Nordstrom responds to activist Ryan Cohen

Shares for the department store chain Nordstrom spiked following reports that meme-stock investor Ryan Cohen was purchasing more shares of the company......»»

Category: marketSource: foxnewsFeb 3rd, 2023

Nordstrom responds to activist Ryan Cohen

Shares for the department store chain Nordstrom spiked following reports that meme-stock investor Ryan Cohen was purchasing more shares of the company......»»

Category: marketSource: foxnewsFeb 3rd, 2023

Nothing But Rage: The Ginni Thomas Investigation Ends Without A Mention In J6 Report

Nothing But Rage: The Ginni Thomas Investigation Ends Without A Mention In J6 Report Authored by Jonathan Turley, Below is my column in the New York Post on J6 Committee report and the conspicuous absence of any mention of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas. Despite calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and criminal charges against the couple, the Ginni Thomas “scandal” seemed to evaporate with nary a mention in the report or the press. Here is the column: The Jan. 6 committee issued its long-awaited report at 2022’s end, with the expected breathless punditry. Spoiler alert: It turns out the culprit of this “whodunit” was … wait for it … Donald Trump. What’s more interesting is the dog that did not bark. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “Silver Blaze,” the local inspector asks Sherlock Holmes, “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Holmes responds, “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” When the inspector objects, “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replies, “That was the curious incident.” In the 895-page report, the “curious incident” is the lack of any reference to Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife. For months, members, the media and an army of pundits hammered away at the “smoking gun” texts Thomas sent to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and others calling the election stolen and demanding challenges to certifying the electoral votes. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was the first member of Congress to call for Justice Thomas to be impeached over his wife’s 29 messages. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) called for Thomas to resign immediately as a “corrupt jurist.” Former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others joined these calls. (Boxer was particularly ironic since she used the same underlying federal law to challenge the certification of George W. Bush’s election.) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demanded an investigation. On the committee itself, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fueled the frenzy and demanded subpoenas for both Thomases. The media also went into hyperbolic overload. Liberal sites demanded Thomas be impeached, citing “watchdogs” who turned out to be the same crowd that has long denounced the justice. MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan tweeted, “I have a question for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats: Why haven’t you impeached Clarence Thomas yet?” CNN and MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell tweeted that the couple had to be subpoenaed: “At best, they are material fact witnesses. At worst, they are co-conspirators to be charged with seditious conspiracy.” Professor Laurence Tribe (who declared Trump should be charged with attempted murder) also demanded the justice and his wife be subpoenaed. MSNBC’s Zeeshan Aleem declared in June that the scandal “keeps getting worse” but “the silver lining is that it will likely intensify calls for overhauling the high court, and help strip more people of the illusion that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government and a neutral arbiter of the law.” Activists like Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Take Back the Court Action Fund executive director, declared that “there’s much more to the story of Ginni Thomas’ participation in the January 6 attack that the House Select Committee and the American public deserve to know.” Yet it turns out what we knew was largely all we needed to know. There was not “much more to the story.” The entire Ginni Thomas scandal merited nary a mention in the massive report. Indeed, it doesn’t appear the committee had anything more than what we knew when the controversy began. The texts were never denied, and they weren’t surprising since Ginni Thomas was publicly supporting Trump and his claims. She was willing, moreover, to answer the committee’s questions voluntarily. We’ve come a long way from the days when spouses were viewed as mere extensions of their husbands. Ginni Thomas is an activist, and the couple has often discussed how they keep their professional lives apart. Of course, when some of us suggested Ginni Thomas has a protected right to such views and communications, we were denounced as apologists or sympathizers to an “insurrection.” For her part, as The Post reported, “Thomas said that her husband only found out about her texts with Meadows from media reports as he lay in hospital bed recovering from an infection in March 2022.” In reality, there were press reports before that. The House received 29 texts between the pair from November 2020 to mid-January 2021 in the 2,320 messages Meadows gave the committee. The press reported Meadows’ turnover in December 2021. That, however, does not change the fact there was nothing in this controversy that warranted the breathless coverage or, in my view, a subpoena issued to the spouse of a sitting justice. Politicians and pundits suggested Thomas could be impeached because he voted on a challenge to the committee obtaining White House messages and emails. In January 2022, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the materials’ release. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas. Yet Ginni Thomas’ texts had already been turned over to the committee by then, and she testified she never told her husband about her communications. Likewise, there was no evidence that she ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol riot. Thomas said she attended the Ellipse rally Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol. In the end, the committee did not take the advice of Schiff, Tribe, and others. It did not subpoena Justice Thomas. It did hear from Ginni, who voluntarily testified for four hours. Again, while the committee released her transcript, it did not find that she merited a single reference in the 895-page report. The media that pushed this exaggerated story for months followed the familiar pattern. They just shrugged and barely covered the fact the committee found nothing beyond what some of us had previously noted: Ginni Thomas was a longstanding Republican activist who publicly supported Trump’s claims of a rigged election. In her testimony, Thomas reiterated under oath that she does not talk to her husband about her political activities and he does not discuss his work on the court. She reaffirmed she never told her husband about her conversations with Meadows. She now regrets sending Meadows messages and described the days following the election as an “emotional time.” Now the entire investigation of Ginni Thomas ended as it began: as a largely recreational exercise. It did prove one thing. What many people in this age of rage refuse to admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive. It releases you from any obligations of fairness or balance. Ginni Thomas’ targeting was just another cathartic “curious incident” in the J6 investigation. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/05/2023 - 14:29.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytJan 5th, 2023

Disney responds to letter from activist investor Dan Loeb

The Third Point CEO has called on the House of Mouse to consider a series of initiatives, including a cost-cutting program, board refresh, EPSN spinoff and integration of Hulu into Disney+......»»

Category: topSource: foxnewsAug 15th, 2022

LivePerson responds to Starboard letter, says it"s executing its priorities and growth plan

LivePerson Inc. responded Friday to a letter from activist investor Starboard Value LP, saying it has "constructively engaged" in talks with Starboard Value and the fund's Managing Member Peter Feld since Starboard disclosed its investment in February. "LivePerson remains committed to serving the best interests of all shareholders," the mobile messaging company said in a statement. "The company is executing on its strategic priorities and profitable growth plan, as previously announced, and will update shareholders when it reports results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2022." The statement comes after Starboard, which own's 9.7% of LivePerson's shares outstanding, disclosed Thursday a letter Weld wrote to LivePerson's board, in which the fund urged the company to take advantage of opportunities to create "significant value" for shareholders. LivePerson's stock, which was still inactive in premarket trading, has tumbled 56.0% over the past 12 months while the S&P 500 has gained 9.8%.Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchApr 8th, 2022

Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI – S&P Global Market Intelligence

Every year leading up to the Super Bowl, S&P Global Market Intelligence uses the S&P Capital IQ database to take a light-hearted look at Super Bowl history, winners and losers and stock market returns. Q4 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI Notes about the game: LET’S GO […] Every year leading up to the Super Bowl, S&P Global Market Intelligence uses the S&P Capital IQ database to take a light-hearted look at Super Bowl history, winners and losers and stock market returns. if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(''); } .first{clear:both;margin-left:0}.one-third{width:31.034482758621%;float:left;margin-left:3.448275862069%}.two-thirds{width:65.51724137931%;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element input{border:0;border-radius:0;padding:8px}form.ebook-styles .af-element{width:220px;float:left}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer{width:115px;float:left;margin-left: 6px;}form.ebook-styles .af-element.buttonContainer input.submit{width:115px;padding:10px 6px 8px;text-transform:uppercase;border-radius:0;border:0;font-size:15px}form.ebook-styles input.submit{width:115px}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy{width:100%;font-size:12px;margin:10px auto 0}form.ebook-styles .af-element.privacyPolicy p{font-size:11px;margin-bottom:0}form.ebook-styles .af-body input.text{height:40px;padding:2px 10px !important} form.ebook-styles .error, form.ebook-styles #error { color:#d00; } form.ebook-styles .formfields h1, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-logo, form.ebook-styles .formfields #mg-footer { display: none; } form.ebook-styles .formfields { font-size: 12px; } form.ebook-styles .formfields p { margin: 4px 0; } Get Our Activist Investing Case Study! Get the entire 10-part series on our in-depth study on activist investing in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or print it out to read anywhere! Sign up below! (function($) {window.fnames = new Array(); window.ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';}(jQuery));var $mcj = jQuery.noConflict(true); Q4 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Stock Market Stats For Super Bowl LVI Notes about the game: LET’S GO OFFENSE: Over the past 55 years the median combined final score of each game has been 46 points. When the teams in the Super Bowl combine to score at least 46 points, the stock market returns 15.9% on average (based on 29 years). If the final combined score is under 46, the average market return is just 8.2%. WHEN IN ROME: Roman numerals began to be used with Super Bowl V held in 1971. This year’s game is designated LVI and when the game is designated with an even number the average market return in the subsequent years is 8.2% versus 16.2% for games designated with an odd number. WHAT ARE THE ODDS: When the favored team wins the market responses with an average return of 13.7% versus 9.9% when the underdog pulls off the upset. No matter who wins the market is happiest when the game goes “over” as the market responds with an average return of 15.9% GO WEST YOUNG MAN: Not so good advice when it comes to the Super Bowl. When games are played west of the Mississippi River the average market return in the subsequent years is 9.0% versus a more robust 14.3% when games played east of the Mississippi River. NO PLACE LIKE HOME: When the designated home team wins the average market return in the subsequent years is 16.9% versus only 8.9% when the road team wins. Interestingly this year while the Cincinnati Bengals will have the home team designation the Los Angeles Rams will likely have true home field advantage while playing at home at SoFi Stadium. THE GOLDEN STATE: It may well be golden for investors as the average returns in subsequent years after games have been played in California is 15.8% trailing only Florida of any of the 10 states that the game has been played in. DOME MIGHT CAST SHADOW ON OUTLOOK: While technically not a dome, this year’s game will be played under a canopy at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California. Nineteen previous Super Bowls were played under a dome or with the retractable roof closed and the average market return was 7.3% while 36 Super Bowl games have been played at an open-air stadium or with the retractable roof open and the average S&P 500 return for those years is 14.9%. RETURNING CHAMPS ARE A WIN FOR S&P 500: The Los Angeles Rams are a past winner of the Super Bowl. When a former champion returns and wins the Super Bowl, the average market return is 14.3%. Notes about each league: National Football Conference (NFC) versus American Football Conference (AFC) The market performs better on average after an NFC win returning on average 13.8% versus 10.7% after an AFC win. In this year’s game the AFC is considered the home team and when the designated home team wins the average market return in the subsequent years is 16.9% versus 8.9% after a road team win. Both the best annual return (37.6% in 1995) and the worst return (-37.0 in 2008) occurred after an NFC victory. 4 of the top 5 highest scoring Super Bowls were won by the NFC while 8 of the top 10 lowest scoring games were won by the AFC. While the NFC enjoys a better record during games played outdoors (12-7) the market prefers wins by the AFC as the market averages a 12.2% return after those AFC victories in games played indoors. Note about each team: The Cincinnati Bengals (AFC) are 0-2 in their previous Super Bowls appearances. The market responds well when the Bengals are in the big game with stock market returns averaging 26.6% after their losses in Super Bowls XVI and XXIII. The Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams (NFC) are 1-3 in their previous Super Bowl appearances The market seems to like the Rams out west as after the Rams participated in two Super Bowls when located in Los Angeles the market was up an average of 32.0% while the average market return was -15.6% after their two Super Bowl appearances while located in St. Louis. Disclaimer: This data is not intended to represent a fundamental analysis of market trends or historical data and in no way is intended to be the basis for any investment decisions whatsoever. This also does not represent an endorsement of any specific NFL team by S&P Global Market Intelligence. Updated on Feb 7, 2022, 2:56 pm (function() { var sc = document.createElement("script"); sc.type = "text/javascript"; sc.async = true;sc.src = "//"; sc.charset = "utf-8";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, s); }()); window._F20 = window._F20 || []; _F20.push({container: 'F20WidgetContainer', placement: '', count: 3}); _F20.push({finish: true});.....»»

Category: blogSource: valuewalkFeb 7th, 2022

Rep. Cori Bush responds to Nancy Pelosi"s officiation of oil heiress Ivy Getty"s glitzy wedding: "That"s more her lane I guess"

"My purpose is to lift up those that have been marginalized and oppressed and overlooked," the congresswoman said, drawing a contrast with Pelosi. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri and House Speaker Nancy PelosiDrew Angerer and Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Cori Bush drew a sharp contrast with Nancy Pelosi, who officiated an oil heiress's lavish wedding. "She's in a position of power, and that's more her lane I guess. That's where her focus is," she said. Bush also declined to say whether she'd back Pelosi in potential future leadership elections. Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri drew a stark contrast between her and Nancy Pelosi when she was asked about the House Speaker's officiation of an oil heiress's glamorous San Francisco wedding earlier this month."My purpose is to lift up those that have been marginalized and oppressed and overlooked," the St. Louis congressman and Squad member told BuzzFeed. "And she's in a position of power, and that's more her lane I guess. That's where her focus is."Earlier this month, Pelosi officiated the wedding ceremony for Tobias Engel and Ivy Getty at San Francisco's City Hall. Getty — the granddaughter of oil baron J. Paul Getty and an heiress to his fortune — held a glamorous and high-profile wedding where she wore a dress made of broken mirrors.California Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed were also reportedly in attendance.—Vogue Runway (@VogueRunway) November 8, 2021 That came right after the House voted to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which President Joe Biden later signed into law. Bush was one of 6 "Squad" members who voted no on the bill, preferring to see it move in tandem with the Build Back Better social spending bill that progressives have prioritized.Bush told BuzzFeed that the day of the infrastructure vote was the "absolute worst day" she's had as a member of congress so far, telling her staff she wanted to take care of herself by staying off social media and away from the news."I'm Black girl broken," she reportedly texted St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones. Of the wedding itself, Bush told Buzzfeed that she "didn't know who those people were until I saw people talking about it" and that Pelosi's participation in the lavish ceremony "didn't really move me either way.""People see things differently than others, and I have learned to not condemn people for the way they see things when they haven't gone through the things that I've gone through," she said. "Like I can't change their experiences, the only thing that I can do is expose them to mine, or those of others that they may not know or understand."The congresswoman also contrasted her experiences with Pelosi within the framework of race."I don't wear those same glasses that she wears," Bush told BuzzFeed, referring to Pelosi. "For me, I'm not a woman first, I'm Black first. I don't care about party lines the way that she does. I don't care about looking like I'm leading, or care about being the one that is staying within — like, just playing the game."The Missouri congresswoman was first elected to the House in 2020, defeating an incumbent whose family had held the St. Louis-based seat since 1969. Bush rose to prominence as a Black Lives Matter activist in Ferguson in 2014, and her failed 2018 primary bid was the subject of a documentary, "Take Back The House," that also profiled Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's successful first campaign.Bush also declined to say whether she would support Pelosi to lead House Democrats in future leadership elections, saying she didn't "have an answer" to that question.Pelosi's office did not respond to Insider's request for comment, but told BuzzFeed that "the Speaker is not on a shift, she's on a mission."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderNov 24th, 2021

Green Energy: A Bubble In Unrealistic Expectations

Green Energy: A Bubble In Unrealistic Expectations Authored by David Hay via Everegreen Gavekal blog, “You see what is happening in Europe. There is hysteria and some confusion in the markets. Why?…Some people are speculating on climate change issues, some people are underestimating some things, some are starting to cut back on investments in the extractive industries. There needs to be a smooth transition.” - Vladimir Putin (someone with whom this author rarely agrees) “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of its citizens.” – John Maynard Keynes (an interesting observation for all the modern day Keynesians to consider given their support of current inflationary US policies, including energy-related) Introduction This week’s EVA provides another sneak preview into David Hay’s book-in-process, “Bubble 3.0” discussing what he thinks is the crucial topic of “greenflation.”  This is a term he coined referring to the rising price for metals and minerals that are essential for solar and wind power, electric cars, and other renewable technologies. It also centers on the reality that as global policymakers have turned against the fossil fuel industry, energy producers are for the first time in history not responding to dramatically higher prices by increasing production.  Consequently, there is a difficult tradeoff that arises as the world pushes harder to combat climate change, driving up energy costs to painful levels, especially for lower income individuals.  What we are currently seeing in Europe is a vivid example of this dilemma.  While it may be the case that governments welcome higher oil and natural gas prices to discourage their use, energy consumers are likely to have a much different reaction. Summary BlackRock’s CEO recently admitted that, despite what many are opining, the green energy transition is nearly certain to be inflationary. Even though it’s early in the year, energy prices are already experiencing unprecedented spikes in Europe and Asia, but most Americans are unaware of the severity. To that point, many British residents being faced with the fact that they may need to ration heat and could be faced with the chilling reality that lives could be lost if this winter is as cold as forecasters are predicting. Because of the huge increase in energy prices, inflation in the eurozone recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices on the Continent that are the equivalent of $200 oil. It used to be that the cure for extreme prices was extreme prices, but these days I’m not so sure.  Oil and gas producers are very wary of making long-term investments to develop new resources given the hostility to their industry and shareholder pressure to minimize outlays. I expect global supply to peak sometime next year and a major supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand returns to normal. In Norway, almost 2/3 of all new vehicle sales are of the electric variety (EVs) – a huge increase in just over a decade. Meanwhile, in the US, it’s only about 2%. Still, given Norway’s penchant for the plug-in auto, the demand for oil has not declined. China, despite being the largest market by far for electric vehicles, is still projected to consume an enormous and rising amount of oil in the future. About 70% of China’s electricity is generated by coal, which has major environmental ramifications in regards to electric vehicles. Because of enormous energy demand in China this year, coal prices have experienced a massive boom. Its usage was up 15% in the first half of this year, and the Chinese government has instructed power providers to obtain all baseload energy sources, regardless of cost.  The massive migration to electric vehicles – and the fact that they use six times the amount of critical minerals as their gasoline-powered counterparts –means demand for these precious resources is expected to skyrocket. This extreme need for rare minerals, combined with rapid demand growth, is a recipe for a major spike in prices. Massively expanding the US electrical grid has several daunting challenges– chief among them the fact that the American public is extremely reluctant to have new transmission lines installed in their area. The state of California continues to blaze the trail for green energy in terms of both scope and speed. How the rest of the country responds to their aggressive take on renewables remains to be seen. It appears we are entering a very odd reality: governments are expending resources they do not have on weakly concentrated energy. And the result may be very detrimental for today’s modern economy. If the trend in energy continues, what looks nearly certain to be the Third Energy crisis of the last half-century may linger for years.  Green energy: A bubble in unrealistic expectations? As I have written in past EVAs, it amazes me how little of the intense inflation debate in 2021 centered on the inflationary implications of the Green Energy transition.  Perhaps it is because there is a built-in assumption that using more renewables should lower energy costs since the sun and the wind provide “free power”.  However, we will soon see that’s not the case, at least not anytime soon; in fact, it’s my contention that it will likely be the opposite for years to come and I’ve got some powerful company.  Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, a very pro-ESG* organization, is one of the few members of Wall Street’s elite who admitted this in the summer of 2021.  The story, however, received minimal press coverage and was quickly forgotten (though, obviously, not be me!).  This EVA will outline myriad reasons why I think Mr. Fink was telling it like it is…despite the political heat that could bring down upon him.  First, though, I will avoid any discussion of whether humanity is the leading cause of global warming.  For purposes of this analysis, let’s make the high-odds assumption that for now a high-speed green energy transition will continue to occur.  (For those who would like a well-researched and clearly articulated overview of the climate debate, I highly recommend the book “Unsettled”; it’s by a former top energy expert and scientist from the Obama administration, Dr. Steven Koonin.) The reason I italicized “for now” is that in my view it’s extremely probable that voters in many Western countries are going to become highly retaliatory toward energy policies that are already creating extreme hardship.  Even though it’s only early autumn as I write these words, energy prices are experiencing unprecedented increases in Europe.  Because it’s “over there”, most Americans are only vaguely aware of the severity of the situation.  But the facts are shocking…  Presently, natural gas is going for $29 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) in Europe, a quadruple compared to the same time in 2020, versus “just” $5 in the US, which is a mere doubling.  As a consequence, wholesale energy cost in Great Britain rose an unheard of 60% even before summer ended.  Reportedly, nine UK energy companies are on the brink of failure at this time due to their inability to fully pass on the enormous cost increases.  As a result, the British government is reportedly on the verge of nationalizing some of these entities—supposedly, temporarily—to prevent them from collapsing.  (CNBC reported on Wednesday that UK natural gas prices are now up 800% this year; in the US, nat gas rose 20% on Tuesday alone, before giving back a bit more than half of that the next day.) Serious food shortages are expected after exorbitant natural gas costs forced most of England’s commercial production of CO2 to shut down.  (CO2 is used both for stunning animals prior to slaughter and also in food packaging.)  Additionally, ballistic natural gas prices have forced the closure of two big US fertilizer plants due to a potential shortfall of ammonium nitrate of which “nat gas” is a key feedstock.  *ESG stands for Environmental, Social, Governance; in 2021, Blackrock’s assets under management approximated $9 ½ trillion, about one-third of the total US federal debt. With the winter of 2021 approaching, British households are being told they may need to ration heat.  There are even growing concerns about the widespread loss of life if this winter turns out to be a cold one, as 2020 was in Europe.  Weather forecasters are indicating that’s a distinct possibility.   In Spain, consumers are paying 40% more for electricity compared to the prior year.  The Spanish government has begun resorting to price controls to soften the impact of these rapidly escalating costs. (The history of price controls is that they often exacerbate shortages.) Naturally, spiking power prices hit the poorest hardest, which is typical of inflation whether it is of the energy variety or of generalized price increases.  Due to these massive energy price increases, eurozone inflation recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices that are the equivalent of $200 per barrel oil.  This is consistent with what I warned about in several EVAs earlier this year and I think there is much more of this looming in the years to come. In Asia, which also had a brutally cold winter in 2020 – 2021, there are severe energy shortages being disclosed, as well.  China has instructed its power providers to secure all the coal they can in preparation for a repeat of frigid conditions and acute deficits even before winter arrives.  The government has also instructed its energy distributors to acquire all the liquified natural gas (LNG) they can, regardless of cost.  LNG recently hit $35 per million British Thermal Units in Asia, up sevenfold in the past year.  China is also rationing power to its heavy industries, further exacerbating the worldwide shortages of almost everything, with notable inflationary implications. In India, where burning coal provides about 70% of electricity generation (as it does in China), utilities are being urged to import coal even though that country has the world’s fourth largest coal reserves.  Several Indian power plants are close to exhausting their coal supplies as power usage rips higher. Normally, I’d say that the cure for such extreme prices, was extreme prices—to slightly paraphrase the old axiom.  But these days, I’m not so sure; in fact, I’m downright dubious.  After all, the enormously influential International Energy Agency has recommended no new fossil fuel development after 2021—“no new”, as in zero.  It’s because of pressure such as this that, even though US natural gas prices have done a Virgin Galactic to $5 this year, the natural gas drilling rig count has stayed flat.  The last time prices were this high there were three times as many working rigs.  It is the same story with oil production.  Most Americans don’t seem to realize it but the US has provided 90% of the planet’s petroleum output growth over the past decade.  In other words, without America’s extraordinary shale oil production boom—which raised total oil output from around 5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 13 million barrels per day in 2019—the world long ago would have had an acute shortage.  (Excluding the Covid-wracked year of 2020, oil demand grows every year—strictly as a function of the developing world, including China, by the way.) Unquestionably, US oil companies could substantially increase output, particularly in the Permian Basin, arguably (but not much) the most prolific oil-producing region in the world.  However, with the Fed being pressured by Congress to punish banks that lend to any fossil fuel operator, and the overall extreme hostility toward domestic energy producers, why would they?  There is also tremendous pressure from Wall Street on these companies to be ESG compliant.  This means reducing their carbon footprint.  That’s tough to do while expanding their volume of oil and gas.  Further, investors, whether on Wall Street or on London’s equivalent, Lombard Street, or in pretty much any Western financial center, are against US energy companies increasing production.  They would much rather see them buy back stock and pay out lush dividends.  The companies are embracing that message.  One leading oil and gas company CEO publicly mused to the effect that buying back his own shares at the prevailing extremely depressed valuations was a much better use of capital than drilling for oil—even at $75 a barrel. As reported by Morgan Stanley, in the summer of 2021, an US institutional broker conceded that of his 400 clients, only one would consider investing in an energy company!  Consequently, the fact that the industry is so detested means that its shares are stunningly undervalued.  How stunningly?  A myriad of US oil and gas producers are trading at free cash flow* yields of 10% to 15% and, in some cases, as high as 25%. In Europe, where the same pressures apply, one of its biggest energy companies is generating a 16% free cash flow yield.  Moreover, that is based up an estimate of $60 per barrel oil, not the prevailing price of $80 on the Continent. *Free cash flow is the excess of gross cash flow over and above the capital spending needed to sustain a business.  Many market professionals consider it more meaningful than earnings.  Therefore, due to the intense antipathy toward Western energy producers they aren’t very inclined to explore for new resources.  Another much overlooked fact about the ultra-critical US shale industry that, as noted, has been nearly the only source of worldwide output growth for the past 13 years, is its rapid decline nature.  Most oil wells see their production taper off at just 4% or 5% per year.  But with shale, that decline rate is 80% after only two years.  (Because of the collapse in exploration activities in 2020 due to Covid, there are far fewer new wells coming on-line; thus, the production base is made up of older wells with slower decline rates but it is still a much steeper cliff than with traditional wells.)  As a result, the US, the world’s most important swing producer, has to come up with about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of new output just to stay even.  (This was formerly about a 3 million bpd number due to both the factor mentioned above and the 2 million bpd drop in total US oil production, from 13 million bpd to around 11 million bpd since 2019).  Please recall that total US oil production in 2008 was only around 5 million bpd.  Thus, 1.5 million barrels per day is a lot of oil and requires considerable drilling and exploration activities.  Again, this is merely to stay steady-state, much less grow.  The foregoing is why I wrote on multiple occasions in EVAs during 2020, when the futures price for oil went below zero*, that crude would have a spectacular price recovery later that year and, especially, in 2021.  In my view, to go out on my familiar creaky limb, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!  With supply extremely challenged for the above reasons and demand marching back, I believe 2022 could see $100 crude, possibly even higher.  *Physical oil, or real vs paper traded, bottomed in the upper teens when the futures contract for delivery in April, 2020, went deeply negative.  Mike Rothman of Cornerstone Analytics has one of the best oil price forecasting records on Wall Street.  Like me, he was vehemently bullish on oil after the Covid crash in the spring of 2020 (admittedly, his well-reasoned optimism was a key factor in my up-beat outlook).  Here’s what he wrote late this summer:  “Our forecast for ’22 looks to see global oil production capacity exhausted late in the year and our balance suggests OPEC (and OPEC + participants) will face pressures to completely remove any quotas.”  My expectation is that global supply will likely max out sometime next year, barring a powerful negative growth shock (like a Covid variant even more vaccine resistant than Delta).  A significant supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand recovers and exceeds its pre-Covid level.  This is a view also shared by Goldman Sachs and Raymond James, among others; hence, my forecast of triple-digit prices next year.  Raymond James pointed out that in June the oil market was undersupplied by 2.5 mill bpd.  Meanwhile, global petroleum demand was rapidly rising with expectations of nearly pre-Covid consumption by year-end.  Mike Rothman ran this chart in a webcast on 9/10/2021 revealing how far below the seven-year average oil inventories had fallen.  This supply deficit is very likely to become more acute as the calendar flips to 2022. In fact, despite oil prices pushing toward $80, total US crude output now projected to actually decline this year.  This is an unprecedented development.  However, as the very pro-renewables Financial Times (the UK’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) explained in an August 11th, 2021, article:  “Energy companies are in a bind.  The old solution would be to invest more in raising gas production.  But with most developed countries adopting plans to be ‘net zero’ on carbon emissions by 2050 or earlier, the appetite for throwing billions at long-term gas projects is diminished.” The author, David Sheppard, went on to opine: “In the oil industry there are those who think a period of plus $100-a-barrel oil is on the horizon, as companies scale back investments in future supplies, while demand is expected to keep rising for most of this decade at a minimum.”  (Emphasis mine)  To which I say, precisely!  Thus, if he’s right about rising demand, as I believe he is, there is quite a collision looming between that reality and the high probability of long-term constrained supplies.  One of the most relevant and fascinating Wall Street research reports I read as I was researching the topic of what I have been referring to as “Greenflation” is from Morgan Stanley.  Its title asked the provocative question:  “With 64% of New Cars Now Electric, Why is Norway Still Using so Much Oil?”  While almost two-thirds of Norway’s new vehicle sales are EVs, a remarkable market share gain in just over a decade, the number in the US is an ultra-modest 2%.   Yet, per the Morgan Stanley piece, despite this extraordinary push into EVs, oil consumption in Norway has been stubbornly stable.  Coincidentally, that’s been the experience of the overall developed world over the past 10 years, as well; petroleum consumption has largely flatlined.  Where demand hasn’t gone horizontal is in the developing world which includes China.  As you can see from the following Cornerstone Analytics chart, China’s oil demand has vaulted by about 6 million barrels per day (bpd) since 2010 while its domestic crude output has, if anything, slightly contracted. Another coincidence is that this 6 million bpd surge in China’s appetite for oil, almost exactly matched the increase in US oil production.  Once again, think where oil prices would be today without America’s shale oil boom. This is unlikely to change over the next decade.  By 2031, there are an estimated one billion Asian consumers moving up into the middle class.  History is clear that more income means more energy consumption.  Unquestionably, renewables will provide much of that power but oil and natural gas are just as unquestionably going to play a critical role.  Underscoring that point, despite the exponential growth of renewables over the last 10 years, every fossil fuel category has seen increased usage.  Thus, even if China gets up to Norway’s 64% EV market share of new car sales over the next decade, its oil usage is likely to continue to swell.  Please be aware that China has become the world’s largest market for EVs—by far.  Despite that, the above chart vividly displays an immense increase in oil demand.  Here’s a similar factoid that I ran in our December 4th EVA, “Totally Toxic”, in which I made a strong bullish case for energy stocks (the main energy ETF is up 35% from then, by the way):  “(There was) a study by the UN and the US government based on the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gasses Induced Climate Change (MAGICC).  The model predicted that ‘the complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the US immediately would only restrict any increase in world temperature by less than one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2050, and by less than one fifth of one degree Celsius by 2100.’  Say again?  If the world’s biggest carbon emitter on a per capita basis causes minimal improvement by going cold turkey on fossil fuels, are we making the right moves by allocating tens of trillions of dollars that we don’t have toward the currently in-vogue green energy solutions?” China's voracious power appetite increase has been true with all of its energy sources.  On the environmentally-friendly front, that includes renewables; on the environmentally-unfriendly side, it also includes coal.  In 2020, China added three times more coal-based power generation than all other countries combined.  This was the equivalent of an additional coal planet each week.  Globally, there was a reduction last year of 17 gigawatts in coal-fired power output; in China, the increase was 29.8 gigawatts, far more than offsetting the rest of the world’s progress in reducing the dirtiest energy source.  (A gigawatt can power a city with a population of roughly 700,000.) Overall, 70% of China’s electricity is coal-generated. This has significant environmental implications as far as electric vehicles (EVs) are concerned.  Because EVs are charged off a grid that is primarily coal- powered, carbon emissions actually rise as the number of such vehicles proliferate. As you can see in the following charts from Reuters’ energy expert John Kemp, Asia’s coal-fired generation has risen drastically in the last 20 years, even as it has receded in the rest of the world.  (The flattening recently is almost certainly due to Covid, with a sharp upward resumption nearly a given.) The worst part is that burning coal not only emits CO2—which is not a pollutant and is essential for life—it also releases vast quantities of nitrous oxide (N20), especially on the scale of coal usage seen in Asia today. N20 is unquestionably a pollutant and a greenhouse gas that is hundreds of times more potent than CO2.  (An interesting footnote is that over the last 550 million years, there have been very few times when the CO2 level has been as low, or lower, than it is today.)  Some scientists believe that one reason for the shrinkage of Arctic sea ice in recent decades is due to the prevailing winds blowing black carbon soot over from Asia.  This is a separate issue from N20 which is a colorless gas.  As the black soot covers the snow and ice fields in Northern Canada, they become more absorbent of the sun’s radiation, thus causing increased melting.  (Source:  “Weathering Climate Change” by Hugh Ross) Due to exploding energy needs in China this year, coal prices have experienced an unprecedented surge.  Despite this stunning rise, Chinese authorities have instructed its power providers to obtain coal, and other baseload energy sources, such as liquified natural gas (LNG), regardless of cost.  Notwithstanding how pricey coal has become, its usage in China was up 15% in the first half of this year vs the first half of 2019 (which was obviously not Covid impacted). Despite the polluting impact of heavy coal utilization, China is unlikely to turn away from it due to its high energy density (unlike renewables), its low cost (usually) and its abundance within its own borders (though its demand is so great that it still needs to import vast amounts).  Regarding oil, as we saw in last week’s final image, it is currently importing roughly 11 million barrels per day (bpd) to satisfy its 15 million bpd consumption (about 15% of total global demand).  In other words, crude imports amount to almost three-quarter of its needs.  At $80 oil, this totals $880 million per day or approximately $320 billion per year.  Imagine what China’s trade surplus would look like without its oil import bill! Ironically, given the current hostility between the world’s superpowers, China has an affinity for US oil because of its light and easy-to-refine nature.  China’s refineries tend to be low-grade and unable to efficiently process heavier grades of crude, unlike the US refining complex which is highly sophisticated and prefers heavy oil such as from Canada and Venezuela—back when the latter actually produced oil. Thus, China favors EVs because they can be de facto coal-powered, lessening its dangerous reliance on imported oil.  It also likes them due to the fact it controls 80% of the lithium ion battery supply and 60% of the planet’s rare earth minerals, both of which are essential to power EVs.     However, even for China, mining enough lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, aluminum and the other essential minerals/metals to meet the ambitious goals of largely electrifying new vehicle volumes is going to be extremely daunting.  This is in addition to mass construction of wind farms and enormously expanded solar panel manufacturing. As one of the planet’s leading energy authorities Daniel Yergin writes: “With the move to electric cars, demand for critical minerals will skyrocket (lithium up 4300%, cobalt and nickel up 2500%), with an electric vehicle using 6 times more minerals than a conventional car and a wind turbine using 9 times more minerals than a gas-fueled power plant.  The resources needed for the ‘mineral-intensive energy system’ of the future are also highly concentrated in relatively few countries. Whereas the top 3 oil producers in the world are responsible for about 30 percent of total liquids production, the top 3 lithium producers control more than 80% of supply. China controls 60% of rare earths output needed for wind towers; the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70% of the cobalt required for EV batteries.” As many have noted, the environmental impact of immensely ramping up the mining of these materials is undoubtedly going to be severe.  Michael Shellenberger, a life-long environmental activist, has been particularly vociferous in his condemnation of the dominant view that only renewables can solve the global energy needs.  He’s especially critical of how his fellow environmentalists resorted to repetitive deception, in his view, to undercut nuclear power in past decades.  By leaving nuke energy out of the solution set, he foresees a disastrous impact on the planet due to the massive scale (he’d opine, impossibly massive) of resource mining that needs to occur.  (His book, “Apocalypse Never”, is also one I highly recommend; like Dr. Koonin, he hails from the left end of the political spectrum.) Putting aside the environmental ravages of developing rare earth minerals, when you have such high and rapidly rising demand colliding with limited supply, prices are likely to go vertical.  This will be another inflationary “forcing”, a favorite term of climate scientists, caused by the Great Green Energy Transition. Moreover, EVs are very semiconductor intensive.  With semis already in seriously short supply, this is going to make a gnarly situation even gnarlier.  It’s logical to expect that there will be recurring shortages of chips over the next decade for this reason alone (not to mention the acute need for semis as the “internet of things” moves into primetime).  In several of the newsletters I’ve written in recent years, I’ve pointed out the present vulnerability of the US electric grid.  Yet, it will be essential not just to keep it from breaking down under its current load; it must be drastically enhanced, a Herculean task. For one thing, it is excruciatingly hard to install new power lines. As J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest has written: “Grid expansion can be a hornet’s nest of cost, complexity and NIMBYism*, particularly in the US.”  The grid’s frailty, even under today’s demands (i.e., much less than what lies ahead as millions of EVs plug into it) is particularly obvious in California.  However, severe winter weather in 2021 exposed the grid weakness even in energy-rich Texas, which also has a generally welcoming attitude toward infrastructure upgrading and expansion. Yet it’s the Golden State, home to 40 million Americans and the fifth largest economy in the world, if it was its own country (which it occasionally acts like it wants to be), that is leading the charge to EVs and seeking to eliminate internal combustion engines (ICEs) as quickly as possible.  Even now, blackouts and brownouts are becoming increasingly common.  Seemingly convinced it must be a role model for the planet, it’s trying desperately to reduce its emissions, which are less than 1%, of the global total, at the expense of rendering its energy system more similar to a developing country.  In addition to very high electricity costs per kilowatt hour (its mild climate helps offset those), it also has gasoline prices that are 77% above the national average.  *NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard. While California has been a magnet for millions seeking a better life for 150 years, the cost of living is turning the tide the other way.  Unreliable and increasingly expensive energy is likely to intensify that trend.  Combined with home prices that are more than double the US median–$800,000!–California is no longer the land of milk and honey, unless, to slightly paraphrase Woody Guthrie about LA, even back in the 1940s, you’ve got a whole lot of scratch.  More and more people, seem to be scratching California off their list of livable venues.  Voters in the reliably blue state of California may become extremely restive, particularly as they look to Asia and see new coal plants being built at a fever pitch.  The data will become clear that as America keeps decarbonizing–as it has done for 30 years mostly due to the displacement of coal by gas in the US electrical system—Asia will continue to go the other way.  (By the way, electricity represents the largest share of CO2 emission at roughly 25%.)  California has always seemed to lead social trends in this country, as it is doing again with its green energy transition.  The objective is noble though, extremely ambitious, especially the timeline.  As it brings its power paradigm to the rest of America, especially its frail grid, it will be interesting to see how voters react in other states as the cost of power leaps higher and its dependability heads lower.  It’s reasonable to speculate we may be on the verge of witnessing the Californication of the US energy system.  Lest you think I’m being hyperbolic, please be aware the IEA (International Energy Agency) has estimated it will cost the planet $5 trillion per year to achieve Net Zero emissions.  This is compared to global GDP of roughly $85 trillion. According to BloombergNEF, the price tag over 30 years, could be as high as $173 trillion.  Frankly, based on the history of gigantic cost overruns on most government-sponsored major infrastructure projects, I’m inclined to take the over—way over—on these estimates. Moreover, energy consulting firm T2 and Associates, has guesstimated electrifying just the US to the extent necessary to eliminate the direct consumption of fuel (i.e., gasoline, natural gas, coal, etc.) would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion.  Again, taking into account how these ambitious efforts have played out in the past, I suspect $29 trillion is light.  Regardless, even $18 trillion is a stunner, despite the reality we have all gotten numb to numbers with trillions attached to them.  For perspective, the total, already terrifying, level of US federal debt is $28 trillion. Regardless, as noted last week, the probabilities of the Great Green Energy Transition happening are extremely high.  Relatedly, I believe the likelihood of the Great Greenflation is right up there with them.  As Gavekal’s Didier Darcet wrote in mid-August:  ““Nowadays, and this is a great first in history, governments will commit considerable financial resources they do not have in the extraction of very weakly concentrated energy.” ( i.e., less efficient)  “The bet is very risky, and if it fails, what next?  The modern economy would not withstand expensive energy, or worse, lack of energy.”  While I agree this an historical first, it’s definitely not great (with apologies for all the “greats”).  This is particularly not great for keeping inflation subdued, as well as for attempting to break out of the growth quagmire the Western world has been in for the last two decades.  What we are seeing in Europe right now is an extremely cautionary case study in just how disastrous the war on fossil fuels can be (shortly we will see who or what has been a behind-the-scenes participant in this conflict). Essentially, I believe, as I’ve written in past EVAs, we are entering the third energy crisis of the last 50 years.  If I’m right, it will be characterized by recurring bouts of triple-digit oil prices in the years to come.  Along with Richard Nixon taking the US off the gold standard in 1971, the high inflation of the 1970s was caused by the first two energy crises (the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution).  If I’m correct about this being the third, it’s coming at a most inopportune time with the US in hyper-MMT* mode. Frankly, I believe many in the corridors of power would like to see oil trade into the $100s, and natural gas into the teens, as it will help catalyze the shift to renewable energy.  But consumers are likely to have a much different reaction—potentially, a violently different reaction, as I noted last week.  The experience of the Yellow Vest protests in France (referring to the color of the vest protestors wore), are instructive in this regard.  France is a generally left-leaning country.  Despite that, a proposed fuel surtax in November 2018 to fund a renewable energy transition triggered such widespread civil unrest that French president Emmanuel Macron rescinded it the following month. *MMT stands for Modern Monetary Theory.  It holds that a government, like the US, which issues debt in its own currency can spend without concern about budgetary constraints.  If there are not enough buyers of its bonds at acceptable interest rates, that nation’s central bank (the Fed, in our case) simply acquires them with money it creates from its digital printing press.  This is what is happening today in the US.  Many economists consider this highly inflationary. The sharp and politically uncomfortable rise in US gas pump prices this summer caused the Biden administration to plead with OPEC to lift its volume quotas.  The ironic implication of that exhortation was glaringly obvious, as was the inefficiency and pollution consequences of shipping oil thousands of miles across the Atlantic.  (Oil tankers are a significant source of emissions.)  This is as opposed to utilizing domestic oil output, as well as crude from Canada (which is actually generally better suited to the US refining complex).  Beyond the pollution aspect, imported oil obviously worsens America’s massive trade deficit (which would be far more massive without the six million barrels per day of domestic oil volumes that the shale revolution has provided) and costs our nation high-paying jobs. Further, one of my other big fears is that the West is engaging in unilateral energy disarmament.  Russia and China are likely the major beneficiaries of this dangerous scenario.  Per my earlier comment about a stealth combatant in the war on fossil fuels, it may surprise you that a past NATO Secretary General* has accused Russian intelligence of avidly supporting the anti-fracking movements in Western Europe.  Russian TV has railed against fracking for years, even comparing it to pedophilia (certainly, a most bizarre analogy!).  The success of the anti-fracking movement on the Continent has essentially prevented a European version of America’s shale miracles (the UK has the potential to be a major shale gas producer).  Consequently, the European Union’s domestic natural gas production has been in a rapid decline phase for years.  Banning fracking has, of course, made Europe heavily reliant on Russian gas shipments with more than 40% of its supplies coming from Russia. This is in graphic contrast to the shale output boom in the US that has not only made us natural gas self-sufficient but also an export powerhouse of liquified natural gas (LNG).  In 2011, the Nord Stream system of pipelines running under the Baltic Sea from northern Russia began delivering gas west from northern Russia to the German coastal city of Greifswald.  For years, the Russians sought to build a parallel system with the inventive name of Nord Stream 2.  The US government opposed its approval on security grounds but the Biden administration has dropped its opposition.  It now appears Nord Stream 2 will happen, leaving Europe even more exposed to Russian coercion.  Is it possible the Russian government and the Chinese Communist Party have been secretly and aggressively supporting the anti-fossil fuel movements in America?  In my mind, it seems not only possible but probable.  In fact, I believe it is naïve not to come that conclusion.  After all, wouldn’t it be in both of their geopolitical interests to see the US once again caught in a cycle of debilitating inflation, ensnared by the twin traps of MMT and the third energy crisis? *Per former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasumssen:  Russia has “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”. Along these lines, I was shocked to listen to a recent podcast by the New Yorker magazine on the topic of “intelligent sabotage”.  This segment was an interview between the magazine’s David Remnick and a Swedish professor, Adreas Malm.  Mr. Malm is the author of a new book with the literally explosive title “How To Blow Up A Pipeline”.   Just as it sounds, he advocates detonating pipelines to inhibit fossil fuel distribution.  Mr. Remnick was clearly sympathetic to his guest but he did ask him about the impact on the poor of driving energy prices up drastically which would be the obvious ramification if his sabotage recommendations were widely followed.  Mr. Malm’s reaction was a verbal shrug of the shoulders and words to the effect that this was the price to pay to save the planet. Frankly, I am appalled that the venerable New Yorker would provide a platform for such a radical and unlawful suggestion.  In an era when people are de-platformed for often innocuous comments, it’s incredible to me this was posted and has not been pulled down.  In my mind, this reflects just how tolerant the media is of attacks on the fossil fuel industry, regardless of the deleterious impact on consumers and the global economy. Surely, there is a far better way of coping with the harmful aspects of fossil fuel-based energy than this scorched earth (literally, in the case of Mr. Malm) approach, which includes efforts to block new pipelines, shut existing ones, and severely restrict US energy production.  In America’s case, the result will be forcing us to unnecessarily and increasingly rely on overseas imports.  (For example, per the Wall Street Journal, drilling permits on federal land have crashed to 171 in August from 671 in April.  Further, the contentious $3.5 trillion “infrastructure” plan would raise royalties and fees high enough on US energy producers that it would render them globally uncompetitive.) Such actions would only aggravate what is already a severe energy shock, one that may be worse than the 1970s twin energy crises.  America has it easy compared to Europe, though, given current US policy trends, we might be in their same heavily listing energy boat soon. Solutions include fast-tracking small modular nuclear plants; encouraging the further switch from burning coal to natural gas (a trend that is, unfortunately, going the other way now, as noted above); utilizing and enhancing carbon and methane capture at the point of emission (including improving tail pipe effluent-reduction technology); enhancing pipeline integrity to inhibit methane leaks; among many other mitigation techniques that recognize the reality the global economy will be reliant on fossil fuels for many years, if not decades, to come.  If the climate change movement fails to recognize the essential nature of fossil fuels, it will almost certainly trigger a backlash that will undermine the positive change it is trying to bring about.  This is similar to what it did via its relentless assault on nuclear power which produced a frenzy of coal plant construction in the 1980s and 1990s.  On this point, it’s interesting to see how quickly Europe is re-embracing coal power to alleviate the energy poverty and rationing occurring over there right now - even before winter sets in.  When the choice is between supporting climate change initiatives on one hand and being able to heat your home and provide for your family on the other, is there really any doubt about which option the majority of voters will select? Tyler Durden Tue, 10/26/2021 - 19:30.....»»

Category: worldSource: nytOct 26th, 2021

The Seven Secrets of Indra Nooyi’s Success

The former PepsiCo CEO shares details from her life and career in her book My Life in Full: Work, Family, and Our Future. Indra Nooyi struggles to be heard over the sounds of outdoor dining, midtown traffic, and a fountain gushing down the wall. That’s clearly rare for the former PepsiCo CEO—so she beckons the restaurant’s owner and asks if he can shut off the water. He obliges, and Nooyi proceeds to regale us, a table of female journalists at the helm of various New York media, with anecdotes from her just-released book, My Life in Full: Work, Family, and Our Future. The whole lunchtime interaction—assess problem, determine what’s in your control, improve outcome, go forth with grace—is signature Nooyi. Her book delves even further into this exacting style punctured by compassion, loyalty, and deep relationships that get results. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] I confess to having studied Nooyi for a long time now. I’ve watched her interviews, live and on YouTube, during my own career trajectory. A manager training I once attended spent hours dissecting Nooyi’s ability to peer around corners and lead a company through change. Then there’s the South Asian connection: a member of our own community ascended to a Fortune 50 company who proudly credits her childhood in Chennai and the role of extended family in making it all possible. For years, my people proudly (and wrongly) asserted that the 65-year-old executive wears a sari in the boardroom. Thankfully, her book debunks the myth: After feeling like a misfit in oversized polyester outfits, she chose the traditional Indian dress for an internship interview, landed the job, and donned the sari for the rest of the summer. Eventually, she transitioned to Western attire, and her sartorial choices gained style and confidence as her career progressed. Read more: A Woman of Color Cannot Save Your Workplace Culture Back stories like that are the hallmark of this part memoir, part clarion. We’ve heard a lot from Nooyi over the last two decades, talks distilled into tweetable headlines and soundbites on work-family balance. As a woman of color, a mother of two girls, an immigrant success story, she describes feeling almost a moral obligation to show up at speeches, panels, awards ceremonies, seminars, and guest lectures during her 12-year tenure as CEO. Life in Full stitches it all together and offers the context sometimes only possible in hindsight. The fast-paced narrative is as much a blueprint to getting ahead at work as an appreciation of the friends and family along for the journey. I found seven themes in particular surfaced repeatedly, together buoying Nooyi’s remarkable life: It’s okay to love work. Perhaps in all the reams written on the juggle, especially for women, the part that often feels shafted is the work itself. Nooyi’s love of the job—from walks on factory floors to battles with activist investors—is so apparent and infectious. Anyone who has fist-pumped after an excellent quarter or convinced a supervisor to implement their strategy will love the gusto with which Nooyi both throws herself into the work and celebrates wins. She also uses wonky but relatable examples to explain how to predict and embrace change in the bigger picture. Nooyi recounts walking into supermarkets and Walmarts to assess Frito-Lay packaging and placement on shelves and watching parents and kids at birthday parties shunning soda as precursors to PepsiCo’s focus on healthier products. She also remembers working long hours and skipping vacation to dive into the guts of a billion-dollar-plus proposal to overhaul enterprise software, and why it is so important for leaders to understand all aspects of what they are approving. Sharing the love of the work with the ones you love feels necessary and important, especially for children to understand why their mom is away: She loves you, but she also loves her work. It’s okay to talk about your family at work. Similarly, Nooyi seemingly effortlessly centers family in the workplace. There are subtle but important examples; for years, she kept a dry-erase board in her office just for the kids. Everyone from her bosses to her assistants helped in times of crisis, such as by offering to do school pickup. There are also the ways Nooyi recognized the families of her staffers. She recounts writing letters to the parents of colleagues to thank them for their role in their child’s stellar performance. These “report cards,” she says, were beloved and drew loyalty from staff and their families. She also thanked the spouses of her direct reports, and notes, “these letters released a lot of emotion.” Hire experts. Over and over, Nooyi finds herself in jobs or situations where she lacks expertise in an industry or product. It’s how she responds, also over and over, that is so brilliant. She doesn’t BS her way through presentations; she turns to experts. Nooyi matter-of-factly mentions that after she went to Motorola, two community college professors came twice a week to her office, one to explain how automobiles work and the other to discuss “solid-state physics and electronics.” You see how this instinct serves her well over time as she moves to PepsiCo. There, she turns to experts in design, science, and technology. Eventually, she hires a chief scientific officer, saying the role can help reduce salt in chips and add whole grains to Cheerio’s. But more importantly, she says, “science could be at the heart of reimagining the global food system.” Men have a role to play. At critical junctures in Nooyi’s career, men have preemptively jumped in and offered their support. When her father was dying, one boss offered six months paid leave. Importantly, the men initiated such support, she says, because “as a young consultant, I had zero leverage in asking for any kind of benefit that would help me through a difficult time.” When she was pregnant and working as a consultant, she recounts: “For my last meeting with Trane, Bill Roth, the CEO, chartered two planes to bring his entire executive team to our offices in Chicago. The meeting would typically have happened in his own boardroom, but I was nine months pregnant and couldn’t travel. Bill wanted me to be part of BCG’s final presentation to his company.” You can sense their immense respect for her at the root of the life-changing gestures. But imagine if such accommodation were the norm and not the exception. Would more women stay in the workforce? Similarly, Nooyi praises her father-in-law and husband for their lack of adherence to Indian tradition around gender roles. After marriage, her father-in-law said to her: “Indra, don’t give up your job. You have all this education, and you should use it. We will support you in any way we can.” Leave the crown in the garage. Nooyi repeatedly says being a mother is one of her most cherished roles. But one night, after being named president of PepsiCo, she comes home and her mother orders her to go get milk. Nooyi is annoyed, feeling like she can’t even revel in this newfound title and success. Her mother responds: “You may be the president or whatever of PepsiCo, but when you come home, you are a wife and a mother and a daughter. Nobody can take your place. So you leave that crown in the garage.” Such humility might not be expected of men, but Nooyi accepts this as a small price to keep peace on the home front. Another subtle point in the anecdote: Nobody will be as honest or hard on you as your mother. Care needs to be prioritized by everybody right now. While the brunt of the book dwells on Nooyi’s journey, she issues a call for action—rooted in deep study of states, companies, and countries with more family-friendly policies— for both prioritizing and training care workers like never before. Both in the book and in her lunch with journalists, Nooyi cites concern about two related crises. Women leaving the workforce and choosing not to have children, she says, will be disastrous for the economy, citing Japan as an example of our potential fate. She writes: “We must expand the future-of-work conversations that dwell on robotics and artificial intelligence to include another critical dimension of our success: how to shift our economies to better integrate work and family and ensure that women get equal pay and share power.” Purpose is everything. I have written reams during the pandemic on how purpose is the single most important motivator for the modern workforce. Nooyi was early to this trend. Her transformation of PepsiCo rested on a concept called “Performance with Purpose.” She writes: “PwP would transform the way PepsiCo made money and tie our business success to these objectives: Nourish. Replenish. Cherish.” Purpose translates, thus, not just to business objectives but life itself. Over the last year, retirement from PepsiCo a distant memory, Nooyi was working endless hours on a Covid task force. Her mother—the same woman who’d once said to leave the crown in the garage—seemed to have a change of heart. The need for home and work to accommodate each other might be more needed than ever. “You are someone who wants to help the world and not many people are like you,” her mother said. “I don’t think you should worry about the house so much. You have to give back as much as you can.”.....»»

Category: topSource: timeOct 12th, 2021

Healthcare Trust responds to activist investor"s urging to put itself up for sale

Healthcare Trust of America Inc. said Monday that it regularly reviews its strategic plan and opportunities to enhance shareholder value. "We are open minded and committed to delivering superior returns for all HTA shareholders," the real estate investment trust that owns and operates medical office buildings said in a statement. The statement was in response to activist investor Elliott Investment Management L.P.'s letter to the HTA's board urging the company to explore a sale of the company, given the "long-term underperformance" relative to its peers, the broader REIT sector and stock market. "After we were first contacted by Elliott, members of HTA's management team and board held several discussions with representatives of Elliott to better understand their views, and those views were immediately shared with the full HTA board," the company said. The stock rose 2.1% in afternoon trading. It has rallied 17.6% year to date, while the SPDR Real Estate Select Sector ETF has run up 22.3% and the S&P 500 has advanced 16.8%.Market Pulse Stories are Rapid-fire, short news bursts on stocks and markets as they move. Visit for more information on this news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchOct 11th, 2021

Anthony Fauci says one line from "The Godfather" has shaped his career

In the documentary "Fauci," Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals that a line from "The Godfather" shaped his career: "It's not personal. It's strictly business." The line "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business," comes from the 1972 film "The Godfather." IMDb/Paramount Pictures In a new documentary, called "Fauci," Dr. Anthony Fauci reveals that a line from the movie "The Godfather" has guided his career. It's a classic quote: "It's not personal. It's strictly business." See more stories on Insider's business page. "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."The deadpan line, delivered by a young Al Pacino in the iconic 1972 film "The Godfather," has been a guiding principle for a different type of leader: Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci, an even-keeled public servant, leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and has served under six presidents, including Joe Biden and Donald Trump. He explains why "The Godfather" line has stuck with him in a new National Geographic documentary, titled "Fauci," which is now streaming on Disney Plus. Dr. Anthony Fauci during an interview at the NIH in Bethesda, Maryland. National Geographic for Disney+/Visko Hatfield "When someone attacks, I don't immediately fight back. That's not my style. You don't get into the fray," Fauci says in the film. "And over the years, which became decades, that became the mantra, using 'The Godfather' as the great book of philosophy: 'It's nothing person, it's strictly business.'" Anthony Fauci has served under six US presidents. AP Photo/Alex Brandon Fauci's long tenure in Washington may be a testament to his mantra's power."Tony Fauci doesn't come in the Oval Office to say, 'I'm going to make you look good politically.' He's not a politician," former President George W. Bush explains in the documentary. "Tony Fauci says, 'I think we can solve this problem. Here are the facts. And here's my recommendation for a way forward.'" President Joe Biden receives a briefing from Fauci on February 11, 2021, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz During Fauci's 50-plus-year career, he has worked on infectious-disease threats including Ebola, Zika, and anthrax, as well as the epidemic that first put him in the crosshairs of activists in the 1980s and 1990s: HIV/AIDS.The documentary depicts how, as deaths mounted during the HIV/AIDS crisis, Fauci met with representatives from the group Act Up to hear their concerns. The activists peppered Fauci with targeted questions about the slow pace of scientific research into HIV/AIDS treatment and accused him of causing their friends' deaths. Members of the activist group Act Up march through Times Square in New York on April 6, 1992. AP Photo/Andrew Savulich "The criticism, the hostility, it didn't really seem to faze him," David Barr, an AIDS activist, recalls in the documentary.Peter Staley, an AIDS activist and early member of Act Up, adds: "My first impression is that we're dealing with Brooklyn here. He got a complete grilling and continued the conversation."The documentary shows footage from those early meetings, in which Fauci responds to the accusations from Barr, Stanley, and others."This is where I disagree with you," Fauci told them at the time. "This is nothing personal, strictly business."In reflecting on that moment, present-day Fauci says in the film: "We didn't agree on everything in that first meeting. But their instincts were right, and that started a series of dialogues that did not stop the demonstrations." Fauci sits behind his desk in his office in Bethesda, Maryland, 1988. Leif Skoogfors/Corbis via Getty Images Archival footage shows what those demonstrations looked like. Protestors surrounded the NIH - Fauci's workplace - with signs and banners, shouting, "Typical day at the NIH, watching people die!" and "The NIH is lying. Women with AIDS are dying!" "I started to feel - and my staff thought I was completely nuts - almost an affinity to them," Fauci recalls of the demonstrators."I started to put myself into their shoes," he adds. People with AIDS were being told they had months to live, but scientific research was expected to take years. Fauci summed up the activists' point of view about the slow pace of research as, "Thank you very much, but I'm going to be dead." Fauci lectures President Ronald Reagan (left) and other members of the President's Commission on AIDS. Photo by Diana Walker/Getty Images The documentary also shows how Fauci brought scientists and AIDS activists together to work on clinical research and drug development, forging a patient-scientist relationship that has since extended beyond AIDS research.In a speech Fauci gave at the time, which is depicted in the film, he said: "Activists are mistaken when they assume that scientists do not care about them. This is devastating to a physician scientist who has devoted years to AIDS research, particularly when they themselves see so many of their own patients suffering and dying. On the other hand, scientists cannot dismiss activists merely on the basis of the fact that they are not trained scientists ... We must join together."Fauci watches footage of that speech in the documentary."During that speech, I'm saying something and you have the activists clap. Then then I say something, and the scientists clap. The beauty of it is that at the end of it, everybody was clapping," he says.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytOct 7th, 2021

"They are starting to get more and more desperate": Greta Thunberg responds to a Canadian oil company accused of creating a vulgar cartoon depicting her in a non-consensual sex act

Associated Press A photo of a sticker circulated online that showed 17-year-old climate activist Great Thunberg engaged in a non-consensual sex a.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsiderMar 1st, 2020

Enzo Biochem responds to "misleading" statements from activist hedge fund

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: smallbizSource: nytJan 13th, 2020

Red Robin"s stock soars toward biggest-ever one-day gain; co. responds to activist calls for strategic review

Shares of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. rocketed 31.1% in afte.....»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchJun 13th, 2019

Bed Bath & Beyond responds to "public attack" from activist group

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMar 26th, 2019

Yelp responds to activist investor SQN Investors presentation pushing co. to "unlock value"

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit or the quote page for more information about this breaking news......»»

Category: topSource: marketwatchJan 16th, 2019

Amazon is slashing 9,000 more workers amid a layoff wave that has expanded past tech to include bellwethers like Dow and 3M. Here"s the full list of major US companies making cuts in 2023.

Amazon announced another headcount cut after slashing 18,000 jobs in January as waves of layoffs hit tech companies and spread to other industries. In a memo sent to employees on Monday, Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy said the company would be eliminating 9,000 positions from its ranks.Mike Blake/Reuters Amazon, Meta, and Twitter employees are the latest to be hit by a wave of layoffs. Over the past few months, layoffs have expanded outside of tech, media, and finance as Dow and 3M announced cuts. See the full list of layoffs so far in 2023. A wave of layoffs that hit dozens of US companies toward the end of 2022 shows no sign of slowing down into 2023. On Monday, e-commerce behemoth Amazon told employees that it would be eliminating 9,000 roles, which comes on top of the 18,000 job cuts it announced earlier this year. In a message to employees CEO Andy Jassy said, "Some may ask why we didn't announce these role reductions with the ones we announced a couple months ago. The short answer is that not all of the teams were done with their analyses in the late fall; and rather than rush through these assessments without the appropriate diligence, we chose to share these decisions as we've made them so people had the information as soon as possible."Amazon joins a large group of major corporations that have made significant cuts in the new year: tech companies, including Meta and Google, and finance behemoths, like Goldman Sachs, announced massive layoffs in the first weeks of 2023 amid a continued economic downturn and stagnating sales.The downsizing followed significant reductions that companies including Meta and Twitter already made last year. The layoffs have primarily affected the tech sector, which is now hemorrhaging employees at a faster rate than at any point during the pandemic, the Journal reported. According to data cited by the Journal from, a site tracking layoffs since the start of the pandemic, tech companies slashed more than 150,000 in 2022 alone — compared to 80,000 in 2020 and 15,000 in 2021. Here are the notable examples so far in 2023: Amazon: 9,000 more jobsAmazon CEO Andy Jassy announced on Monday that the company would be eliminating another 9,000 roles, on top of the 18,000 announced in January.Richard Brian/ReutersOn Monday, Amazon announced that it would be cutting 9,000 jobs from its workforce over the coming weeks. The cuts come on the heels of the 18,000 roles the company announced it was cutting back in January. In a message to employees shared on Amazon's site, CEO Andy Jassy noted that the impacted positions are largely in the Amazon Web Services, People Experience and Technology Solutions, Advertising, and Twitch departments. In the memo, Jassy said the company staggered its layoff announcements because "not all of the teams were done with their analyses in the late fall." He added, "rather than rush through these assessments without the appropriate diligence, we chose to share these decisions as we've made them so people had the information as soon as possible."Meta: 10,000 workersMeta CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Lennihan/APRoughly 10,000 Meta workers will find out that their jobs have been cut between March and May, according to an announcement by the company's founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg also said the company would close around 5,000 open roles that haven't yet been filled as part of the company's effort to downsize. "My hope is to make these org changes as soon as possible in the year so we can get past this period of uncertainty and focus on the critical work ahead," Zuckerberg wrote in a post on Facebook announcing the layoffs. In the post, Zuckerberg said that members of Meta's recruiting team would learn about the fate of their jobs in March, while tech workers would find out in late April, and business groups would find out in May. "In a small number of cases, it may take through the end of the year to complete these changes," he wrote. The job cuts come less than 5 months after Meta slashed 11,000 workers, or about 13% of its workforce, in November. At the time, Zuckerberg called the layoffs a "last resort."  SiriusXM: 475 rolesJennifer Witz, CEO of SiriusXM said the company was cutting 475 roles on March 6.Cindy Ord / Staff/ Getty ImagesThe radio company said March 6th that it was cutting 8% of its staff or 475 roles according to a statement posted on the company's website from CEO Jennifer Witz.In the statement, Witz said "nearly every department" across the company will be impacted. She also noted that those impacted will be contacted directly and will have the opportunity to speak with a leader from their department as well as a member of the company's People + Culture team. Impacted employees will also be provided with exit packages that include severance, transitional health insurance benefits, Employee Advocacy Program continuation, and outplacement services, Witz noted.Citigroup: hundreds of jobsCiti CEO Jane FraserPatrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty ImagesCiti plans to cut hundreds of jobs, with many focused on the company's investment bank division. The total headcount cut will reportedly amount to less than 1% of Citi's more than 240,000 workers and are part of Citi's normal course of activities.Citi's cuts were first reported by Bloomberg. In January, Citi's CFO told investors the company remained "focused on simplifying the organization, and we expect to generate further opportunities for expense reduction in the future."Citi declined Insider's request to provide comment on the record. Waymo: reported 209 roles so farWaymo's co-CEOs Tekedra N. Mawakana and Dmitri Dolgov reportedly told employees that 8% of the unit's staff has been cut this year.Peter Prado/Insider; Vaughn Ridley/Sportsfile via Getty ImagesAlphabet's self-driving car unit Waymo has reportedly laid off a total of 209 employees this year in two rounds of cuts, according to The Information. Waymo reportedly laid off 137 employees on March 1, according to The Information. Waymo's co-CEOs Tekedra N. Mawakana and Dmitri Dolgov reportedly told employees that 209 employees— approximately 8% of the company's staff— have been cut this year, according to an internal email seen by The Information.Waymo did confirm the cuts to Insider but did not specify the number of roles impacted or the date the first round of cuts ocurred.  Thoughtworks: reported 500 employeesThoughtworks laid off 500 employees on February 28. That day, CEO Guo Xiao said in the company's earnings release that it was "pleased" with its performance in the fourth quarter of 2022.Screenshot of Guo Xiao from the Thoughtworks website.Thoughtworks, a software consultancy firm, reportedly laid off 500 employees or 4% of its global workforce, according to TechCrunch. TechCrunch noted that the company "did not dispute" the figure when reached for comment on March 1. According to TechCrunch, Thoughtworks "initially informed" the affected employees about the decision on February 28. That same day, Thoughtworks reported that its revenue had increased 8.3% between the fourth quarter of 2022 and the fourth quarter of 2021. The company also reported a more than 21% year over year revenue increase for 2022. In the company's earnings release, Thoughtworks' CEO Guo Xiao said, "We are pleased with our performance in the fourth quarter and our clients continue to look to us to help them navigate these uncertain times and tackle their biggest technology challenges."General Motors: reported 500 salaried jobsGM CEO Mary Barra.Patrick T. Fallon/Getty ImagesGeneral Motors plans to cut 500 executive-level and salaried positions, according to a report from The Detroit News. The layoffs come only one month after CEO Mary Barra told investors and reporters on the company's earnings call, "I do want to be clear that we're not planning layoffs." In a memo to employees, seen by Insider, GM's chief people officer wrote, "we are looking at all the ways of addressing efficiency and performance. This week we are taking action with a relatively small number of global executives and classified employees following our most recent performance calibration." Employees who are getting laid off were informed on Feb. 28. General Motors confirmed the layoffs to Insider but did not confirm a specific number of employees getting cut. Twitter: about 200 employeesElon Musk is Twitter's CEO and ownerREUTERS/Jonathan ErnstThe layoffs reportedly haven't stopped at Twitter under Elon Musk. The social media company reportedly laid off 200 more employees on a Saturday night in late February, according to the New York Times. Some workers reportedly found out they had lost their jobs when they couldn't log into their company emails.Musk laid off 50% of Twitter's workforce in November after buying the company for $44 billion. Yahoo: 20% of employeesSOPA Images / Getty ImagesYahoo announced it will eliminate 20% of its staff, or more than 1,600 people, as part of an effort to restructure the company's advertising technology arm, Axios reported on February 9.Yahoo CEO Jim Lanzone told Axios that the cuts are part of a strategic overhaul of its advertising unit and will be  "tremendously beneficial for the profitability of Yahoo overall."    Disney: 7,000 jobsBob Iger, CEO of DisneyCharley Gallay/Stringer/Getty ImagesFresh off his return as Disney CEO, Bob Iger announced February 8 that Disney will slash 7,000 jobs as the company looks to reduce costs. Iger, who returned to the position in November 2022 to replace his successor Bob Chapek after first leaving in 2020, told investors the cuts are part of an effort to help save an estimated $5.5 billion. "While this is necessary to address the challenges we are facing today, I do not make this decision lightly," Iger said. "I have enormous respect and appreciation for the talent and dedication of our employees worldwide and I am mindful of the personal impact of these changes."DocuSign: 10%Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty ImagesDocuSign plans to slash 10% of employees as part of a restructuring plan "designed to support the company's growth, scale, and profitability objectives," the electronic signature company wrote in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Feb. 16. The company said the restructuring plan is expected to be complete by the second quarter of fiscal 2024, per the filing. Affirm: 19% of its workforceAffirm co-founder and CEO Max LevchinAffirmAffirm announced on February 8 it plans to slash 19% of its workforce, after reporting declining sales that missed Wall Street expectations. Affirm co-founder and CEO Max Levchin said in a call with investors that the technology company "has taken appropriate action" in many areas of the business to navigate economic headwinds, including creating a "smaller, therefore, nimbler team.""I believe this is the right decision as we have hired a larger team that we can sustainably support in today's economic reality, but I am truly sorry to see many of our talented colleagues depart and we'll be forever grateful for their contributions to our mission," he said.  GoDaddy: 8% of workersGoDaddy's CEO Aman Bhutani in September 2019Don Feria/Invision/AP ImagesGoDaddy, the website domain company, announced on February 8 it will cut 8% of its global workforce. "Despite increasingly challenging macroeconomic conditions, we made progress on our 2022 strategic initiatives and continued our efforts to manage costs effectively," GoDaddy CEO Aman Bhutani wrote in an email to staffers."The discipline we embraced was important but, unfortunately, it was not sufficient to avoid the impacts of slower growth in a prolonged, uncertain macroeconomic environment."Zoom: 15% of staffZoom CEO Eric Yuan.AP Photo/Mark LennihanZoom CEO Eric Yuan announced in a memo to workers that the company would reduce its headcount by 15%, or about 1,300 employees, on February 7. He attributed the layoffs to "the uncertainty of the global economy and its effect on our customers" but also said the company "made mistakes" as it grew. "We didn't take as much time as we should have to thoroughly analyze our teams or assess if we were growing sustainably toward the highest priorities," Yuan said. In the memo, Yuan also announced that he would cut his salary by 98% in 2023 and forgo his corporate bonus. In addition, other members of the executive leadership team will also reduce their base salaries by 20% this year, according to Yuan. eBay: 500 jobseBay CEO Jamie Iannone told employees Tuesday that the company would be eliminating 500 roles.Harry Murphy/Sportsfile for Web Summit via Getty ImagesOn Tuesday, e-commerce giant eBay told employees that it would be eliminating 500 roles, or about 4% of its workforce, according to a message included in a regulatory filing on Tuesday. In the message, CEO Jamie Iannone wrote "Today's actions are designed to strengthen our ability to deliver better end-to-end experiences for our customers and to support more innovation and scale across our platform."He added, "this shift gives us additional space to invest and create new roles in high-potential areas — new technologies, customer innovations and key markets — and to continue to adapt and flex with the changing macro, ecommerce and technology landscape." Dell: 5% of workforceDell is eliminating approximately 5% of its workforce. The company's co-chief operating officer Jeff Clarke told employees in a memo, "market conditions continue to erode with an uncertain future."Kevork Djansezian / Staff/Getty ImagesOn February 6, Dell said in a regulatory filing that it would be eliminating about 5% of its workforce. The percentage amounts to approximately 6,650 roles based on numbers that Dell provided Insider. In a memo sent to employees posted on Dell's website, co-chief operating officer Jeff Clarke, said "market conditions continue to erode with an uncertain future." He also noted in the memo that the company had paused hiring, limited employee traveling, and decreased spending on outside services. He added, however, "the steps we've taken to stay ahead of downturn impacts – which enabled several strong quarters in a row – are no longer enough."Pinterest: 150 jobsBen Silbermann is the founder and executive chair of Pinterest. He was the company's CEO until June 2022.Horacio Villalobos/Getty ImagesPinterest said it would cut 150 workers, or less than 5% of its workforce, on February 1, the company confirmed to Insider.  "We're making organizational changes to further set us up to deliver against our company priorities and our long-term strategy," a company representative said.The social media company was recently the target of activist investor Elliott Management, agreeing to add one of the firm's representatives to its board last month.   Rivian: 6% of jobsRivian CEO RJ Scaringe.Carlos Delgado/Associated PressRivian's CEO RJ Scaringe announced the EV company would cut 6% of its workforce in a memo to employees, the company confirmed to Insider. This is the company's second round of job cuts in the last 6 months after Scaringe announced a separate 6% workforce reduction in July 2022. In his memo to staff, Scaringe said Rivian needs to focus its resources on ramping up production and reaching profitability. BDG Media: 8% of staffScreengrab of Gawker's homepageGawkerBDG Media announced on February 1 that it was shutting down pop-culture site Gawker and laying off 8% of its staff, according to Axios. BDG owns Bustle, Elite Daily, and other lifestyle and news websites. "After experiencing a financially strong 2022, we have found ourselves facing a surprisingly difficult Q1 of 2023," CEO Bryan Goldberg wrote in a memo to staff seen by Axios. Splunk: 325 jobsGary Steele took over as Splunk's CEO in April 2022.YouTube/ProofpointSoftware and data platform Splunk is the latest in a long list of tech companies to announce layoffs in recent months. On February 1, the company said it would lay off 4% of its staff and scale back the use of consultants to cut costs, according to a filing viewed by Insider. The layoffs will reportedly be focused on workers in North America, and CEO Gary Steele told employees Splunk would continue to hire in "lower-cost areas."Intel: 343 jobsIntel CEO Pat Gelsinger.Pool Eric Lalmand/Getty ImagesIntel notified California officials per WARN Act requirements it plans to layoff 343 workers from its Folsom campus, local outlets reported on January 30. "These are difficult decisions, and we are committed to treating impacted employees with dignity and respect," Intel said in a statement to KCRA 3, noting that the cost-cutting comes as the company is faces a "challenging macro-economic environment." On February 1, the company announced CEO Pat Gelsinger will take a 25% pay cut, while other members of the executive team will take salary reductions in amounts ranging from 5% to 15%.  FedEx: more than 10% of top managersFedEx workers in New York City on March 16, 2021.Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty ImagesFedEx informed staffers on February 1 it plans to slash more than 10% of top managers in an effort to reduce costs.  "This process is critical to ensure we remain competitive in a rapidly changing environment, and it requires some difficult decisions," CEO Raj Subramaniam wrote in a letter to staff, which was shared with Insider's Emma Cosgrove. While the exact number of employees impacted was not specified, a FedEx spokesperson told Insider that since June 2022 the company has reduced its workforce by more than 12,000 staffers through "headcount management initiatives." "We will continue responsible headcount management throughout our transformation," the spokesperson said. PayPal: 7% of total workforceDan Schulman, president and CEO of PayPal announced that the company would be cutting 7% of its total workforce on January 31.PaypalPayPal announced on January 31 that it plans to cut 2,000 workers or approximately 7% of the company's total workforce over the coming weeks. In a statement announcing the layoffs on PayPal's website, CEO and president Dan Schulman cited the "challenging macro-economic environment." He added, "While we have made substantial progress in right-sizing our cost structure, and focused our resources on our core strategic priorities, we have more work to do."HubSpot: 7% of staffYamini Rangan is HubSpot's CEO.Matt Winkelmeyer/ Getty ImagesHubSpot's CEO Yamini Rangan announced that the company would lay off 500 workers, according to an email seen by Insider. "We came into 2022 anticipating growth would slow down from 2021, but we experienced a faster deceleration than we expected. The year was challenging due to a perfect storm of inflation, volatile foreign exchange, tighter customer budgets, and longer decision making cycles," Rangan wrote to employees. IBM: 1.5% of staffIBM's CEO Arvind KrishnaBrian Ach / Stringer / Via GettyIBM plans would cut 1.5% of its staff, roughly 3,900 workers. The layoffs were first reported by Bloomberg but confirmed by Insider.The company said the cuts would cost IBM about $300 million and is related entirely to businesses the company has spun off. Bloomberg reports that CFO James Kavanaugh said the company is still hiring in "higher-growth areas." Hasbro: 15% of workersA Jenga game by Hasbro Gaming.Thomson ReutersHasbro reportedly plans to cut 1,000 workers after warning that the 2022 holiday season was weaker than expected, according to the toy and game company. The company said the layoffs come as it seeks to save between $250 million to $300 million per year by the end of 2025. "While the full-year 2022, and particularly the fourth quarter, represented a challenging moment for Hasbro, we are confident in our Blueprint 2.0 strategy, unveiled in October, which includes a focus on fewer, bigger brands; gaming; digital; and our rapidly growing direct to consumer and licensing businesses," Chris Cocks, Hasbro's CEO said. Dow: 2,000 global employeesThe Dow Chemical logo is shown on a building in downtown Midland, home of the Dow Chemical Company corporate headquarters, December 10th, 2015 in Midland, MichiganBill Pugliano/Getty ImagesDow Inc. announced on January 26 that it will lay off 2,000 global employees, a move that indicates mass layoffs are spreading beyond just the technology sector, the Wall Street Journal reported. It's part of a $1 billion cost-cutting effort intended to help amid "challenging energy markets," Dow CEO Jim Fitterling said in a press release. The chemical company also  will shut down select assets, mostly in Europe, per the release."We are taking these actions to further optimize our cost structure and prioritize business operations toward our most competitive, cost-advantaged and growth-oriented markets, while also navigating macro uncertainties and challenging energy markets, particularly in Europe," Fittlering said.   SAP: Up to 3,000 positionsSAP CEO Christian KleinULI DECK/POOL/AFP via Getty ImagesSoftware company SAP said on January 26 it will slash up to 3,000 jobs globally in response to a profit slump, with many of the cuts coming outside of its headquarters in Berlin, the Wall Street Journal reported.  The layoffs will impact an estimated 2.5% of the company's workforce and are part of a cost-cutting initiative aiming at reaching an annual savings of $382 million in 2024, according to the Journal. "The purpose is to further focus on strategic growth areas," said Luka Mucic, SAP's chief financial officer, per the Journal.   Spotify: 6% of the workforceDaniel Ek, Spotify cofounder and CEOGreg Sandoval/Business InsiderIn a memo to Spotify employees, CEO Daniel Ek said the company would cut 6% of its staff, about 600 people. "While we have made great progress in improving speed in the last few years, we haven't focused as much on improving efficiency. We still spend far too much time syncing on slightly different strategies, which slows us down. And in a challenging economic environment, efficiency takes on greater importance. So, in an effort to drive more efficiency, control costs, and speed up decision-making, I have decided to restructure our organization," he wrote. As part of the changes, Dawn Ostroff, the company's chief content and advertising officer, who spent more than $1 billion signing exclusive podcast deals with Joe Rogan, the Obamas, and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, has departed. 3M: 2,500 jobs cut3M3M, which makes Post-It notes, Scotch tape, and N95 masks, said it plans to cut 2,500 manufacturing jobs worldwide. CEO Mike Roman called it "a necessary decision to align with adjusted production volumes." "We expect macroeconomic challenges to persist in 2023. Our focus is executing the actions we initiated in 2022 and delivering the best performance for customers and shareholders," he said in a press release. Google: around 12,000 employeesBrandon Wade/ReutersSundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet, informed staffers on January 20 that the company will lay off 12,000 employees, or 6% of its global workforce. In a memo sent to employees and obtained by Insider, Pichai said the layoffs will "cut across Alphabet, product areas, functions, levels and regions" and were decided upon after a "rigorous review." Pichai said the company will hold a townhall meeting to further discuss the cuts, adding he took "full responsibility for the decisions that led us here" "Over the past two years we've seen periods of dramatic growth," Pichai wrote in the email. "To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today." Vox: 7% of staffThe layoffs were reportedly announced in a memo from CEO Jim Bankoff.Vox MediaVox Media, the parent company of publications like Vox, The Verge, New York magazine, and Vulture, is laying off roughly 133 people, or 7% of its staff, according to a report by Axios. The cuts come just a few months after the media company laid off 39 roles in July. The decision was reportedly announced in a note to staff from CEO Jim Bankoff, who wrote that while the company is "not expecting further layoffs at this time, we will continue to assess our outlook, keep a tight control on expenses and consider implementing other cost savings measures as needed," according to Axios.Vox Media's layoffs come at a time when advertisers are tightening their belts in anticipation of an economic slowdown, taking a toll on the media industry. Capital One: more than 1,100 tech workersBrian Ach/AP ImagesCapital One slashed 1,100 technology positions on January 18, a company spokesperson told Insider. The cuts impacted workers in the "Agile job family," a department which was eliminated and its responsibilities integrated into "existing engineering and product manager roles," per the spokesperson. "Decisions that affect our associates, especially those that involve role eliminations, are incredibly difficult," the Capital One spokesperson said in the statement. "This announcement is not a reflection on these individuals or the work they have driven on behalf of our technology organization," the spokesperson continued. "Their contributions have been critical to maturing our software delivery model and our overall tech transformation."The eliminations came after the bank had invested heavily in tech efforts in recent years, including launching a new software business focused on cloud computing in June 2022. "This decision was made solely to meet the evolving skills and process enhancements needed to deliver on the next phase of our tech transformation," the spokesperson said.  WeWork: About 300 employeesReutersWeWork announced on January 19 it will cut about 300 positions as it scales back on coworking spaces in low-performing regions, Reuters reported. The layoffs come after the company said in November 2022 it planned to exit 40 locations in the US as part of a larger cost-cutting effort. The company announced the cuts in a press release listing its fourth-quarter earnings call date, stating only the reductions are "in connection with its portfolio optimization and in continuing to streamline operations."  Wayfair: more than 1,000 employeesPavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesWayfair is expected to lay off more than 1,000 employees, about 5% of its workforce, in the coming weeks in response to slumping sales, the Wall Street Journal reported on January 19.The cuts mark the second round of layoffs in six months for the online furniture and home goods company, after it nixed 900 staffers in August 2022. Though the company experienced significant growth during the pandemic-driven home improvement boom, sales began to stagnate as social distancing policies loosened and Americans began returning to offices."We were seeing the tailwinds of the pandemic accelerate the adoption of e-commerce shopping, and I personally pushed hard to hire a strong team to support that growth. This year, that growth has not materialized as we had anticipated," Wayfair CEO Niraj Shah wrote in a letter to employees announcing the August 2022 layoffs, per CNN. In its most recent quarter, the Wayfair reported that net revenue decreased by $281 million, down 9% from the same period the year prior.  Microsoft: 10,000 workersMicrosoft CEO Satya NadellaStephen Brashear/Getty ImagesMicrosoft announced on January 18 that it planned to reduce its workforce by 10,000 jobs by the end of the third quarter of this year. CEO Satya Nadella attributed the layoffs to customers cutting back in anticipation of a recession. However, Nadella also told workers that the company still plans to grow in some areas, despite the firings, writing that the company will "continue to hire in key strategic areas." Microsoft's layoff announcement comes as the tech giant is reportedly in talks to invest $10 billion in OpenAI, which created the AI chatbot ChatGPT. On February 13, the company laid off staff at LinkedIn—which it acquired in 2016— according to The Information. The cuts were in the recruiting department, though the total number laid off is not immediately clear, The Information 20% of CEO Kris announced on January 13 that it would let go of a fifth of its workforce amid a sagging crypto market and fallout from FTX's collapse. This is the second major round of firings for, which also had layoffs in July. "The reductions we made last July positioned us to weather the macro economic downturn, but it did not account for the recent collapse of FTX, which significantly damaged trust in the industry. It's for this reason, as we continue to focus on prudent financial management, we made the difficult but necessary decision to make additional reductions in order to position the company for long-term success," CEO Kris Marszalek wrote in a memo to employees. BlackRock: up to 3% of global workforceBlackRock CEO Larry FinkSpencer Platt/Getty ImagesBlackRock is cutting up to 500 roles in its first round of firings since 2019. Staff members were notified on January 11 about whether they were laid off. "Taking a targeted and disciplined approach to how we shape our teams, we will adapt our workforce to align even more closely with our strategic priorities and create opportunities for the immense talent inside the firm to develop and prosper," CEO Larry Fink and President Rob Kapito wrote in a memo to employees. Goldman Sachs: an estimated 6.5% of its global workforceGoldman Sachs is laying off an expected 3,200 employees.Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesGoldman Sachs began laying off employees on Jan. 11, with cuts expected to impact an estimated 6.5% of the company's global workforce — or roughly 3,200 staffers — a source told Insider. The company previously slashed roles on its media and tech teams in September 2022, and it was expected to issue further reductions in the first half of January. The cost-cutting efforts from the investment banking giant mirror reductions from competitors including Morgan Stanley and Citi, which also laid off employees in 2022. "We continue to see headwinds on our expense lines, particularly in the near term," Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said at a conference in December. "We've set in motion certain expense mitigation plans, but it will take some time to realize the benefits. Ultimately, we will remain nimble and we will size the firm to reflect the opportunity set."   BNY Mellon: 1,500 jobsBNY Mellon CEO Robin VinceBNY MellonBNY Mellon is planning to cut approximately 3% of its workforce, or 1,500 jobs, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter. The cuts will be primarily aimed at talent management roles, according to the report. BNY Mellon will reportedly plan to invest more in junior staff. Verily (part of Alphabet): reportedly 15% of workersAlphabet CEO Sundar PichaiJerod Harris/Getty ImagesVerily, which is Alphabet's healthcare unit, is laying off more than 200 employees, according to an email seen by the Wall Street Journal. The Journal reports that the company will also scale down the number of projects it works on in an effort to cut costs."We are making changes that refine our strategy, prioritize our product portfolio and simplify our operating model," Verily's CEO, Stephen Gillet, wrote in the email, according to the Journal.This is the first significant layoff done by Google's parent company, which had so far avoided the massive waves of job cuts done by other big tech giants like Amazon and Meta. DirecTV: 10% of management staffDirecTV.Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty ImagesDirecTV employees were told in the first week of January that the company would lay off several hundred workers in management roles.The satellite TV business has faced slowing revenues as more people choose to cut the cord and pay for streaming services over cable TV. "The entire pay-TV industry is impacted by the secular decline and the increasing rates to secure and distribute programming. We're adjusting our operations costs to align with these changes and will continue to invest in new entertainment products and service enhancements," a spokesperson for DirecTV told Insider. Coinbase: 950 workersCEO Brian Armstrong cited the downward trend in cryptocurrency prices and the broader economy as reasons for the layoffs.Patrick Fallon/Getty ImagesCoinbase announced on Tuesday, Jan. 10, that would lay off another 20% of its staff. The cuts came after the crypto company laid off over 1,000 employees in July. In a memo to employees, CEO Brian Armstrong said, "in hindsight, we could have cut further at that time," referencing the layoffs in July. Armstrong partially attributed the company's weakness to the "fallout from unscrupulous actors in the industry," likely referencing the alleged fraud that took place at FTX late last year under then-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Armstrong predicted "there could still be further contagion" from FTX in the crypto markets but assured remaining employees that Coinbase is well capitalized. Amazon: 18,000 employeesAmazon CEO Andy Jassy initially announced the company's latest round of layoffs in November.AmazonAmazon is in the midst of the most significant round of layoffs in the company's history. In a memo to employees, CEO Andy Jassy said the company would cut more than 18,000 workers in total — far more than what was initially expected based on reporting by the New York Times. Jassy cited "the uncertain economy" and rapid hiring as reasons for the layoffs. While most of Amazon's 1.5 million staff have warehouse jobs, the layoffs are concentrated in Amazon's corporate groups. Amazon's layoffs began late last year, though the Wall Street Journal reports cuts will continue through the first few weeks of 2023.Amazon's 18,000 jobs cuts are the largest of any major tech company amid the wave of recent layoffs.  Salesforce: 10% of its staffSalesforce said in the first month of 2023 that it would enact big job cuts.Noam Galai/Getty ImagesSalesforce co-CEO Marc Benioff announced on Jan. 4 that the software company plans to layoff 10% of its workforce — an estimated 7,000 employees — and close select offices as part of a restructuring and cost-cutting plan. "The environment remains challenging and our customers are taking a more measured approach to their purchasing decisions," Benioff wrote in an email to staff. "With this in mind, we've made the very difficult decision to reduce our workforce by about 10 percent, mostly over the coming weeks."He continued: "As our revenue accelerated through the pandemic, we hired too many people leading into this economic downturn we're now facing, and I take responsibility for that."Everlane: 17% of corporate employeesEverlane founder and executive chair Michael Preysman.Lars Ronbog/Getty Images for Copenhagen Fashion SummitEverlane is slashing 17% of its 175-person corporate workforce, and 3% of its retail staff."We know there will be some bumpiness over the next few weeks as we navigate a lot of change at once. We ask for your patience as we do right by our departing team members," CEO Andrea O'Donnell wrote to employees, according to an internal memo seen by Insider. In a statement to Insider, a company spokesperson said the decision was intended to "improve profitability in 2023 and continue our efforts to help leave the fashion industry cleaner than we found it."The e-commerce clothing company previously laid off nearly 300 workers, mostly in retail in March 2020 amid the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.Vimeo: 11% of its workforceAnjali Sud, CEO of Vimeo, speaks during the company's direct listing on Nasdaq, Tuesday, May 25, 2021, in New York.AP Photo/Mark LennihanVimeo CEO Anjali Sud told employees on Jan. 4 that the company would layoff 11% of its staff, the video platform's second major round of layoffs in less than a year, after cutting 6% of employees in July"This was a very hard decision that impacts each of us deeply," Sud wrote in an email to staff. "It is also the right thing to do to enable Vimeo to be a more focused and successful company, operating with the necessary discipline in an uncertain economic environment."A spokesperson told Insider reduction is intended to assist with ongoing economic concerns and improve the company's balance sheet. Compass: size of layoffs not immediately disclosedCompass is letting go of more employees after two rounds of layoffs in the past eight months.CompassCompass CEO Robert Reffkin told staffers on Jan. 5 it would conduct more layoffs, following two previous rounds in the past eight months, as the brokerage continues to struggle with significant financial losses. "We've been focused over the last year on controlling our costs," Reffkin wrote in an email to employees. "As part of that work, today we reduced the size of some of our employee teams. While decisions like these are always hard, they are prudent and allow us to continue to build a long-term, successful business for all of you."While the size of the layoffs was not immediately disclosed, the brokerage let go of 450 corporate employees in June 2022, followed by an additional 750 people from its technology team in October 2022.   Stitch Fix: 20% of salaried jobsStitch Fix is laying off salaried employees.SOPA ImagesStitch Fix announced on Jan. 5 that it plans to slash 20% of its salaried workforce, the Wall Street Journal reported.The cuts come in tandem with the announcement that CEO Elizabeth Spaulding is stepping down, after less than 18 months at the helm of the struggling retail company."First as president and then as CEO, it has been a privilege to lead in an unprecedented time, and to chart the course for the future with the Stitch Fix team," Spaulding said in a statement. "It is now time for a new leader to help support the next phase."Stitch Fix founder Katrina Lake — who formerly served as chief executive and sits on the board of directors — will become interim CEO, the company said in a press release. Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsider8 min. ago

Ron DeSantis is staying silent amid a push from MAGAworld for him to say or do something about a possible Trump indictment

Right-wing figures want DeSantis to shield Trump from an indictment, and claim the governor will be on the wrong side of history if he doesn't. Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.Getty Images As MAGAworld rages about rumors that Donald Trump will be indicted, Ron DeSantis has stayed quiet. He's now facing growing calls to defend the former president, who lives in Florida. Still, it's unlikely that DeSantis can fully block Trump's extradition from the state. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is facing immense pressure from the far-right wings of MAGAworld to help former President Donald Trump evade a potential indictment in New York. Trump on Saturday claimed without substantiation that he may get arrested on Tuesday. With that announcement came pressure on DeSantis from Trump-loving conservatives, who want the governor to defend Trump against the Manhattan district attorney's investigation. DeSantis, who's expected to run against Trump for president in 2024, has stayed mum. But DeSantis' predictable silence has given MAGAworld figures the opportunity to condemn him.Jason Miller — a longtime Trump advisor — highlighted DeSantis' lack of response on Sunday, while praising former Vice President Mike Pence for criticizing the Manhattan district attorney's investigation."Radio silence from Gov. @RonDeSantisFL and Amb. @NikkiHaley," tweeted Miller, who's also the founder of right-wing social network Gettr.Donald Trump Jr., Trump's oldest son, didn't name DeSantis, but wrote on Sunday that people will remember the difference between Republicans who spoke up for Trump "immediately" and those who "sat on their hands and waited to see which way the wind was blowing." —Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) March 19, 2023 Also on Sunday, far-right political activist Jack Posobiec tweeted: "It takes 10 seconds to send a tweet 'This prosecution of President Trump is a farce and does grave damage to our republic.'" Posobiec told The New York Times that he was "taking receipts on everyone" who hasn't blasted a potential Trump indictment."For DeSantis to make that post yesterday, talking about the Hurricane Ian response and nothing from the personal account whatsoever about the arrest — it was a message that was received," Posobiec told The Times.Michael Cernovich, a right-wing political commentator, tweeted that DeSantis was making his "first unforced error by not denouncing this lawless act."Far-right influencer Stew Peters tweeted that DeSantis should send the Florida National Guard to protect the former president at the Mar-a-Lago resort. Peters was echoing calls from fringe factions of MAGA world for people to form a "patriot moat" around Mar-a-Lago to prevent Trump's arrest."Anything less proves DeSantis is a fraud," wrote Peters on Sunday.DeSantis can't do much to help Trump — assuming he wants toIt's unlikely that DeSantis has any avenues to stop Trump's extradition even if he wants to, legal experts told Insider's Jacob Shamsian. But the governor could delay extradition for up to 60 days by asking for a review of the indictment, they said.Meanwhile, Trump announced on Saturday that he expects to turn himself in on Tuesday, though his defense team hasn't received confirmation of whether he'll be indicted.Once allies with DeSantis, Trump has over the last year increasingly launched personal attacks at the governor. He's been debuting insulting labels and nicknames for DeSantis, such as "Ron DeSanctimonious" and a "RINO Globalist."To add further animosity between the pair, a pro-Trump PAC on Wednesday filed an ethics violation complaint against DeSantis, accusing him of "leveraging his elected office" in Florida to bolster his national profile.DeSantis has avoided launching direct barbs at Trump, telling people in November to "chill out" about the former president's feud with him. But he's privately been rallying allies and building his war chest for a potential 2024 White House run, the announcement of which would put him openly at odds with Trump.Representatives for DeSantis and Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment sent after business hours.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Category: topSource: businessinsider10 hr. 9 min. ago

Twitter now automatically responds to all press emails with a single poop emoji, months after laying off its communications team

The latest change to Elon Musk's Twitter comes after it was reported that nearly the entire communications department was fired after his takeover......»»

Category: worldSource: nyt18 hr. 53 min. ago

Leftist Parents Flee Florida As Gender Treatments For Children Made Illegal

Leftist Parents Flee Florida As Gender Treatments For Children Made Illegal It really is a brilliant strategy on the part of conservative states.  As the political left goes further into ideological extremism they become more and more intolerant of restrictions on their behavior, which they view as righteous and sacrosanct.  Zealotry breeds brittleness, meaning, any enforcement of practical and reasonable standards, even those protecting children, will drive leftists insane and make them want to leave. The more socially normal a state becomes the less leftists want to live there, and there are a lot of states that would be much happier without them.  Until recently, many state legislators and governors have been too afraid or too uninformed to take action against the invasion of deconstruction philosophies, but this is changing. Florida has joined seven other states so far in officially outlawing "gender affirmation treatments" for minors, including hormone blockers and surgeries that could disrupt the natural biological processes of those children for the rest of their lives.  Trans activists have admonished the laws as prejudiced and a violation of their rights, claiming that the treatments are "safe and reversible."  However, scientists in the field admit that data on the long term consequences of hormone replacement and other therapies is far too limited to say for certain.  In other words, the newest generation of children have become guinea pigs for a baseless experiment in mass de-gendering. Red states want nothing to do with it, and leftist parents who gain considerable virtue signal points for having a trans child are so incensed that they are ready to leave for more woke shores.  If they can't exploit their children to climb the victim status ladder, then they are taking their ball and going somewhere else.      The common argument among tans activist groups is that gender affirmation treatments "save lives."  As noted, there is no long term data to support this claim.  Beyond their appeals to emotion, activists can't offer any scientific evidence supporting gender fluid theories.  There are many people who would in fact oppose the notion that "trans children" even exist, with far too many factors at play including peer pressure, parental manipulation and school indoctrination.    Politically, the leftist ability to impose hormone therapies and gender based surgeries on children would ostensibly lock those children into the woke fold for the rest of their lives.  Take that ability away and the social justice movement loses a primary tool for perpetuating their ideology on the next generation.  The effort to protect kids from gender cultism is indirectly driving further separation of normal Americans from woke leftists, and maybe that's a good thing.  Tyler Durden Sun, 03/19/2023 - 16:00.....»»

Category: worldSource: nyt19 hr. 25 min. ago

Stoltenberg Vows Sweden "Will Soon" Join NATO Despite Turkish Rejection

Stoltenberg Vows Sweden 'Will Soon' Join NATO Despite Turkish Rejection NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was quick to hail and celebrate the Friday announcement by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan that his country will ratify Finland's application to join NATO.  The NATO chief told Reuters that it is a "a good day for everyone that believes in NATO enlargement." He said, "Finnish membership will strengthen NATO, it will strengthen Finnish security. It will also strengthen Swedish security." Image: Anadolu Agency But despite the two Nordic countries previously pledging to enter the alliance "hand in hand", it became clear after Erdogan's remarks that Sweden will remained sidelined. Hungary is the only other country which has also remained a holdout, refusing thus far to take action on ratification. But Stoltenberg said that Erdogan is still willing to continue consultations on potential Swedish membership. "I'm confident also that Sweden will join soon, and I will work hard for that," he said. Erdogan had announced following a meeting with his Finnish counterpart."We have decided to start the protocol of Finland's accession to NATO in our parliament." Concerning Sweden, Erdogan commented that his country submitted a list of 120 "terrorists" to Stockholm, but complained that not a single one of them has been extradited. Sweden's membership bid is expected to continue to stall, after deteriorating relations with Turkey in the wake of the Quran-burning incident by a far-right activist. Turkey has also demanded Swedish authorities crackdown on Kurdish political groups and operatives while alleging that Stockholm has hosted "terrorists" on its soil. NATO member map from from 2016: Montenegro joined in 2017 and North Macedonia joined in 2020. Source: Finland is at the same time building a 200km fence along its border with Russia to boost security, also after reporting that Russian men fled across the border by the droves in order to escape conscription. The fence will reportedly be 10 feet high and topped with barbed wire. Tyler Durden Sun, 03/19/2023 - 08:45.....»»

Category: personnelSource: nytMar 19th, 2023