ReportWire

Tag: Finance

  • I grew my business with no outside funding. Bootstrappers have an advantage over VC-backed startups—especially now

    I grew my business with no outside funding. Bootstrappers have an advantage over VC-backed startups—especially now

    [ad_1]

    Theranos is the telltale story of when VC funding goes awry. The company, which claimed it developed a revolutionary blood-testing technology, raised roughly $724 million from investors. It was valued at $9 billion before it imploded because of a fatal flaw in the company—its product didn’t work. It was all hype, no real value. Even when VC-backed founders aren’t fraudulent, there’s a tendency to prioritize funding and scaling to the detriment of the product. 

    I founded my company Jotform over 18 years ago. With no outside funding, it’s been a slow climb at times, but today, we have over 25 million users worldwide. I learned a lot about bootstrapping and how it creates the right mix of pressure, thrift, and creativity for developing great, profitable products. Here’s a closer look at why VC funding can cause startups to make bad products.   

    Where VC funding goes awry

    People often assume “small business” and “startup” are interchangeable. But ask any founder and they’ll likely tell you their ambitions are huge. Bootstrappers are no different. In fact, according to a recent report from startup lender Capchase, bootstrapped software-as-a-service businesses are growing just as fast as their venture-backed counterparts—despite spending only a quarter of what VC-backed businesses do on acquiring each new customer.

    What’s more, studies show that 64% of the top 100 unicorn startups—those valued at over $1 billion—aren’t profitable at all. 

    As the Capchase report explains, before investing in growth, top-performing startups focus their efforts on nailing the product-market fit. That means finding a match between your product and the people who need it. This, in turn, creates happy customers, high demand, and organic, sustainable growth. A staggering 34% of startups fail because they don’t find the right product-market fit. A brilliant idea doesn’t always cut it.  

    Let’s say you’re a VC-backed startup and you’re not seeing the growth you’d hoped for. Maybe you’ll ramp up spending on sales and marketing campaigns, leaving a shorter runway (the amount of time your business can keep afloat with cash reserves alone). And maybe you’ll achieve the desired effect (customer acquisition), but it’s risky and the long-term return is uncertain. If you’re a bootstrapper, you don’t have that option.

    So, what do you do instead?

    What bootstrappers do differently

    Bootstrapping may sound scrappy, but in many respects, it’s a luxury. As a bootstrapper, you have the luxury of focusing obsessively on your product and answering to no one. 

    When I first founded my company, I loved our initial product, online forms, because I saw its potential to make people’s lives easier. That factor—ease of use—was my principal concern, hence our original tagline “The Easiest Form Builder.” I loved the product so much, and I got so much joy from seeing people using it, that I gave it away for free (while clocking 9-5 at my day job). From February 2006 to March 2007, we didn’t have a paid version of our product. Nonetheless, this was a pivotal period for the company. 

    Why? Because I listened to early users and received invaluable feedback on how they were using our product and how I could improve it. I refined and iterated before I ever released a paid version. Because people genuinely saw the value in our product, we grew our customer base before spending a dime on marketing. 

    If I had investors who required me to meet arbitrary KPIs, I would have been spending my early days mastering PR and sales. I wasn’t an expert in either of those fields, nor did I enjoy them. I’m certain the company wouldn’t have taken off if I’d been forced to focus exclusively on those aspects of the business. 

    Your most important stakeholders

    Today, as a mentor to several founders, I always share my rule of 50-50: spend half your time on the product, and half your time on growth. I also encourage founders to release their most important features as soon as possible so they can get them into users’ hands. Then, they can elicit critical feedback on their product—before even asking people to pay for it. 

    That’s another takeaway: Never stop listening to users—your most important stakeholders. When people are too tied to their product, and ignore whether it meets their users’ needs, they’re bound to fail. Organically growing a business requires letting go of your ego and understanding that even smart products fall flat if they don’t meet a target audience’s specific needs. 

    Another thing that bootstrappers do differently is that they focus their efforts on making an impact. The Capchase report, for example, found that the healthiest businesses don’t spend the most on sales and marketing, but rather, have a “razor-sharp” understanding of which channels and campaigns have the biggest impact and show a quicker return. In the early startup stages, perfecting your product has more of an impact than flashy marketing campaigns. With tighter budgets and smaller teams, bootstrappers tend to apply this way of thinking to everything they do. That’s why I tell entrepreneurs and team members to automate their busywork—to dedicate more time to “the big stuff,” or more meaningful work that moves the needle for your company or career. 

    Recent reports show that in 2024, VC-funding hit a six-year low. This may have sent shudders across the startup landscape, but it shouldn’t. Bootstrapping is a safer, more reliable route. And perhaps most importantly for your company, it creates the optimal environment for developing a better product for your customers.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    [ad_2]

    Aytekin Tank

    Source link

  • The Cannabis Market: Not a ‘Get Rich Quick’ Scheme, But a Serious Business Industry Requiring Expertise – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    The Cannabis Market: Not a ‘Get Rich Quick’ Scheme, But a Serious Business Industry Requiring Expertise – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

    [ad_1]





    The Cannabis Market: Not a ‘Get Rich Quick’ Scheme, But a Serious Business Industry Requiring Expertise – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news




























    skip to Main Content

    [ad_2]

    Derek Ross

    Source link

  • Why Fast Fashion Giant Shein Is Going Public in London Instead of New York

    Why Fast Fashion Giant Shein Is Going Public in London Instead of New York

    [ad_1]

    Shein is now headquartered in Singapore but still has deep Chinese ties. Xavi Torrent/Getty Images for SHEIN

    Shein, the Chinese-founded fast-fashion retailer once valued at $100 billion, is looking to file with U.K. regulators to list an initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange, the Financial Times reported earlier this month. Six months ago, Shein filed paperwork with the U.S. SEC to go public in New York. Pressured by political pushback and regulatory scrutiny around companies with Chinese ties, the e-commerce giant has decided to list elsewhere.

    While Shein is now headquartered in Singapore, it was originally founded by Chinese billionaire Sky Xu in Nanjing, China in 2008 and is still heavily reliant on Chinese suppliers. Upon news of Shein’s potential New York IPO, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, reached out to the SEC to urge it to block the listing unless the company was willing to cough up disclosures about forced labor in its supply chain, ties to the Chinese government and other ethics concerns.

    “The amount of disclosure asked for was above and beyond, and would put a lot of pressure on any company, let alone foreign ones,” Christopher Mora, head of capital markets at Centri Business Consulting, told Observer.

    Since then, Shein has hired Rubio’s former chief to lobby on the company’s behalf in a bid to soften its regulatory risks in the U.S. Shein insists it has “zero tolerance” for the use of forced labor in its supply chain and claims it requires all suppliers to source material from pre-approved origins. However, likely sensing a tough road ahead with U.S. regulators, the company now plans to file a confidential prospectus with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the U.K.’s securities exchange regulator.

    A London listing won’t solve Shein’s headaches

    Rubio has already written to the U.K. chancellor, the British title for their finance minister, urging them to look deeper into Shein’s China ties. Many in the British business and regulatory community have expressed similar concerns.

    Shein’s roots in the world’s second-largest economy is not the only reason for its scrutiny. To ship inventory to the U.S. and U.K., Shein takes advantage of a “de minimis” loophole, created to allow people to bring souvenirs or small-value items into the country without paying import tariffs. Unlike other major retailers, Shein (and Temu) notoriously ship clothes in countless small packages, each less than the threshold to which an import tariff would apply. This controversial approach allows it to skip heavy taxes that domestic retailers don’t get to avoid, making it hard for them to compete.

    However, the U.K. may not have the luxury to complain. At a $64 billion valuation currently, Shein’s IPO would be larger than every London Stock Exchange listing since 2018, combined. This is even after Shein’s valuation was cut down from the $90 billion it was targeting when filing to go public in New York. The London Stock Exchange is a lot smaller than its New York counterpart. It has a total size of around $3 trillion, approximately the size of Microsoft, just one of the several trillion-dollar companies listed publicly in the U.S. Amidst ongoing elections, Shein has won the support of the U.K. Labour Party leaders, who are predicted by pollsters to come into power after the election.

    Why Fast Fashion Giant Shein Is Going Public in London Instead of New York

    [ad_2]

    Shreyas Sinha

    Source link

  • Why is the global supply chain so fragile and how can it be fixed?

    Why is the global supply chain so fragile and how can it be fixed?

    [ad_1]

    Why is the global supply chain so fragile and how can it be fixed? – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The COVID-19 pandemic dislodged the global supply chain, but the vulnerabilities in the system had already been building up for decades. A new book titled “How the World Ran Out of Everything” examines how the health crisis exposed the fragility of a system that was always at risk of collapse. Author Peter Goodman joins to discuss.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Roaring Kitty Is Playing With Fire

    Roaring Kitty Is Playing With Fire

    [ad_1]

    Gill did not face charges then, but this time could be different. The securities regulator for the state of Massachusetts has confirmed it is looking into Gill’s recent conduct, without providing specifics. It would appear that Gill is aware of the risk of provoking an SEC investigation. On May 16 he posted a clip of a CNBC interview in which Jay Clayton, former SEC chair, expressed the view that his conduct should not be tolerated. The SEC declined to comment on the existence of an investigation.

    At the start of Gill’s YouTube livestream, a long disclaimer scrolled up the screen like the Star Wars opening crawl. “You should not treat any opinion expressed on this Youtube [sic] channel as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy,” it read. As Gill bantered with his YouTube viewers—all 600,000 of them—the price of GameStop stock briefly rose. “Shit, look at this. It’s going up,” he said. “Do I have to be careful what I say here? I don’t really know.”

    It might seem self-evident that Gill’s posts, cryptic as they may be, have caused a rise in the price of GameStop stock from which he stands to profit, as a stockholder. But absent a full history of his trading, it is difficult to assess whether he has violated securities laws, says Richard Schulman, partner at law firm Adler & Stachenfeld. “It’s never entirely clear until the facts are fully formed,” he says.

    But Gill has given regulators plenty to dig into. “Was his purpose to influence the movement of stock price? Did he, in fact, affect demand for the stock? Will he profit from these activities? These are the kinds of issues a regulator will want to investigate,” says Schulman. The answers could determine whether Gill faces a formal investigation.

    Specifically, Gill could find himself in trouble when his call options expire on June 21, leaving him with a decision: Should he sell his options at a profit, if the stock price remains high, or take delivery of the GameStop shares they represent? Having made his position public, says Bragança, Gill is required under a little-understood facet of securities law to provide his audience with advance warning of any sales, even if doing so would jeopardize profits. “The problem is when you change your position,” says Bragança. “Before you sell, you’d better tell the marketplace. Most people on social media don’t think that way. The initial [social] posts are not the thing that is going to get him in trouble—it’s the stuff we can’t see.”

    Gill may question how his conduct differs from any other pundit who offers stock tips or chief executive who talks up their company. And he could have a point. There is an extent to which Gill is flirting with gray areas in the securities rulebook, devised long before someone imagined an influencer in a position to swing the market with a single tweet.

    But the SEC has typically contended that the rules are sufficiently malleable to allow for mutations of age-old violations to be dealt with. “Market manipulation is not necessarily a rigid concept,” says Schulman. “The SEC is not unused to trying to apply concepts to new situations in the world that has developed.”

    The SEC has not made public its thinking, but former chair Clayton, in the interview with CNBC, implied that the agency will be eager to prevent further volatility in the price of GameStop, which risks imposing large-scale losses on investors. One way to do that would be to bring cases against an individual that it considers has wielded social influence in an illegal way, with the aim of deterring others from doing the same. “It’s like Aesop’s fables,” says Bragança. “We’re telling a story. You should take a moral from it.”

    [ad_2]

    Joel Khalili

    Source link

  • House OKs $6.5B housing bill, drops transfer fee

    House OKs $6.5B housing bill, drops transfer fee

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a $6.5 billion housing bill aimed at spurring the production of new homes, but dropped a controversial tax on real estate transactions to pay for housing development.

    The proposal, which passed 145-13, calls for a mix of tax breaks, changes to state laws, and bond authorization to increase the construction of much-needed market rate and affordable homes throughout the state.

    “The rents are high, the availability of stock is decreasing, there’s very few homes on the market,” House Speaker Ron Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, told reporters ahead of a final vote on the bill. “When you talk to folks and they say they don’t want to locate here because they can’t find homes for their staff or their employees, it’s a real problem.”

    The House bill adds more than $2.4 billion to Gov. Maura Healey’s $4.1 billion Affordable Homes Act plan, filed in October, which also included a range of tax breaks, policy changes and borrowing.

    It also didn’t include Healey’s controversial proposal to give communities the authority to add transfer fees from 2% to 5% onto property tax bills to pay for affordable housing projects.

    The proposal faced significant opposition from real estate brokers and other critics who argued it would drive up the costs of housing.

    The bill includes $1 billion to allow the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s water system to expand to the Ipswich River Basin, which includes Beverly, Danvers, Ipswich, Middleton, Peabody, Salem and other communities north of Boston.

    Lawmakers argue that the spending will help expand access to water resources in the region to offset the impact from building new homes and housing complexes.

    The proposal also includes a new $150 million program to help municipalities convert commercial properties for multiunit residential or mixed use. Developers would be eligible for a tax credit of up to 10% of the development costs.

    The bill also includes a new tax credit to incentivize production of home ownership units targeting households with incomes of up to 120% of the area median income, according to House Democrats.

    At least $2 billion would be devoted to the rehabilitation of more than 43,000 public housing units in the state, with 25% of the money dedicated to preserving housing for those with low incomes.

    The plan also makes permanent the state’s Community Investment Tax Credit Program, which funds community development corporations that build affordable housing, and raises the cap on donations from $12 million to $15 million.

    The policy initiatives in the bill include a proposal to authorize accessory dwelling units equal to or less than 900 square feet to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities.

    House lawmakers slogged through more than 200 amendments to the bill and approved dozens of them in bundles that passed on voice votes. The changes added another $300 million in borrowing to the final version of the bill.

    The legislation must be approved by the state Senate before it returns to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for consideration.

    Beacon Hill leaders are trying to incentivize more home building amid a shrinking inventory they say is edging first-time buyers out of the market.

    The prolonged housing crunch is hurting the state’s economic growth, they say, making it much harder to attract new families and companies to invest in the state.

    Massachusetts has some of the highest housing costs and rents in the country. The median price of a single-family home hit a record $560,000 in March, according to real estate industry reports. Meanwhile, single-family home sales were down 7.4% in March versus the same month last year.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Boeing Launches Astronauts For First Time After Years Of Delay

    Boeing Launches Astronauts For First Time After Years Of Delay

    [ad_1]

    Boeing launched its first Starliner flight bound for the International Space Station with two astronauts on board, beginning a crucial final flight test of the years-delayed spacecraft. What do you think?

    “Was this intentional or a 737 that went wildly off course?”

    Alec Appleton, Sap Collector

    “Smart move, there aren’t any FAA investigations in space.”

    Leanna Rowe, Barista Trainer

    “I have a couple of whistleblowers I wouldn’t mind launching into the sun myself.”

    Lavinia Wise, Bliss Specialist

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • E*Trade Looking to Drop Roaring Kitty Following GameStop Posts, Report Says

    E*Trade Looking to Drop Roaring Kitty Following GameStop Posts, Report Says

    [ad_1]

    Keith Gill better known as Roaring Kitty.
    Photo: STRMX (AP)

    Keith Gill, the popular investor who sparked the skyrocketing of GameStop’s stock back in 2021 and appears to be back at it again, might have his E*Trade account shut down, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal Monday. The stock trading platform and its owner Morgan Stanley reportedly have concerns about possible stock manipulation, sources familiar with the matter told the Journal. 

    Gill, who’s known best as Roaring Kitty, began tweeting on his account on May 12 after almost three years of silence. Most of the posts consist of memes or video clips so it’s unconfirmed if Gill is the one in control of the account. His account on Reddit has also begun posting screenshots of his portfolio with E*Trade showing various bets on GameStop with a screenshot from Tuesday showing his assets valued at $289 million.

    Morgan Stanley did not have a comment when asked for confirmation of the report. Gill didn’t immediately respond to a direct message sent over X.

    Since the Roaring Kitty account restarted, GameStop stock has taken off, but not nearly the same as it did back in 2021. The video game retailer’s stock was trading at just over $17 on May 10 and shot up to almost $65 on May 14, two days after the May 12 post. Since then, the stock has been steadily losing value only to then jump in price again on Monday following another post from the Roaring Kitty account.

    While Gill could be making hundreds of millions from his recent stock bets, it’s very unlikely we’ll see another instance of GameStop’s shares reaching $483 as it did in 2021. Back then, it was in the middle of the pandemic so people were at home paying where they could pay attention to finance moves like that and also were sitting on extra money thanks to various stimulus checks.

    [ad_2]

    Oscar Gonzalez

    Source link

  • Bill Ackman’s US IPO Plan Solidifies His Shift Away From Traditional Hedge Funds

    Bill Ackman’s US IPO Plan Solidifies His Shift Away From Traditional Hedge Funds

    [ad_1]

    Bill Ackman’s investment style has always been unique by hedge fund standards. Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for The New York Times

    Billionaire investor Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management is setting the stage for an initial public offering of its new U.S.-based fund focused on retail investors, the Wall Street Journal reported today (May 31). With around 80 percent of his assets under management already tied up in a publicly traded closed-end fund in Europe, this marks another milestone in Ackman’s breaking from being a traditional hedge fund manager.

    The new fund, called Pershing Square USA (PSUS), was announced in February via Ackman’s X account and a fund prospectus. Ackman’s dipping into U.S. retail investors could be him trying to take advantage of his growing media spotlight—the 58-year-old investor has 1.2 million followers on X and gained significant press for his $2.3 billion victory from betting on a 2020 market crash. The fund prospectus stated that Pershing Square’s “brand-name profile and broad retail following will drive substantial investor interest.”

    Hedge fund IPOs are rare though not unusual; Man Group and Blue Owl are two known alternative asset managers that are publicly traded. Ackman’s PSUS IPO would likely be the largest and most prominent IPO of its kind in many years.

    Ackman founded Pershing Square LP in 2004 as a traditional hedge fund, which took concentrated equity bets and charged close to an industry-standard “2 and 20” fee (2 percent management fee on assets under management and 20 percent on investment returns).

    However, in 2014, Ackman introduced a new investment vehicle called Pershing Square Holdings (PSH), a closed-end fund based in Guernsey (an island in the English channel that has become a popular place of incorporation for high net-worth funds) and publicly traded in Amsterdam and London. Unlike traditional hedge funds, investors cannot simply pull their money out from a closed-end fund and the fund charges “1.6 and 16” rather than the traditional “2 and 20.”

    PSH’s success has been less than ideal, though. This fund, which raised $3 billion in its 2014 IPO, has consistently traded at a discount to its net asset value, currently managing about $14.6 billion with a market value of approximately $9 billion. This means Pershing Square cannot raise more capital efficiently in the fund, as selling or issuing shares at a price lower than the net asset value would dilute shareholders.

    As PSH holds around 80 percent of the assets Ackman manages, this is especially stressful for the company’s future. A 2024 presentation revealed, “In 2023, we thoroughly examined the options for a U.S. listing to increase the number of investors who can own PSH.” Essentially, Pershing Square’s leadership felt that, if U.S. retail investors could buy PSH shares, which they are currently not allowed to do, they would give the company a higher valuation.

    PSUS is a reflection of that sentiment; it’s essentially a U.S. version of PSH. It begs the question of why Ackman sought to introduce PSH in European markets in the first place; Bloomberg’s finance columnist Matt Levine believes the answer is likely that the U.S. has stronger regulations on how publicly traded investment funds are allowed to use hedge fund strategies, such as leverage, derivatives and short-selling.

    All in all, this would be Ackman’s third IPO. He previously launched Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, the largest-ever SPAC that went public in July 2020 with the intention to acquire privately-held businesses. It liquidated and shut down two years later.

    With PSUS, Ackman is further solidifying himself as more of an asset manager, overseeing mostly publicly traded closed-end fund investments, than a typical hedge fund manager. Ackman has always been unique in his style: while traditional hedge funds, like Citadel or Millennium, have become renowned for making dozens of investments, quickly opening and closing out of positions, Ackman prefers to hold long-term activist positions on only a handful of companies.

    Bill Ackman’s US IPO Plan Solidifies His Shift Away From Traditional Hedge Funds

    [ad_2]

    Shreyas Sinha

    Source link

  • WeWork Survived Bankruptcy. Now It Has to Make Coworking Pay Off

    WeWork Survived Bankruptcy. Now It Has to Make Coworking Pay Off

    [ad_1]

    WeWork is set to become a smaller—and potentially rightsized—company. Following a final hearing on its bankruptcy plan Thursday morning, the coworking pioneer will have fewer locations, a new influx of capital, and $4 billion in debt wiped from its books.

    In a packed courtroom in Newark, New Jersey, Judge John Sherwood approved WeWork’s restructuring plan. WeWork expects to finally exit bankruptcy in mid-June. The plan also staved off a bid by WeWork’s controversial founder Adam Neumann, who had sought to buy back the company he’d founded before he was infamously ousted.

    WeWork’s clean slate will coincide with a new era of working, one in which office workers have pushed back against returning to offices full-time; as of late 2023, nearly 20 percent of office space in the US sat vacant. Yet workers are also experiencing more loneliness, a problem that coworking companies argue they can address by bringing people together. WeWork’s reboot is a test of the future of coworking itself.

    “WeWork still believes that this is a viable business model,” says Sarah Foss, global head of legal and restructuring at Debtwire, a financial services company. “They’re exiting a much leaner company.”

    WeWork filed for bankruptcy in November. Hammered by high interest rates and the Covid-19 pandemic, which started a work-from-home phenomenon, it was left with too many leases and too many hot desks and flexible office spaces it couldn’t fill. In 2023, lease costs made up two-thirds of its operating expenses.

    WeWork had more than 500 global locations before it filed for bankruptcy, and will operate about 330 WeWorks going forward, about half of which will be in the US and Canada. That will save WeWork about $12 billion in rent obligations, cutting its rent costs in half, according to the company’s estimates. WeWork’s plan comes from amending or assuming many leases, and rejecting or negotiating to exit some 150 others. It prioritized reducing its footprint in areas where it had oversupply, either from occupying too many floors in the same building or having multiple locations in close proximity.

    Many of these changes come as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, but locations outside of the US and Canada are not part of that bundle. In other countries, WeWork has worked with landlords to renegotiate some of its leases, including those in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta, Manila, and Paris.

    WeWork went to hundreds of landlords during the process to negotiate new lease terms or exits from buildings. Bankruptcy allows companies to renegotiate and reject leases outright, but the market conditions that now plague office landlords primed WeWork with advantages to negotiate better terms to stay in place. “They have all the leverage, knowing that we’re in a terrible time for landlords,” says Eric Haber, counsel at Wharton Property Advisors, a New York City office-leasing advisory firm. Now, a slimmer WeWork has a “streamlined configuration where they hope they can make money, but they have very optimistic projections,” Haber says. “Even with this much better setup, they still have to execute.”

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Hoover

    Source link

  • Few prepared to cover long-term care costs

    Few prepared to cover long-term care costs

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s note: The share of the U.S. population older than 65 keeps rising – and will for decades to come. Since nearly half of Americans over 65 will pay for some version of long-term health care, CNHI News and The Associated Press examined the state of long-term care in the series High Cost of Long-Term Care, which began Friday and continues this week.

    While many Americans will need long-term care as they get older, few are prepared to pay for it.

    Medicare, which provides Americans over the age 65 with health insurance, doesn’t cover most long-term care services. And Medicaid — the primary safety net for long-term care coverage — only covers those who are indigent.

    Federal estimates suggest 70% of people ages 65 and older will need long-term care before they die, but only 3% to 4% of Americans age 50 and older are paying for long-term care policies, according to insurance industry figures.

    The high cost of premiums for those private long-term care policies puts it out of reach for most people.

    Even some who have this kind of insurance find it doesn’t provide enough to cover the costs of home health aides, assisted-living facilities or nursing homes.

    “People think that long-term care insurance is for everyone — but it is not,” said Jessie Slone, executive director of the American Association for Long-term Care Insurance, an advocacy group. “It’s for a very small subset of individuals who plan, and have some retirement assets and income they can use to pay for it.”

    To qualify, applicants need to pass a health review. Slone said insurance companies have underwriting policies with “page after page” of conditions that will disqualify people from getting that coverage.”If you live a long life, the chances of you needing care are significant. So then the issue becomes who’s going to provide for that care, and who’s going to pay for it. For some, long-term care insurance is an option.”

    Prices vary, based on the age when people apply, how good their health is at the time, and how much coverage they want. “You have to start looking at this generally in your 50s or 60s,” Slone said. “Because, as you get older, you’re going to have conditions which insurers are going to look at, determine that you’re very likely to need long-term care and not give you a policy.”

    That coverage, if you can get it, doesn’t come cheap: In 2023, the annual average cost for a policy for a couple both age 55, taking out a $165,000 initial pool growing at 3% compounded annually — ranged from a low of $5,018 to $14,695 a year, according to the association.

    But, compared to auto insurance — which most people may never use — long-term care insurance is a good investment for those who can afford it, Slone said. “Car insurance is the most expensive insurance you ever pay because the chances of you getting into a car accident are somewhat remote. But the chances of someone needing long-term care if they make it to 90 are pretty significant.”

    Lori Smetanka, executive director of the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, a national nonprofit advocacy group, views it differently. She said the private long-term care insurance system has become a “bust” amid rising premiums and difficulties accessing benefits.

    Consider the fact that the number of companies offering long-term care insurance is declining, while payouts are steadily increasing as the baby boomer generation ages.”Most people have found it very expensive,” Smetanka said. “But, at the same time, people are finding that it wasn’t covering what they needed.”

    Last year, insurers paid a record of more than $14 billion to cover an estimated 353,000 long-term care claims, according to industry figures. That’s compared to about $11.6 billion just three years ago.

    Currently, there are about 7.5 million people in the U.S. age 65 and older with private long-term care insurance, according to industry data.

    With that incentive, some states, including Washington and California, are looking at creating long-term care social insurance pools funded by payroll taxes and other sources of funding. The effort also is being spurred, in part, by the rising costs borne by states for Medicaid long-term care coverage, which they share with the federal government.

    “More and more states are coming to the conclusion that this is an under-funded system,” said Marc Cohen, a researcher and co-director of the LeadingAge LTSS Center at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. “There are simply not enough dollars going into the system – given the needs and the demands of the growing elderly population.”

    So far, Washington is the only state to try to address the issue. A law approved by the state Legislature in 2019 created a long-term care benefit program, which provides residents with up to $36,500 to pay for costs such as caregiving, wheelchair ramps, meal deliveries and nursing home fees.

    The Cares Funds is covered by a payroll tax that deducts 0.58% out of paychecks but guarantees a $36,500 lifetime benefit for those who have paid into the fund for 10 years.

    Several other states are studying the issue. In California, a task force is looking at how to design a long-term care program, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan also are weighing the costs versus benefits of creating a state long-term care benefits program.

    But the issue of imposing new taxes to pay for long-term care insurance is controversial — and politically unpopular — on both a state and federal level.

    Washington’s long-term care insurance law is facing a repeal effort from a group backed by hedge fund executive Brian Heywood that argues the system should be voluntary. Voters in November will decide whether to allow people to opt out, which supporters say would essentially gut the program.

    “There are a lot of states that are looking to see what happens in Washington,” Cohen said. “If this billionaire who is funding this repeal effort wins, it will be a real blow.”

    Cohen said efforts on a federal level to create a publicly funded insurance pool haven’t gained much traction. A long-term care program created by Congress through the CLASS Plan, which was tied to the Affordable Care Act, was voluntary. That law was repealed in early 2013.

    “It never got off the ground before it was repealed,” he said. “With the dysfunction in Congress, we’re likely to see more action on a state level than the federal.”

    Recent polls suggest there may be some public support for the move. A survey by the National Council on Aging found more than 90% of the 1,000 female respondents across party lines support the idea of creating a government program to pay for the cost of long-term care.

    “The level of support was significant, and very bipartisan,” said Howard Bedlin, a long-term care expert with the council. “People keep talking about how Congress can’t find bipartisan support. Well, the voters clearly support it.

    “The politicians just aren’t giving these issues the attention they deserve.”

    Christian M. Wade is a reporter for North of Boston Media Group.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | CNHI News

    Source link

  • Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors L.P. Buys Shares of 149,589 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)

    Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors L.P. Buys Shares of 149,589 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)

    [ad_1]

    Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors L.P. bought a new stake in JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPMFree Report) during the fourth quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm bought 149,589 shares of the financial services provider’s stock, valued at approximately $25,445,000. JPMorgan Chase & Co. comprises about 2.0% of Cantor Fitzgerald Investment Advisors L.P.’s holdings, making the stock its 9th biggest position.

    A number of other hedge funds and other institutional investors have also recently added to or reduced their stakes in JPM. Norges Bank acquired a new stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the 4th quarter worth approximately $6,016,878,000. International Assets Investment Management LLC acquired a new stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the 4th quarter worth approximately $1,017,893,000. Wellington Management Group LLP grew its holdings in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 12.2% during the 3rd quarter. Wellington Management Group LLP now owns 42,421,711 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $6,151,997,000 after purchasing an additional 4,603,090 shares in the last quarter. J.P. Morgan Private Wealth Advisors LLC acquired a new stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the 3rd quarter worth approximately $253,076,000. Finally, Cerity Partners LLC grew its holdings in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 155.2% during the 4th quarter. Cerity Partners LLC now owns 2,246,582 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $382,144,000 after purchasing an additional 1,366,360 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 71.55% of the company’s stock.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Trading Up 1.9 %

    Shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock traded up $3.79 during trading on Monday, reaching $200.71. 7,356,200 shares of the company were exchanged, compared to its average volume of 9,297,501. The company has a quick ratio of 0.92, a current ratio of 0.92 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.29. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has a twelve month low of $134.40 and a twelve month high of $205.88. The business has a 50-day moving average price of $194.71 and a 200-day moving average price of $178.52. The firm has a market capitalization of $576.37 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 12.12, a P/E/G ratio of 2.72 and a beta of 1.13.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPMGet Free Report) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Friday, April 12th. The financial services provider reported $4.63 EPS for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of $4.18 by $0.45. JPMorgan Chase & Co. had a return on equity of 17.79% and a net margin of 20.05%. The business had revenue of $41.93 billion during the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $40.90 billion. Sell-side analysts anticipate that JPMorgan Chase & Co. will post 16.32 EPS for the current fiscal year.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Dividend Announcement

    The business also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Wednesday, July 31st. Investors of record on Friday, July 5th will be paid a dividend of $1.15 per share. The ex-dividend date is Friday, July 5th. This represents a $4.60 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 2.29%. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s dividend payout ratio (DPR) is presently 27.78%.

    Analyst Ratings Changes

    Several analysts recently commented on the company. Evercore ISI boosted their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $188.00 to $210.00 and gave the company an “outperform” rating in a research note on Thursday, April 4th. Oppenheimer decreased their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $219.00 to $217.00 and set an “outperform” rating on the stock in a research note on Monday, April 15th. Jefferies Financial Group boosted their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $202.00 to $228.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Monday, April 8th. Piper Sandler boosted their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $215.00 to $220.00 and gave the company an “overweight” rating in a research note on Tuesday, May 21st. Finally, Morgan Stanley decreased their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $216.00 to $214.00 and set an “overweight” rating on the stock in a research note on Tuesday, May 21st. Nine equities research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and thirteen have assigned a buy rating to the company’s stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average target price of $194.10.

    View Our Latest Stock Report on JPM

    Insider Buying and Selling

    In other JPMorgan Chase & Co. news, insider Robin Leopold sold 3,000 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Friday, May 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $198.86, for a total value of $596,580.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the insider now directly owns 44,113 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $8,772,311.18. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. In other JPMorgan Chase & Co. news, insider Robin Leopold sold 3,000 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Friday, May 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $198.86, for a total value of $596,580.00. Following the completion of the transaction, the insider now directly owns 44,113 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $8,772,311.18. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. Also, General Counsel Stacey Friedman sold 4,415 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Monday, May 20th. The shares were sold at an average price of $200.65, for a total value of $885,869.75. Following the completion of the transaction, the general counsel now directly owns 42,124 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $8,452,180.60. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders sold a total of 249,399 shares of company stock valued at $46,713,667 over the last three months. Company insiders own 0.79% of the company’s stock.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Company Profile

    (Free Report)

    JPMorgan Chase & Co operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). The CCB segment offers deposit, investment and lending products, cash management, and payments and services; mortgage origination and servicing activities; residential mortgages and home equity loans; and credit cards, auto loans, leases, and travel services to consumers and small businesses through bank branches, ATMs, and digital and telephone banking.

    See Also

    Institutional Ownership by Quarter for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)

    Receive News & Ratings for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for JPMorgan Chase & Co. and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Women are now less likely to be in top earning 1% of U.K. finance and professional services jobs than before the pandemic

    Women are now less likely to be in top earning 1% of U.K. finance and professional services jobs than before the pandemic

    [ad_1]

    Women in the U.K. are four times less likely than men to be among the top 1% of earners in financial and professional services, according to analysis by the London School of Economics. And despite decades of efforts to narrow the gender gap in pay and career progression, it’s gotten slightly bigger since before the pandemic.

    In brief

    Women occupy 19.4% of the top 1% highest finance and professional services roles, down slightly from the three year pre-Covid average of 19.7%. 

    However, while still far from equal, women’s share of the top 10% of positions was higher, at 28.3%, and has shown signs of progress, increasing by 2.5 percentage points over the period.  

    The LSE analysis, which drew on the U.K.’s main survey of economic activity, the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS), from January 2017 to June 2023, also found some rebalancing in terms of seniority. Women now comprise 37% of senior managers and directors in professional services and finance, roughly the same as the percentage of female full-time employees.

    Why hasn’t gender equality improved more?

    The persistent gender seniority gap, which widens as you get closer to the top of the career ladder, suggests corporate efforts to narrow it—with all the well-documented benefits it brings of access to talent and more diverse thinking—have been insufficient. 

    The reasons behind it are complex, including a significant career penalty for mothers but not for fathers, bias—whether blatant or unconscious—and wider societal factors that disadvantage women’s careers, such as a higher average burden of household chores, and child and elder care responsibilities. 

    These factors have proven stubborn over many years, so in a way the question to ask is why would they have improved, in the absence of major changes in attitudes or behaviours?

    Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic may have set back gender equality, as layoffs disproportionately affected women, while businesses have a tendency to defund diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs when trading conditions are tough. In the U.S., this has been compounded by a conservative backlash against affirmative action, often through legal means.  

    “We are going backwards, but I am not surprised. For progress to be made there needs to be a bigger shift towards recognizing that diversity is good for business. There also needs to be significant investment in upskilling managers to become inclusive leaders recognizing that leading diverse teams is a skill. Without it, I will be giving the same quote 10 years from now,” said Dr Grace Lordan, founding director of The Inclusion Initiative at LSE and associate professor in its Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science.

    Hybrid working may have been expected to favor working mothers, but there is evidence that people who work remotely suffer a career disadvantage compared with those who come into the office, while return-to-office orders have started pushing moms out of the workplace

    What’s next?

    The trend towards more equal gender representation in mid-senior roles and among the top 10% of earners is encouraging, particularly coming in relatively male-dominated sectors like finance and professional services. 

    It would be reasonable to expect knock-on effects on the most senior and well-paid roles in the coming decade, simply because more women will have had the experience necessary to be considered. 

    However, the trend persists that women’s chances of progression decrease with every level of seniority. Until that dynamic changes, the gap will remain considerable. 

    [ad_2]

    Adam Gale

    Source link

  • Avantax Advisory Services Inc. Reduces Stock Holdings in Raymond James (NYSE:RJF)

    Avantax Advisory Services Inc. Reduces Stock Holdings in Raymond James (NYSE:RJF)

    [ad_1]

    Avantax Advisory Services Inc. reduced its stake in shares of Raymond James (NYSE:RJFFree Report) by 4.1% during the fourth quarter, Holdings Channel reports. The firm owned 3,345 shares of the financial services provider’s stock after selling 144 shares during the quarter. Avantax Advisory Services Inc.’s holdings in Raymond James were worth $373,000 at the end of the most recent quarter.

    Several other institutional investors have also added to or reduced their stakes in the stock. Turtle Creek Wealth Advisors LLC bought a new position in Raymond James in the fourth quarter worth about $30,000. Addison Advisors LLC raised its position in shares of Raymond James by 32.9% in the 3rd quarter. Addison Advisors LLC now owns 416 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $42,000 after acquiring an additional 103 shares in the last quarter. CVA Family Office LLC purchased a new position in shares of Raymond James in the 4th quarter valued at approximately $50,000. Headlands Technologies LLC boosted its position in shares of Raymond James by 139.8% during the third quarter. Headlands Technologies LLC now owns 518 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $52,000 after purchasing an additional 302 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Massmutual Trust Co. FSB ADV grew its stake in Raymond James by 52.5% in the fourth quarter. Massmutual Trust Co. FSB ADV now owns 558 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $62,000 after purchasing an additional 192 shares during the period. 83.83% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors.

    Insider Activity at Raymond James

    In other Raymond James news, CEO Steven M. Raney sold 4,174 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction on Friday, April 26th. The shares were sold at an average price of $121.01, for a total transaction of $505,095.74. Following the completion of the sale, the chief executive officer now directly owns 51,009 shares in the company, valued at approximately $6,172,599.09. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which is available through this link. In other news, CEO Steven M. Raney sold 4,174 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction dated Friday, April 26th. The shares were sold at an average price of $121.01, for a total transaction of $505,095.74. Following the completion of the sale, the chief executive officer now owns 51,009 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $6,172,599.09. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through the SEC website. Also, insider James E. Bunn sold 11,095 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Friday, May 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $124.44, for a total transaction of $1,380,661.80. Following the completion of the transaction, the insider now directly owns 46,977 shares in the company, valued at approximately $5,845,817.88. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. 9.74% of the stock is owned by insiders.

    Wall Street Analyst Weigh In

    A number of analysts have recently commented on the stock. Citigroup boosted their target price on shares of Raymond James from $112.00 to $132.00 and gave the company a “neutral” rating in a report on Thursday, April 11th. TD Cowen dropped their price objective on shares of Raymond James from $131.00 to $126.00 and set a “hold” rating on the stock in a research note on Thursday, April 25th. JMP Securities reaffirmed a “market perform” rating on shares of Raymond James in a research note on Tuesday, April 9th. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods dropped their price target on Raymond James from $132.00 to $131.00 and set a “market perform” rating on the stock in a research report on Thursday, April 25th. Finally, UBS Group reduced their price objective on Raymond James from $116.00 to $115.00 and set a “neutral” rating for the company in a research report on Thursday, January 25th. Nine analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, the stock currently has an average rating of “Hold” and an average price target of $126.22.

    Read Our Latest Stock Report on Raymond James

    Raymond James Stock Down 0.2 %

    Raymond James stock opened at $123.39 on Friday. Raymond James has a 12 month low of $88.81 and a 12 month high of $131.19. The stock has a fifty day simple moving average of $125.14 and a two-hundred day simple moving average of $116.10. The company has a current ratio of 1.01, a quick ratio of 0.98 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.43. The firm has a market cap of $25.58 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 14.92, a PEG ratio of 0.84 and a beta of 1.03.

    Raymond James (NYSE:RJFGet Free Report) last released its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, April 24th. The financial services provider reported $2.31 EPS for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of $2.32 by ($0.01). Raymond James had a return on equity of 17.94% and a net margin of 12.72%. The business had revenue of $3.12 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $3.15 billion. During the same quarter in the previous year, the business posted $2.03 earnings per share. Raymond James’s quarterly revenue was up 8.6% compared to the same quarter last year. Equities analysts predict that Raymond James will post 9.53 EPS for the current fiscal year.

    Raymond James Announces Dividend

    The business also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Monday, July 15th. Stockholders of record on Monday, July 1st will be issued a dividend of $0.45 per share. The ex-dividend date is Friday, June 28th. This represents a $1.80 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 1.46%. Raymond James’s payout ratio is 21.77%.

    Raymond James Profile

    (Free Report)

    Raymond James Financial, Inc, a financial holding company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally. The company operates through Private Client Group, Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other segments.

    Featured Stories

    Want to see what other hedge funds are holding RJF? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Raymond James (NYSE:RJFFree Report).

    Institutional Ownership by Quarter for Raymond James (NYSE:RJF)

    Receive News & Ratings for Raymond James Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for Raymond James and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Elvis Presley’s Granddaughter Sues Company Attempting To Sell Graceland

    Elvis Presley’s Granddaughter Sues Company Attempting To Sell Graceland

    [ad_1]

    Elvis Presley’s granddaughter Riley Keough, who owns the Graceland estate, successfully blocked the auction of Elvis’s former home by the company Naussany Investments, which may have fraudulently initiated the foreclosure by claiming that Lisa Marie Presley used Graceland as collateral for a loan. What do you think?

    “Good compounds are hard to come by these days.”

    Joint Pathologist, Klay Mcneil

    “It’s a shame, Graceland would have made a great Airbnb.”

    Mike Bernardo, Cream Infuser

    “That the guy who died on the toilet?”

    Brandy Crosby, unemployed

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • BGC’s Levy Payments to HBLB Increase for the Third Year in a Row

    BGC’s Levy Payments to HBLB Increase for the Third Year in a Row

    [ad_1]

    Britain’s Betting and Gaming Council announced that its members are expected to contribute a record £105 million ($133.6 million) in levy payments to the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) for last year. This figure would mark an increase of £5 million and is notably the third consecutive year of year-on-year increase.

    For context, the BGC’s levy contributions for 2021/22 and 2022/23 were £97 million and £100 million respectively. According to the HBLB, this year’s total of £105 million is “derived from the receipt of provisional end of year submissions from most levy-paying bookmakers.”

    Thanks to this increase in funding in 2023/24, the HBLB announced an increase of £3.2 million to £70.5 million in its prize money contribution for 2024. For comparison, the board’s prize money contribution for 2023 stood at £67.3 million.

    Michael Dugher, the BGC chief executive officer said that this record contribution is “extremely welcome news.” He said that the figure highlights the “enduring, mission-critical support” that the gambling industry provides to the betting sector.

    The Horseracing Sector Has Been on a Decline

    Despite being the second biggest spectator sport in the UK, horseracing has been in decline since 2007. Whereas 17% of the population enjoyed wagering on racing that year, only 10% did so in 2018. Racecourse attendance, on the other hand, has declined 14% since 2019.

    The BGC, however, remains bullish on revitalizing the sector. Dugher said that there is still hope, despite the double-digit decline in horserace betting turnover over the past years. He expressed confidence that the increase in contributions will be a boon to horseracing. Dugher also pointed out that betting remains the lifeline of the racing sector.

    Dugher added that the BGC members remain committed to the sector’s success. He praised horseracing’s contribution to rural economies and said that the BGC hopes that the sector will be able to reverse its decline.

    Attention must now turn to how we challenge vested interests, introduce real change and reform the sport, ensuring we reverse the current decline and provide racing with a genuinely long-term sustainable future.

    Michael Dugher, CEO & chair, BGC

    The BGC Is Committed to Supporting the Racing Sector

    In an effort to protect the sector, the BGC made serious efforts to reduce the negative impact of the government’s ongoing gambling reforms. To that end, the BGC recently introduced a new voluntary industry Code on Customer Checks in hopes of raising standards without infringing on customers’ privacy.

    The code was developed in collaboration with the UKGC and was backed by the government. As announced earlier, the Code will operate as a voluntary interim scheme until the government is able to test and implement the controversial affordability checks outlined in the white paper.

    [ad_2]

    Angel Hristov

    Source link

  • High school juniors invited to credit fair

    High school juniors invited to credit fair

    [ad_1]

    SALEM, Mass. — Two local mayors, Massachusetts Division of Banks staffers, FDIC examiners and others will volunteer at Institution for Savings’ 14th annual Credit for Life Fair on Thursday from 10 a.m. to noon at Salem State University’s O’Keefe Sports Complex.

    One-hundred forty bank and community volunteers will join more than 1,100 juniors from 14 area schools, including Amesbury, Newburyport, Triton Regional, Pentucket Regional, Ipswich, Georgetown, Masconomet Regional, Hamilton-Wenham Regional, Salem, Swampscott, Beverly, Rockport and Gloucester high schools as well as Landmark School in Beverly. The goal is to help students develop personal budgeting skills they will use throughout their lives.

    Utilizing the bank’s Credit for Life website, creditforlife.org, students will create profiles on their mobile devices and choose professions. Using the website and their devices, they will visit 12 booths and purchase everything they would need to live as 25-year-olds using their monthly paycheck, savings account and/or a credit card.

    The website was the result of a 2020 collaboration between seven of Massachusetts’ leading banks that in addition to Newburyport-based Institution for Savings, included Cape Cod Five, Rockland Trust, Harbor One, BayCoast Bank, Country Bank, Westfield Bank and The Savings Bank.

    The banks, along with nonprofit FitMoney, pooled financial and informational resources to develop the online site, which has been used by tens of thousands of students throughout Massachusetts and beyond. The site has been improved each year, and this year includes translation to Spanish and Portuguese.

    Despite a longstanding record of providing high academic achievement, Massachusetts has not been as successful with mandating financial education.

    A recently published opinion piece says Massachusetts is now one of 25 states that guarantee a standalone half-credit course in financial literacy for high school students before graduation or is implementing such a policy, according to Nex Gen Personal Finance, a nonprofit that provides free personal finance curriculum. In fact, only 17 districts in Massachusetts require a financial literacy course to graduate high school.

    “The goal of the fair is to help empower students to be proactive about their financial futures by beginning to develop sound personal finance habits,” said Michael J. Jones, Institution for Savings’ president and CEO.

    “Each year, we hear from parents and teachers after the event that they wish this had been around when they were in school,” Jones added. “We are glad to host this event every year – it is invaluable to these students and information they will use throughout the lives.”

    Local community volunteers include Amesbury Mayor Kassandra Gove and Newburyport Mayor Sean Reardon, North Shore Chamber CEO Karen Andreas, representatives from the FDIC and Massachusetts Division of Banks and many others, including 50 Institution for Savings employees.

    Two bonus booths are also included: Money Smarts and Safety and Security. Money Smarts will provide students with information about timely teen finance topics, including about paychecks and taxes, check writing, mobile payment apps and the latest scams and fraud threatening teens and young adults.

    Safety and Security, staffed by local public safety and law enforcement, will focus on important issues to keep young adults safe, such as texting and avoiding substance use while driving and having smoke detectors in living spaces.

    The event receives high marks annually from schools, parents and volunteers, many of the latter whom come back each year to participate, according to organizers.

    “The level to which the bank has taken this event is outstanding and unequaled by any other event I have attended,” said Rodi Adema, a FDIC field supervisor who has volunteered at the fair for multiple years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Shares Sold by Fairhaven Wealth Management LLC

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Shares Sold by Fairhaven Wealth Management LLC

    [ad_1]

    Fairhaven Wealth Management LLC trimmed its stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) by 1.3% in the fourth quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm owned 30,010 shares of the financial services provider’s stock after selling 383 shares during the quarter. JPMorgan Chase & Co. comprises 1.9% of Fairhaven Wealth Management LLC’s investment portfolio, making the stock its 11th biggest holding. Fairhaven Wealth Management LLC’s holdings in JPMorgan Chase & Co. were worth $5,105,000 as of its most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    A number of other hedge funds also recently added to or reduced their stakes in JPM. Etfidea LLC raised its stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 5.4% during the 4th quarter. Etfidea LLC now owns 1,937 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $329,000 after buying an additional 100 shares in the last quarter. TKG Advisors LLC grew its stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 97.6% during the 3rd quarter. TKG Advisors LLC now owns 13,205 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $1,915,000 after purchasing an additional 6,521 shares during the period. Sutton Place Investors LLC lifted its stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 179.5% in the fourth quarter. Sutton Place Investors LLC now owns 13,099 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $2,228,000 after purchasing an additional 8,412 shares during the period. Allen Investment Management LLC lifted its stake in shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 15.8% in the third quarter. Allen Investment Management LLC now owns 174,738 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $25,341,000 after purchasing an additional 23,894 shares during the period. Finally, Breakwater Capital Group boosted its holdings in JPMorgan Chase & Co. by 12.3% during the third quarter. Breakwater Capital Group now owns 8,558 shares of the financial services provider’s stock worth $1,189,000 after buying an additional 934 shares in the last quarter. 71.55% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

    Insider Activity at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

    In other JPMorgan Chase & Co. news, insider Lori A. Beer sold 3,920 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Thursday, February 22nd. The stock was sold at an average price of $182.74, for a total transaction of $716,340.80. Following the completion of the sale, the insider now owns 44,996 shares in the company, valued at approximately $8,222,569.04. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available through the SEC website. In other JPMorgan Chase & Co. news, CEO Marianne Lake sold 11,734 shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. stock in a transaction on Tuesday, May 14th. The shares were sold at an average price of $200.02, for a total value of $2,347,034.68. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief executive officer now owns 122,740 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $24,550,454.80. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is accessible through the SEC website. Also, insider Lori A. Beer sold 3,920 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Thursday, February 22nd. The shares were sold at an average price of $182.74, for a total transaction of $716,340.80. Following the sale, the insider now directly owns 44,996 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $8,222,569.04. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last 90 days, insiders sold 1,071,414 shares of company stock valued at $196,746,504. Insiders own 0.79% of the company’s stock.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Trading Up 1.1 %

    NYSE JPM opened at $204.79 on Monday. The stock has a market cap of $588.09 billion, a P/E ratio of 12.37, a PEG ratio of 2.52 and a beta of 1.13. The company’s fifty day simple moving average is $193.84 and its 200-day simple moving average is $176.60. The company has a current ratio of 0.92, a quick ratio of 0.92 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.29. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has a 52 week low of $134.40 and a 52 week high of $205.05.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPMGet Free Report) last released its quarterly earnings results on Friday, April 12th. The financial services provider reported $4.63 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $4.18 by $0.45. The firm had revenue of $41.93 billion for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $40.90 billion. JPMorgan Chase & Co. had a net margin of 20.05% and a return on equity of 17.79%. Equities research analysts predict that JPMorgan Chase & Co. will post 16.22 EPS for the current fiscal year.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Increases Dividend

    The firm also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Tuesday, April 30th. Investors of record on Friday, April 5th were paid a $1.15 dividend. This is a boost from JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s previous quarterly dividend of $1.05. The ex-dividend date of this dividend was Thursday, April 4th. This represents a $4.60 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 2.25%. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s payout ratio is 27.78%.

    Analyst Upgrades and Downgrades

    Several equities research analysts have recently commented on JPM shares. BMO Capital Markets decreased their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $196.00 to $195.00 and set a “market perform” rating on the stock in a research note on Monday, April 15th. Jefferies Financial Group lifted their price objective on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $202.00 to $228.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a report on Monday, April 8th. Piper Sandler lowered their target price on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $220.00 to $215.00 and set an “overweight” rating on the stock in a report on Monday, April 15th. Morgan Stanley cut their price target on JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $221.00 to $216.00 and set an “overweight” rating for the company in a research note on Monday, April 15th. Finally, UBS Group dropped their target price on shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. from $226.00 to $219.00 and set a “buy” rating for the company in a report on Tuesday, April 16th. Eight research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and thirteen have given a buy rating to the stock. According to MarketBeat.com, the stock currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and a consensus target price of $192.05.

    Get Our Latest Stock Report on JPM

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. Company Profile

    (Free Report)

    JPMorgan Chase & Co operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). The CCB segment offers deposit, investment and lending products, cash management, and payments and services; mortgage origination and servicing activities; residential mortgages and home equity loans; and credit cards, auto loans, leases, and travel services to consumers and small businesses through bank branches, ATMs, and digital and telephone banking.

    Featured Stories

    Want to see what other hedge funds are holding JPM? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPMFree Report).

    Institutional Ownership by Quarter for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM)

    Receive News & Ratings for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for JPMorgan Chase & Co. and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Lawmakers are seeking more support for the state’s safety net hospitals amid rising concerns about the fiscal health of a fund that helps cover medical costs for large numbers of uninsured and low-income patients.

    Hospitals and health insurers pay into the so-called safety net fund – a pool of money that helps fund care for hundreds of thousands of low-income residents who are uninsured or underinsured – with the state chipping in additional funding. But if the fund runs low, hospitals are on the hook for the shortfall.

    The fund is projected to have a shortfall of more than $220 million in the upcoming fiscal year, hospitals say, rising to the highest level in nearly two decades.

    Without additional funding, financially challenged hospitals will be forced to cover the deficit, leaving less money to provide medical care for low-income and uninsured patients, they say.

    An amendment to the Senate’s version of the $57.9 billion state budget filed by Sen. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, would require commercial health insurance companies to cover 50% of any revenue shortfalls in the safety net fund.

    “We need to do something to help our local hospitals,” Finegold said. “This is part of a long-term problem with funding for hospitals that serve the state’s most vulnerable residents. We need to fix it.”

    Many earmarks

    Finegold’s proposal is one of more than 1,000 amendments to the Senate’s budget, many of them local earmarks seeking to divert more state money to local governments, schools, cash-strapped community groups and nonprofits. Only a handful will likely make it into the Senate’s final spending package.

    The plan faces pushback from the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, which represents commercial insurers who would be impacted by the proposed changes to the hospital safety net program.

    Lora Pellegrini, the group’s president and CEO, said requiring insurers to cover the fund’s shortfalls would jeopardize negotiations between the state Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that seek to reduce assessments paid by medical insurance carriers.

    “This really came out of nowhere, and would be counterproductive to those efforts,” she said. “We have a committee process for a reason and that’s where these kinds of special interest issues should be vetted, not in the budget.”

    But the move is backed by the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, which says requiring insurers to cover the shortfall would help alleviate an “unmanageable financial burden” on the health care system “by broadening funding support for the program.”

    “The Health Safety Net is a vital component of Massachusetts’ healthcare infrastructure and its ability to cover the costs of care for low-income and uninsured patients,” Daniel McHale, MHP’s vice president for Healthcare Finance & Policy, said in a statement.

    “At this increasingly fragile time for the entire health care system, it is imperative that we take the steps needed to stabilize the safety net for the people and providers who rely on it each day.”

    Local hospitals affected

    The state’s safety net hospitals and community health centers – which include Lawrence Hospital, Salem Hospital, Holy Family Hospital in Methuen and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport – serve a disproportionate percentage of low-income patients.

    Many are heavily dependent on Medicaid reimbursements, which are typically less than commercial insurance payouts.

    Nearly 30% of Lawrence General’s gross revenue is for care provided to Medicaid, or MassHealth, patients. The state average is 18%.

    Many community hospitals are collecting from low-paying government insurance programs, and getting below-average reimbursements from commercial insurers, advocates say.

    Lawmakers also swept money from the hospital safety net fund to help cover the costs of new Medicare savings programs that pay some or all of eligible senior citizen’s premiums and other health care costs, including prescriptions.

    Hospitals are also seeing increased demand from uninsured patients as hundreds of thousands of Medicaid recipients see their state-sponsored health care coverage dropped following the end of federal pandemic-related programs, which is driving up costs. Claims processing problems are another factor adding to hospital costs, they say.

    Those and other factors have widened the fund’s shortfall from $68 million in fiscal 2022 to more than $210 million in the previous fiscal year, according to the hospital association. Combined, the shortfall could reach $600 million for the three fiscal years, the association said.

    Biggest expense

    The House, which approved its $58.2 billion version of the state budget two weeks ago, proposed $17.3 million in state funding for the hospital safety net fund. The Senate, which begins debate on its version of the budget next week, has proposed a similar amount.

    In the current budget, the state allocated $91.4 million for the safety net fund.

    But the House budget didn’t include an amendment requiring insurers to help hospitals pay the shortfall. That means even if the Senate approves Finegold’s amendment, it would still need to be negotiated as part of the final budget before landing on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for consideration.

    Health care coverage, in the meantime, is one of the state’s biggest expenses. Medicaid costs have doubled in the past decade and now account for nearly 40% of state spending.

    MassHealth serves more than 2 million people – roughly one-third of the state’s population – despite federal Medicaid redeterminations that have reduced its rolls over the past year.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link