman: NSC SpecialistAs the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, Vindman is expected to speak Tuesday morning about several key moments he witnessed first-hand, including the April 21 and July 25 phone calls between Trump and Zelenskiy and a July 10 meeting in Washington with visiting Ukrainian officials.Vindman will also testify about his concerns over the shadow Ukraine policy, including his unsuccessful attempt to correct omissions in the July 25 call summary, a memo he wrote urging Trump to release the aid and his advice to Ukrainian officials that they steer clear of U.S. domestic politics to protect their bipartisan support.Vindman went to the NSC’s legal counsel with concerns about a July 10 meeting with Sondland, Perry, Volker, then-national security adviser John Bolton and Ukrainian officials. During the session, according to Vindman, Sondland demanded that Ukrainian leaders deliver “specific investigations” to secure a meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump.The NSC expert says he was told about that meeting directly by Sondland immediately afterward, and Sondland emphasized the importance of the Ukraine probes into the 2016 election, as well as Biden.Vindman said he told Sondland his statements were “inappropriate,” and that others believes so, too.A Soviet refugee and Purple Heart recipient, Vindman is another witness whose credibility will be hard to impugn, especially since attacks from conservative pundits on his Ukrainian background after his closed-door testimony in October backfired.Jennifer Williams: Pence AideA longtime State Department employee, Williams was on the July 25 phone call as an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence. She testifies Tuesday morning alongside Vindman, and over the weekend was the subject of a pre-emptive attack by the president describing her as a “Never Trumper.”In her closed-door testimony on Nov. 7, she said that she found some of discussion on a July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy to be “unusual and inappropriate.”Williams kept notes and told investigators the energy company was mentioned. “My notes did reflect that the word Burisma had come up in the call, that the president had mentioned Burisma,” she testified, her recall more in line with Vindman, than Morrison.She also said she felt “the mention of these specific investigations” into the Bidens and the 2016 election went to the president’s “personal political agenda, as opposed to a broader foreign policy objective of the United States.”Kurt Volker: Special EnvoyAppointed by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Volker is expected to undercut Trump’s claim that Biden pressed for a top Ukrainian prosecutor to be fired in order to protect his son. He testifies Tuesday afternoon.As one of the “three amigos” on Ukraine, Volker is also expected to testify that Trump told him to talk to Giuliani during a May 23 meeting and that Trump was obsessed with a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.At the same time, Volker -- a witness who Republicans also requested -- has testified that he wasn’t aware of any link between an Oval Office visit for Zelenskiy and a promise to conduct the investigations Trump wanted. He’s said that he also did not see the delay in the U.S. security assistance as significant or unprecedented.Timothy Morrison: Russia SpecialistThe former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, Morrison is the next official who listened to the July 25 phone call to testify. When he appears Tuesday afternoon, Republicans will likely home in on his past statement that he heard nothing illegal in the call. However he’s added that he was concerned about how it would look if leaked.Morrison also told House impeachment committees during closed door testimony on Oct. 31 that a memo of the call later released by the White House was “accurate and complete.”That contradicts testimony by Vindman, who said the summary left out some phrases, including a mention of Burisma Holdings, the energy company where Biden’s son served on the board.Morrison also has said that NSC lawyer John Eisenberg told him the transcript of that call was not intended to end up in a highly classified system. “It was a mistake,” Morrison said Eisenberg claimed.Democrats will focus on testimony from Morrison that Sondland told him how he had informed a high-ranking Ukrainian official on Sept. 1 that release of $400 million in the U.S. military aid was being linked to the investigations.Morrison testified behind closed doors that Sondland later claimed such a statement from Ukraine’s prosecutor general wouldn’t do, because Trump had told him “there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelenskiy had to do it and he should want to do it.” He added: “Sondland believed and at least related to me that the president was giving him instruction.”Officials also said Republicans could ask him questions -- as they did during his closed-door deposition -- about who may have talked and provided information to the whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment probe.Laura Cooper: Pentagon OfficialThe Pentagon’s top official on Russia and Ukraine, Cooper is expected to testify Wednesday afternoon about the delay in military aid and how Volker told her it was tied to a public statement of an investigation into the Bidens.She also is expected to say that Ukrainian officials were aware that the aid was being held up. A key defense offered by Trump’s allies is that Ukraine wasn’t aware of the hold up, which would undercut the contention that it was a quid pro quo. Republicans will likely press her on how she knows this.David Hale: Senior State Department OfficialThe third-ranking official at the State Department, Hale is expected to testify Wednesday afternoon about the agency’s internal response to the recall of ousted Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, especially its concerns about how any public defense of her might be received by Giuliani.His public testimony was also requested by Republicans. An official familiar with his previous closed-door testimony said it includes some differences in interpretations or recollections of events from other witnesses.Fiona Hill: Ex-NSC OfficialA former White House adviser on Russia, Hill is expected Thursday morning to discuss the views of her boss, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who is seeking a court ruling on whether he can testify to Congress. Hill is expected to describe Bolton referring to the shadow Ukraine policy as a “drug deal” and Giuliani as a “hand grenade.”As someone who worked closely with Trump, she is expected to support several parts of the Democrats’ case, including the idea that military aid to Ukraine was tied to the Biden investigations, concern about Sondland and Giuliani and the president’s interest in a conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.She is also expected to tell a dramatic story about the July 10 meeting, in which Bolton sent her racing through the White House to stop Sondland from pressuring a group of visiting Ukrainians into investigating Biden.\--With assistance from Steven T. Dennis and Daniel Flatley.To contact the reporters on this story: Ryan Teague Beckwith in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Billy House in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Kevin Whitelaw at firstname.lastname@example.org, Joe SobczykFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has blamed a “climate of fear” for the country’s sharp economic slowdown, accusing Narendra Modi’s government of creating a “toxic” environment that has stifled business activity and growth. In a strongly worded comment piece in The Hindu newspaper on Monday, the normally reticent economist argued that “a perilous state of fear, distrust and lack of confidence” created by the government’s deep suspicion towards the business community was at the root of India’s sharp economic deceleration. in the third quarter, with the State Bank of India forecasting that GDP growth data for the period, due to be released on November 29, will be as weak as 4.2 per cent.
(Bloomberg) -- Hong Kong police fired tear gas and deployed a water cannon to try to clear a resistant band of protesters who occupied a university near the Tsim Sha Tsui district and blocked roads in the vicinity.Police launched round after round of tear gas and repeatedly sprayed a blue-dyed liquid toward the demonstrators holed up at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Streets surrounding the campus were littered with bricks and other obstacles to keep the police at bay. Protesters shielded themselves with umbrellas and lobbed petrol bombs as the overnight standoff stretched into Sunday afternoon.On Friday, a five-day face-off between protesters and police at Chinese University of Hong Kong ended as the activists evacuated their makeshift fortress. Earlier, vice chancellor Rocky Tuan made a fresh appeal for demonstrators, who had built barricades and taken over a number of buildings, to leave the campus.The city’s government is trying to step up measures to halt escalating violence in the financial center after a week that saw countless incidents of vandalism, angry clashes between opposing sides and two deaths linked to the conflict.Key developments:Government suspends schools for another dayPolice officer on leave after firing sponge grenade at mediaPLA soldiers help clean upCity’s second-highest-ranked leader promises measures to halt violenceTwo German citizens reportedly detained by policeHere’s the latest (all times local):Officer suffers arrow wound (2 p.m.)A police media-liaison officer was admitted to hospital after he suffered an arrow wound to his leg, police said in a statement. The officer was injured when protesters charged at police and used bricks, petrol bombs, and bows and arrows to attack them near Polytechnic University, according to the statement.Police deploy water cannons (1 p.m.)Police deployed a water cannon to try to drive protesters out of Polytechnic University. After officers repeatedly fired a blue-dyed liquid from the vehicle toward the protesters, the standoff continued as the sides watched one another from across the rubble-strewn intersection, normally a busy traffic crossing.Schools suspended (12:00 p.m.)All schools would remain suspended on Monday because of safety concerns, the Education Bureau said in a statement. While classes are halted, the premises must remain open for students who need to go to school, and staff need to be arranged to look after the children, it said.If the situation allows, classes will resume on Tuesday, the bureau said.Airport traffic (11 a.m.)Hong Kong International Airport handled 5.4 million passengers in October, 13% fewer than a year earlier, and saw 34,300 flight movements, down 6.1%, Airport Authority Hong Kong said in a statement. Cargo throughput dropped 5.5% to 428,000 tonnes, it said.Face-off continues (10 a.m.)Police and protesters faced off Sunday outside Polytechnic University where activists had taken refuge. The officers fired rounds of teargas to try to disperse the crowd, which appeared to be a couple of hundred people, but the demonstrators returned to their position at the main traffic intersection near the campus after the clouds of smoke thinned.The clashes started when protesters threw objects at people trying to clean up the area on Saturday. Riot police moved in and tried to disperse the demonstrators, who retreated into university property and then returned to fling firebombs toward police.Police officer put on leave (9:47 p.m.)Hong Kong police are investigating an incident where an officer fired a sponge grenade while asking reporters to leave the scene during clashes with protesters early on Saturday. The officer involved is currently on leave, according to a statement from the government.Various media reports said a riot police officer fired a 40mm react round at a Commercial Radio reporter. Police reiterated that they fully respect the freedom of the press.In a separate development, the police and protesters are clashing outside the Hong Kong Polytechnic University where petrol bombs and tear gas have been exchanged.City mops up (4 p.m.)Residents in Pokfulam and Kowloon Tong banded together to clear the blockaded streets, forming human chains to load skips of the bricks and rubble that covered the area. PLA soldiers in Kowloon Tong ferried buckets and wheelbarrows of debris off the roads before returning to their base in the district, RTHK reported.Chinese troops have been stationed in Hong Kong since the British handed the city back to China in 1997. But the city government has never requested deployment. In 2018, more than 400 soldiers helped clear fallen trees following Typhoon Mangkhut, the first time they had undertaken such a role.University occupation ends (3 a.m.)Protesters who occupied the CUHK campus for about a week have left the campus, according to a university spokesman. Police and workers cleared the streets early Saturday and all lanes were re-opened on Tolo Highway, which had been blocked by demonstrators.German Citizens Reportedly Detained by Police (2:31 a.m.)Two German citizens were detained by Hong Kong police amid the continuing protests, Deutsche Welle reported, citing an official at Germany’s foreign ministry. They are receiving assistance from the country’s consulate in Hong Kong, according to the report. Police in Hong Kong said two foreign men were detained during a demonstration in Tuen Mun, according to Reuters.Chinese University of Hong Kong Appeals To Protesters To End Siege (Sat. 12:27 a.m.)CUHK vice chancellor Rocky Tuan appealed to protesters to stop their siege of his campus, urging them in a letter to leave the university. The university had previously canceled classes for the remainder of the semester and asked students and staff to leave the premises. He said that if the university can’t clear out the protesters, it would have “no choice” but to ask the government to help resolve the situation.University heads call for all to ‘work together’ to bring peace (10:45 p.m.)Nine university presidents urged the government to take the lead in ending the political deadlock and restoring order as their campuses become “major political battlefields,” according to a joint statement.Demands that university disciplinary processes can fix the problem are “disconnected from reality” and the government’s response so far has not been effective, they said. “We call on all quarters of society to work together to bring peace and order back to Hong Kong.”City’s No. 2 vows more measures (6:07 p.m.)Matthew Cheung, the city’s chief secretary, promised “more decisive measures” to halt protest violence, including suspending civil servants who are arrested during demonstrations. Cheung -- joined by Civil Service Secretary Joshua Law, Transport Secretary Frank Chan, Education Secretary Kevin Yeung and Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Secretary Patrick Nip -- said departments would step up coordination.While Cheung declined to rule out further invocations of the city’s powerful Emergency Regulations Ordinance, he reaffirmed the city would hold District Council elections as planned Nov. 24.Overwhelming support for inquiry (4:45 p.m.)Some 80% of Hong Kong adults want the government to set up an independent commission of inquiry to examine the use of force by police throughout Hong Kong’s recent unrest, according to a new survey by Hong Kong Public Opinion Program. That’s up from 77% earlier this month.An inquiry is one of the five demands that protesters have been chanting about in marches throughout the city for months, but the government has so far ruled out any further political concessions.Hong Kong expects recession (4:30 p.m.)Hong Kong revised down its estimate for economic growth this year, with the government now forecasting the first annual contraction since the global financial crisis a decade ago. Gross domestic product will contract 1.3% in 2019 from the previous year, the government said Friday as it released final output calculations for the third quarter.The government said ending the city’s violent unrest is key to an economic recovery.Police classify death as murder (1:31 p.m.)Police upgraded their probe into the injury of a 70-year-old government worker to a murder investigation after the man died overnight. The man was struck in the head by an object during a scuffle Wednesday between protesters who had set up road blocks and others who were attempting to clear them.The man appeared to be filming in the direction of a group of black-clad protesters when one of them “deliberately threw” an object at him, Chan Tin-chu, senior superintendent for criminal investigations in New Territories North, told reporters at a briefing Friday. The victim didn’t participate in the argument or the attempt to clear the road blocks, Chan said.(Corrects story published on Nov. 17 to reflect the clashes happened outside Hong Kong Polytechnic University at 9:47p.m. on Nov. 16.)\--With assistance from Daniel Flatley and Jacob Gu.To contact the reporters on this story: Iain Marlow in Hong Kong at email@example.com;Natalie Lung in Hong Kong at firstname.lastname@example.org;Moxy Ying in Hong Kong at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Shamim Adam at firstname.lastname@example.org, Stanley James, Nicholas ReynoldsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
On a recent visit to the US, I heard from a senior consultant who likened work-life balance to interval training, interspersing her intense workouts with rest; a busy high-profile doctor who juggles teaching, research, travel, a start-up, patient care and a book project; a portfolio-careered non-executive director who packs his diary with multiple board meetings, philanthropic endeavours and speaking commitments; and executives unable to meet me at their California headquarters because they were on their way to New York or London — where I would be a few days later, even as they were hastening home. , as I wrote last year after Harvard Business Review published a study about how chief executives manage their time. The research showed that CEOs work an average 62.5-hour week and conduct business on nearly eight out of every 10 weekends.
LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / November 17, 2019 / The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or "the Company") (NYSE:TWTR) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 6, 2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 30, 2019.
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. President Donald Trump is scheduled to tour an Apple Inc. manufacturing plant in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, the White House said Sunday.The president plans to visit the plant along with Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook, according to a tweet by spokesman Judd Deere. The Austin American-Statesman newspaper reported that Trump will travel with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and other administration officials.The company announced in September that its new Mac Pro computer will be assembled in Texas after it received exclusions from the Trump administration from tariffs on certain parts imported from China.The visit also comes at a time the U.S. and China are close to finalizing the first phase of a highly-anticipated trade deal.It’s not the first time Cook and Trump have spent time together. They’ve dined at the president’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, twice in the past two years, most recently in August. Cook also attended a state dinner hosted by Trump in 2018 for French President Emmanuel Macron.Trump said after the pair met in August that Cook made a “good case” about the difficulty in competing with South Korean rival Samsung Electronics Co. if Apple products are subject to import tariffs.A month later, the Trump administration announced it had agreed to Apple’s request for tariff waivers on 10 of 15 Chinese components -- a shift from a stance announced by Trump in July that the company’s requests would be denied and that it should make the parts in the U.S.After gaining the tariff relief, Apple announced it would assemble the new Mac Pro computer at the Austin plant, which has produced the previous Mac Pro since 2013. There had been reports the company planned to shift production to China.The Trump administration then said in September it denied Apple’s request for relief from 25% tariffs on other Mac Pro components, including optional wheels, a circuit board for managing input and output ports, power adapter, charging cable and a cooling system for the computer’s processor.The company is also seeking exclusions from Trump’s tariffs that went into effect Sept. 1 on the Apple Watch, iMac, parts for the iPhone and other components imported from China.Last month, Trump criticized Cook for a design change to the iPhone -- the loss of the home button.Apple’s presence in the Texas capital is the biggest after its headquarters in Cupertino, California, the Austin American-Statesman said, and the company has said it will invest $1 billion in Austin to build an office park capable of holding 15,000 additional employees.To contact the reporter on this story: Hailey Waller in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Ludden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Ros Krasny, Mark NiquetteFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said she would “make sure” President Donald Trump does not “intimidate” the whistleblower who first sparked an impeachment inquiry as public hearings launch into their second week. Speaking on CBS, Ms Pelosi said Mr Trump was welcome to appear before the impeachment inquiry.
It happened in Official Secrets, a film based on the true story of an explosive US intelligence memo that was leaked to Britain’s Observer newspaper on the eve of the 2003 Iraq war. The document revealed a plot to bug UN Security Council delegations and in one of the movie’s most riveting scenes, Observer journalists are celebrating their scoop when they discover something dreadful: people in the US think the memo is a fake. The version the paper had published was full of British spelling no American would use.
The US and South Korea have postponed a joint military exercise, in an effort to help diplomatic efforts aimed at convincing North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. Speaking in Thailand on Sunday, Mark Esper, US defence secretary, said Washington and Seoul had decided to delay the joint air force exercise — known as the “Combined Flying Training Event” — that had been scheduled to start on Monday. The decision came just two days after Mr Esper and General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, met their counterparts in Seoul for consultations about shoring up the US-South Korea alliance and efforts to deal with North Korea.
LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / November 16, 2019 / The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or "the Company") (NYSE:TWTR) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 6, 2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 30, 2019.
Or so say critics after the senior vice president at AARP (formerly the Association of American Retired Persons) raised eyebrows of all ages after clapping back at the viral, dismissive response that many young adults have used toward their elders of late. “Our demo drives $7.1 trillion in annual economic activity each and every year.” What’s more, AARP The Magazine pulled in $142 million in 2017 from print advertisements, as well as $32 million in digital advertising, the Axios piece reported.
Just before 8 a.m. on Thursday, shots rang out at Saugus High in Southern California, in a school shooting that left two dead and several other students injured. The 16-year-old suspect, a student at the Santa Clarita school, is reportedly in critical condition from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Some people are fuming at Facebook for allowing unfiltered political ads, while others are fuming at Twitter for banning them. There’s lots of confusion and speculation, but what we know is that these social media companies have fundamentally changed how people exchange information. What we need to figure out is whether they also change how people spread disinformation — and if so, how to fix it. It's a question researchers are actively investigating.After “fake news” became the catchphrase of the 2016 election, experts in psychology, political science, computer science and networks stepped up research on disinformation, learning in more detail how it travels through social media and why some things stick in people’s heads.There’s a good reason not to ban political ads on social media: People in democratic societies should be able to see and hear from candidates directly, not just through interview and debate formats. Social media ads are relatively cheap, so less well-funded candidates can still make themselves heard. The fear is that politicians might lie, mislead and manipulate on social media in ways that were impossible in the days of television and newsprint.Some see a particular threat in the way Facebook allows advertisers to precisely target ads based on personal data. “Facebook profits partly by amplifying lies and selling dangerous targeting tools that allow political operatives to engage in a new level of information warfare,” writes former Facebook insider Yaël Eisenstat in the Washington Post.How dangerous is this information warfare? Experiments show that people can be misled easily and that wrong ideas tend to stick. USC psychologist Norbert Schwarz says people tend to believe messages for many reasons that have nothing to do with credibility. People are more likely to believe messages when they’re presented simply, in an easy-to-read font or spoken without an accent, and repeated often. People are also more easily influenced by messages they think their friends also believe.Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol, says the extremely fine-grained targeting abilities of social media might interfere with a free marketplace of ideas. Rather than making claims in ads that anyone is free to see, politicians might tailor messages to individual social media users. The propaganda might never even be seen by fact-checkers or opponents who might challenge it. “My main concern is that we’re replacing public debate with manipulation,” he says.There is still hope for democracy, however. There’s little evidence that targeted ads have the power to to change minds or votes, says Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler, co-author of the book “Network Propaganda.” Belief in targeted ads in general is more faith-based than evidence-based, he says. Advertisers assume the targeting causes people to buy things — though this is far from proven.In 2018, there was outrage when it came out that the company Cambridge Analytica claimed it could use the seemingly superficial tastes of consumers to delve deep into their psyches, gain personality information that even their friends didn’t know, and, in theory, use it to manipulate their voting behavior. But in researching a 2018 column on the phenomenon, I learned that the evidence is thin to nonexistent that Cambridge Analytica was able to glean meaningful information or manipulate voting behavior.Dr. Benkler says if he had access to enough Facebook data, he and other researchers could find out who saw which ads, and infer from other information if and how people voted. But it probably isn’t in Facebook’s interest to give out that kind of information. It might reveal that Facebook ads are suppressing voting, or that the ads don’t matter. Either way, it could look bad for the company.Dr. Benkler points to a recent paper in the journal Marketing Science, which shows it’s not clear whether an ad causes people to buy a particular product, or whether the people who are targeted are already more likely to buy. Other research papers report on the limited power of fake news on Facebook and Twitter. For example, one study that looked at Twitter activity during the 2016 election concluded that 80% of fake news was shared by just 0.1% of users, making it a fringe activity.People tend to focus on new threats, Benkler says, when there are known masters of manipulation out there. The ads, fake news, and other so-called content on social media have been getting a lot of attention, but their impact still pales in comparison to that of old-fashioned platforms like cable news and radio. In research reported in his book, he and his co-authors trace stories using of certain words or phrases — like the child sex ring rumor or the conspiracy theories surrounding the Seth Rich murder — from their origins on small-scale blogs and fringe publications to Fox News and conservative talk radio, where they blew up.It’s true that there’s still a lot we don’t know about social media. But instead of giving Facebook more power — by encouraging it to police ads for misleading content — we should make rules to force the company to reveal its targeting practices.If someone sees a Trump ad because she went to church and stopped at the liquor store on the way home, she has the right to know it, says Benkler. And the more information Facebook and others provide, the better scientists can understand how much social media is shaping the free marketplace of ideas, and whether we should be focused on other, more substantial threats to democracy.To contact the author of this story: Faye Flam at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Sarah Green Carmichael at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Sometimes it’s hard to tell friend from foe, even if he is standing right next to you. And if you take President Donald Trump literally (yes, I know, we’ve been warned not to do that) he was suffering from such myopia during Wednesday’s press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “Turkey, as everyone knows, is a great NATO Ally, and a strategic partner of the United States around the world,” he said. “And I look forward to continuing to find common ground, harness common purpose, and to advance the vital interests of our people and the abiding friendship between our nations.”Remarkable flattery from the same man who tweeted this a month ago:So, is Turkey friend or foe? The answer at the moment, unfortunately, is “Yes.” The Turks have launched an offensive against America’s best allies in the war against Islamic State, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Front, and purchased the cutting-edge S-400 missile defense system from Russia. The U.S. and Europe have responded with sanctions, including booting the Turks from the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter program. Erdogan hit back with threats to flood Europe with captured Islamic State terrorists. Standing beside Trump on Wednesday, he accused the U.S. Congress of using “historical developments and allegations” to “dynamite our reciprocal and bilateral relations.”So, how does one deal with such a frenemy? For advice, I reached out to Chuck Wald, a retired 4-star Air Force general who served as deputy commander of the U.S. European Command in the 2000s. Wald, a distinguished fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, has been a leading voice of caution in dealing with the Turks and, understandably for a former combat pilot, has particular concerns about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s reliance on Incirlik air base in southern Turkey. That base, in addition to hosting military aircraft, (reportedly) has around 50 American B61 nuclear bombs. Here is a lightly edited transcript of our exchange: Tobin Harshaw: General, I know that given the current tensions between Turkey and the U.S., you have qualms about the NATO presence at Incirlik. Can you explain?Chuck Wald: Under Erdogan, Turkey has been a thorn in our side for the last half decade. Throughout 2014, Ankara adamantly refused to grant the U.S. permission to use Incirlik for our military operations against ISIS, which was sweeping across Syria and Iraq at an alarming pace. Eventually, after a year of prodding, the Turks begrudgingly gave in; however, we still had to contend with their sporadic demands to halt operations. When the coup attempt happened in 2016, Erdogan ordered all U.S. assets grounded for several days while he accused us of masterminding the attempt to remove him from power.While these issues took place a few years ago, we saw recently how Erdogan routinely threatened to attack our Kurdish allies in Syria even while U.S. forces were still operating in those areas. Then, when our troops were in the process of withdrawing, reports emerged that Turkish forces started firing on those positions. Consequently, Turkey’s actions should be raising serious questions about whether U.S. and NATO forces should remain at Incirlik.TH: If NATO did pull those assets out, where would they relocate in a way that wouldn’t harm European security or cause logistical nightmares?CW: A few years ago, I wrote an op-ed calling for the building of a new airfield in Iraq, specifically in territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, as part of our efforts then to defeat ISIS and drive it from the country.I think that the most pressing concern for the U.S. now is that we have nuclear capabilities at Incirlik that no longer serve the same strategic purpose that they did in the past. Given the growing strain of anti-Americanism in Turkey and Erdogan’s willingness to move closer toward Russia, we urgently need to relocate those weapons. Ideally, their new home should be on European soil, with one option being Aviano Air Base in Italy. From a logistical standpoint, this shouldn’t be too difficult.The U.S. also has the 39th Air Wing stationed at Incirlik. These forces, too, should be up for relocation. Readily available basing alternatives exist in Cyprus and Greece. The Greeks, in particular, have been clamoring for a deeper U.S. military presence over the last few years and have increasingly demonstrated that they want a greater role within NATO. Therefore, relocating the 39th Air Wing to Greek soil would effectively kill two birds with one stone.TH: One of the great successes of NATO, beyond the obvious of protecting Western Europe from the Soviet Union, was keeping Turkey and Greece off of each other’s throats. Would a rebalancing of assets along the lines you suggest threaten to re-ignite that dangerous rivalry?CW: First, I think that there’s a misperception that NATO has kept Greece and Turkey at arms’ length. In fact, Athens and Ankara almost went to war in 1964, but for President Lyndon B. Johnson’s direct intervention. Ten years later, they did, and NATO stood on the sidelines because it deemed that Article V, the mutual defense pact, did not apply to conflicts between member states. Today, Greece has taken many steps to demonstrate to NATO that it can be its “new southeastern bulwark,” such as holding military exercises in increasing frequency, size and complexity. The contrast couldn’t be starker between how Turkey has moved further away from NATO in the last five years.Will rebalancing assets re-ignite tensions? That’s hard to say, because tensions aren’t exactly stone-cold right now, given Turkey’s continued naval provocations in Cypriot waters and Erdogan’s regular complaints about the sovereignty status of some Greek islands that are located close to the Turkish shoreline.TH: More broadly, how can Turkey stay in NATO if it can’t be trusted at Incirlik?CW: Unfortunately, the truth is NATO doesn’t have a suspension or ejection mechanism for its members. Incirlik aside, we’ve seen how Turkey has been actively operating against NATO interests for far too long now, buying Russian S-400s despite repeated warnings, allowing foreign fighters free passage en route to joining ISIS in Syria, etc.I think that Turkey’s case should push NATO to put in place a long overdue system for handling those rare instances where a member is demonstrably no longer acting in accordance with NATO values or, worse, now presents a threat to the organization’s security interests.TH: Trump lauded Turkey’s contribution to NATO at his press conference with Erdogan on Wednesday. How effectively do you think the administration is dealing with Turkey issues? Do you think the president opened the door to Turkey’s incursion into northern Syria?CW: The fact that Turkey is acting counter to the best interests of the U.S. and NATO regarding Syria and the Kurds is an added reason for us to hold Turkey accountable for their actions. For example, we should not give an inch regarding the S-400/JSF issue.TH: The Turkey problem aside, what is the greatest threat Europe and NATO face right now?CW: Russia.TH: Was expanding NATO to include the post-Soviet states in the early 2000s a mistake? It certainly angers Russian President Vladimir Putin.CW: No, at the time it seemed to be the exact right thing to pursue. Subsequently, Putin’s actions and objectives have run totally counter to those of the U.S. and the NATO alliance. We all would like things to return to what we considered normal a few years ago, in a more collaborative world. The reality of today’s geopolitics must be addressed and nations we previously hoped to count as allies, or at least friends, have now become adversaries.TH: Finally, I know you are very concerned about climate change. Can you explain briefly why you see global warming as a national security threat, and what the military specifically can do to deal with it?CW: A little over 10 years ago, I testified in front of the U.S. Senate that “climate change has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a frequency far beyond those we see today.” I think it’s become increasingly clear here in the U.S. — with California’s persistent wildfires, more frequent and severe hurricanes hitting the coasts, extreme flooding in the mid-west states — that those fears are already being borne out in real time.Globally, climate change is already creating food and water shortages though land loss, droughts and flooding. Those shortages inevitably spur mass migrations, which can spark or exacerbate political disputes between adjacent nations. Diseases that were previously only found in certain places may spread to other areas as environmental conditions change. As the resources necessary for human societies become scarcer, open conflict between states becomes a very real possibility. This is readily apparent in the South China Sea, where growing competition over hydrocarbon exploration rights and fishing stocks has already seen tensions flare between China and its neighbors.I participated in a study for the Center for Naval Analysis in 2008 that addressed many of the issues and challenges the U.S. and our allies would face due to climate-change effects. We identified both mitigation and adaptation steps that we regarded as imperative for the Defense Department to address and implement. We are beginning to see many of those predicted effects, and it will be costly, in terms of both time and dollars for the military.Generally speaking, the Pentagon should be finding ways to reduce its carbon footprint, improve its energy efficiency, and prepare for the wide spectrum of missions that climate change will spur both here in the U.S. and internationally.To contact the author of this story: Tobin Harshaw at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tobin Harshaw is an editor and writer on national security and military affairs for Bloomberg Opinion. He was an editor with the op-ed page of the New York Times and the paper’s letters editor.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / November 16, 2019 / Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or the "Company") (NYSE:TWTR). Such investors ...
To get you up to speed: Facebook, casting itself as a bastion of free speech, last month said it would let political advertising remain on the platform unchecked. from numerous Democrats, who warned that bad politicians would abuse the system while Facebook continued to cash their cheques. On Friday, the group announced some carve-outs to the policy — namely that it would continue to allow campaign groups to advertise on political issues, while businesses can do so as long as the adverts are not connected with specific legislation or elections.
Twitter Inc on Friday said its political advertising ban will include references to political candidates or legislation, and it will not allow ads that advocate for a certain outcome on social and political causes. The popular social media site, which first announced its political ads ban last month, had not previously provided details on the new policy. Twitter said it will use a combination of automated technology and human teams to enforce the new ad policies.
(Bloomberg) -- California sued the Trump administration for rescinding an Obama-era waiver that allows the state to require sales of electric vehicles and set stricter auto-emissions standards than the federal government.The most-populous state claims the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wrongfully reversed course on the waiver after more than five decades of granting California, the nation’s biggest vehicle market, permission to set its own standards.Other states have a long history of adopting California’s tougher rules to reduce smog and help tackle the worsening impacts of climate change. Almost two dozen states joined in the lawsuit filed Friday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said.“The Trump administration, on the other hand, has chosen to side with polluters,” Becerra said in a statement. “We believe we’re on the right side of history.”The federal government’s new policy relates to greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model years 2021 to 2026.Read More: White House to Automakers: It’s Trump or California on EmissionsEPA spokeswoman Molly Block declined to comment on the suit. She said the administration’s new policy “brings much-needed certainty to consumers and industry by making it clear that federal law preempts state and local tailpipe greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards as well as zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates.”President Donald Trump has questioned the science of climate change and moved to pull the U.S. out of the global Paris Agreement that was intended to address the environmental threat. The EPA has nevertheless criticized California over water pollution and accused the state of not doing enough to curb smog.Trump has also argued that his new policies will ensure that consumers can afford cars that could become out of reach under standards pushed by former President Barack Obama. Trump also blamed the California standards for high gasoline prices.California in September filed a related lawsuit in Washington against the administration for asserting in its new policy that the Transportation Department’s authority to set fuel-economy standards preempts California’s ability to dictate tailpipe-emissions standards.The Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was accused in the lawsuit of ignoring repeated efforts by federal lawmakers to preserve California’s power to improve its air quality.(Updates with comment from the EPA.)To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at firstname.lastname@example.org, Steve StrothFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 2019 -- Attorney Advertising -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the following.
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / November 15, 2019 / The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered ...
The popular social media site, which first announced its political ads ban last month, had not previously provided details on the new policy. Twitter said it will use a combination of automated technology and human teams to enforce the new ad policies. The move comes as campaigns for the November 2020 presidential election heat up amid growing pressure on social media companies to stop accepting ads that spread false information and could sway elections.
With the battle for the White House now less than a year away, Twitter on Friday detailed how it plans to institute a ban on political ads, as its larger rival Facebook has taken the opposite route. Twitter defined what constitutes as a political ad as anything that references "a candidate, political party, elected or appointed government official, election, referendum, ballot measure, legislation, regulation, directive, or judicial outcome." When the ban was first announced last month CEO Jack Dorsey said, "political message reach should be earned, not bought." Politicians won't be able to run ads on Twitter starting November 22, but companies and advocacy groups will. Ads that promote awareness and discussion about social causes, such as environmental protection, will be allowed as long as the ad doesn't advocate for a specific political or legislative change on the issue. For example, gun rights advocates can post an ad but can't target a politician with an opposing view or endorse a supporting politician. One other change: so-called issue advertisers can not target ads by zip code or political leanings. Twitter says it is seeking to make the rules as clear as possible. On the flip side, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come under fire for taking a very public stance that he won't block political ads or even vet them for lies. He's said it's about promoting free speech and not ad dollars. As for Twitter's ban, President Trump's re-election campaign has already come out against it, calling it a "very dumb decision."