Tag Archives: iab-business

Shell posts profit of nearly $40 billion and announces $4 billion in buybacks


Hong Kong/London
CNN
 — 

Shell made a record profit of almost $40 billion in 2022, more than double what it raked in the previous year after oil and gas prices soared following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Europe’s largest oil company by revenue reported adjusted full-year earnings of $39.9 billion on Thursday — more than double the $19.3 billion it posted in 2021 — driven by a strong performance in its gas trading business. The company’s stock was up 1.7% in London.

The company reported $9.8 billion in profit in the fourth quarter. Just over 40% of Shell’s full-year earnings came from its integrated gas business, which includes liquified natural gas trading operations.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan said the results “demonstrate the strength of Shell’s differentiated portfolio, as well as our capacity to deliver vital energy to our customers in a volatile world.”

The earnings are the latest in a series of record-setting results by the world’s biggest energy companies, which have enjoyed bumper profits off the back of soaring oil and gas prices.

ExxonMobil this week posted record full-year earnings of $59.1 billion. Last month, Chevron

(CVX) reported a record full-year profit of $36.5 billion.

That has led to renewed calls for higher taxation. Governments in the European Union and the United Kingdom have already imposed windfall taxes on oil company profits, with the proceeds used to help households struggling with rising energy bills.

Shell said it expected to pay an additional $2.3 billion in tax related to the EU windfall tax and the UK energy profits levy. The company paid $13 billion in tax globally in 2022.

Shell

(RDSA) also announced another $4 billion share buyback program and confirmed it would lift its dividend per share by 15% for the fourth quarter.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Read original article here

GM shares surge after record earnings and new stake in lithium company


New York
CNN
 — 

General Motors reported a much stronger than expected fourth-quarter profit, lifting full-year results to record levels for the second straight year.

The largest US automaker also said Tuesday it is buying a $650 million equity stake in Lithium Americas, which will give it access to the raw material needed to build batteries to power 1 million electric vehicles a year in the first phase of production.

For the quarter, GM earned adjusted earnings of $3 billion, or $2.12 a share, up from $1.35 a share a year earlier and far better than forecasts of $1.69 a share from analysts surveyed by Refinitiv. That lifted full-year adjusted income to $11 billion, up from the $10.4 billion it earned in 2021, which had been its previous record.

The company said it expects strong earnings in 2023, though it expects it to slip a bit from the just posted levels, coming in at between $8.7 billion to $10.1 billion. But company CFO Paul Jacobson said its automotive business is expected to remain strong, with much of the decline likely to be at GM Financial. That’s due to the hit it will take from higher interest rates and the sinking value of used cars, as well as the higher interest rates resulting in an accounting hit to pension earnings.

“Actually that [guidance] is a strong statement about where we see things going, stronger than others” he told journalists on a call Tuesday.

Jacobson told journalists that GM does not expect to follow Tesla and Ford in cutting the prices for its electric vehicles.

“I don’t think there’s any surprise there’s increasing competition in the EV space,” he said. “Our customers are saying we’re priced well based on the demand that we’re seeing.”

The company’s investment in Lithium Americas is part of the company’s efforts to lock-up the supply of raw materials it will need to convert from traditional gasoline powered cars to electric vehicles. The Lithium Americas deal will not supply any lithium to the company until 2026, but Jacobson told media that “we’ve already achieved all the lithium we need through 2025.”

GM expects to build 70,000 EVs this year, a small fraction of its overall vehicle output. It sold 5.9 million vehicles in 2022, down about 6% from 2021 due to the shortage of parts needed to build all the vehicles for which there was demand.

“We continue to face some supply chain and logistics issues, but overall, things remain trending in the right direction,” said Jacobson.

But the company expects to be rapidly increasing its EV supply and offerings, with a new battery plant that opened last year, two more under construction and a fourth planned soon. GM has a target to build 400,000 EVs through the middle of 2024, and 1 million annually by 2025.

CEO Mary Barra predicted there will be more deals like the Lithium Americas one to be announced soon.

“We continue to pursue strategic supply agreements and partnerships to further secure our long-term needs,” she told investors.

GM said it will reduce its staff in 2023, part of its effort to cut $2 billion in costs over the next two years. But unlike a number of major companies that have announced layoffs in recent months, company officials stressed GM would not be shrinking through layoffs. Instead the reduction would be handled through attrition.

GM did not disclose how many jobs might be trimmed, with Jacobson saying the company would end this year “slightly lower” in headcount.

GM has 167,000 employees globally, with 124,000 in North America. That includes more than 42,000 members of the United Auto Workers union. Those workers will get profit sharing bonuses of an average of $12,750 for the year, up nearly 25% from the $10,250 they received a year earlier.

Shares of GM

(GM) soared more than 5% in pre-market trading on the results.

This story is developing and will be updated.

Read original article here

In Japan, pet fish playing Nintendo Switch run up bill on owner’s credit card



CNN
 — 

Here’s something you don’t see everyday. Pet fish playing a video game in Japan managed to log on to the Nintendo Switch store, change their owner’s avatar, set up a Pay Pal account and rack up a credit card bill.

And it was all seemingly livestreamed, in real time, on the internet.

The fish in question belong to a YouTuber known as Mutekimaru, whose channel is popular with the gaming community for its videos featuring groups of tetra fish that “play” video games.

Mutekimaru had previously installed sophisticated motion detection tracking software in fish tanks, enabling the fish to remotely control a Nintendo Switch console.

But the technology, and the fishes’ apparent mastery of it, led to an unexpected turn of events earlier this month while Mutekimaru was live-streaming a game of Pokémon.

Mutekimaru had stepped away for a break when the game crashed due to a system error and the console returned to the home screen.

But the fish carried on swimming, like fish tend to do, and seemingly continued to control the console remotely from their tank.

During the next seven hours, the fish reportedly managed to change the name of their owner’s Switch account before twice logging into the Nintendo store, where users can purchase games and other downloadable content.

They also managed to “check” legal terms and conditions, downloaded a new avatar and even set up a PayPal account from the Switch – sending an email out to their owner in the process, video from the livestream appeared to show.

But things didn’t end there. The fish were also seen adding 500 yen ($4) to Mutekimaru’s Switch account from his credit card during the livestream – exposing his credit card details in the process, the YouTuber revealed in a follow-up video about the episode.

By this point, thousands of comments were streaming in as viewers watched the unintended takeover being livestreamed on the channel, and the incident went viral on Twitter, where thousands of Japanese users shared their amusement.

Mutekimaru later said that he had contacted Nintendo to explain what happened and asked for a refund of his 500 yen.

Nintendo declined to comment to CNN, citing customer confidentiality.



Read original article here

Gautam Adani’s business loses $50 billion in market value after short seller report


New Delhi
CNN
 — 

The value of Gautam Adani’s business empire has crashed by more than $50 billion this week since Hindenburg Research, a US firm that makes money from short selling, published a blistering report accusing it of fraud.

India’s Adani Group has denounced Hindenburg’s allegations as “baseless” and “malicious,” and it is considering legal action. But the sharp sell-off in shares, which began Wednesday, accelerated Friday after US hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman said he found the short seller’s report credible.

Hindenburg Research published an investigation on Adani’s conglomerate late on Tuesday, accusing it of “brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.” It said it had taken a short position in Adani Group companies, meaning it would benefit from a drop in their value.

Shares of those companies — some of which had surged over 500% in the last few years — plunged when India’s stock market opened Wednesday. The rout resumed Friday when trading resumed following a market holiday on Thursday.

Shares of Adani Transmission, Adani Total Gas and Adani Green Energy — three of the group’s seven listed companies — were down 20% each on Friday, while shares of Adani Enterprises, the conglomerate’s flagship company, fell 18%. Friday’s losses wiped out almost $39 billion in market value.

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Adani is still Asia’s richest man with a personal fortune worth $113 billion, $30 billion more than fellow Indian entrepreneur Mukesh Ambani. Friday’s losses will reduce that gap.

Hindenburg said Thursday that it stood fully by its report and believed any legal action would be “meritless.”

“If Adani is serious, it should also file suit in the US where we operate. We have a long list of documents we would demand in a legal discovery process,” the short seller said in a post on Twitter.

Hindenburg isn’t the first research firm to express concern about the finances of Adani’s sprawling empire, which has borrowed $30 billion to become established in industries ranging from logistics to mining, and is aggressively growing in diverse sectors such as media, data centers, airports and cement.

Ackman weighed into the debate on Twitter Thursday, saying he found the Hindenburg investigation “highly credible and extremely well researched.”

“We are not invested long or short in any of the Adani companies … nor have we done our own independent research,” Ackman added.

Hindenburg’s claims come at a sensitive time. Adani Enterprises is aiming to raise 200 billion rupees ($2.5 billion) by issuing new shares this month. The offer will close on Tuesday.

A college dropout and a self-made industrialist, Adani is the world’s fourth richest man, ahead of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. He is also seen as a close ally of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi.

The 60-year old tycoon founded the Adani group over 30 years ago.



Read original article here

Gautam Adani slams short-seller Hindenburg’s claims as ‘baseless’ and ‘malicious’


New Delhi
CNN
 — 

India’s Adani Group on Wednesday denounced allegations of fraud made by US-based short seller Hindenburg Research as “baseless” and a “malicious combination of selective misinformation.”

Hindenburg Research published an investigation on billionaire Gautam Adani’s sprawling conglomerate on Tuesday, accusing it of “brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.”

Hindenburg said it has taken a short position in companies in the Adani Group “through U.S.-traded bonds and non-Indian-traded derivative instruments.” Short sellers aim to make money by betting that the stock price of the companies they target will fall.

Adani’s business empire contains seven listed companies — in sectors ranging from ports to power stations — and shares in most of them fell by between 3% and more than 8% on Wednesday.

The plunge had an immediate impact on the billionaire’s net worth. According to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index, Adani lost nearly $6 billion on Wednesday. He is currently worth $113 billion.

In its investigation, which Hindenburg said took two years to compile, the research firm questioned the “sky-high valuations” of Adani firms and said their “substantial debt” puts the entire group “on a precarious financial footing.”

The research firm concluded its report with 88 questions for the Adani Group. These range from asking for details on Adani’s offshore entities, to why it has “such a convoluted, interlinked corporate structure.”

CNN has not verified the claims in the report, and India’s stock market regulator did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Shares of Adani’s companies have surged in the last few years, making him Asia’s richest man.

In a statement released a few hours after Hindenburg published its report, the Adani Group’s chief financial officer Jugeshinder Singh said that Hindenburg did not make “any attempt to contact us or verify the factual matrix,” adding that the allegations made by the short seller are “stale, baseless and discredited.”

The conglomerate has faced scrutiny from Indian authorities in the past. In 2021, shares in Adani’s companies tumbled after The Economic Times newspaper said that foreign funds that hold stakes worth billions of dollars were frozen by the country’s National Securities Depository. The Adani Group called that report “blatantly erroneous.”

Nate Anderson, who founded Hindenburg Research, has made a name for himself in the past few years by targeting companies that he thinks are overvalued and have suspect financials. Anderson is best known for going after electric truck company Nikola in 2020, calling it an “intricate fraud,” and causing the firm’s stock to plunge sharply. In 2022, Nikola’s founder was convicted by a US jury of fraud in a case alleging he lied to investors about the company’s technology.

But some have accused Hindenburg of trying to push stocks lower with its research reports in order to make a profit.

Its report on the Adani Group comes at a sensitive time. Later this week, Adani Enterprises, the conglomerate’s flagship company, is aiming to raise 200 billion rupees ($2.5 billion) by issuing new shares.

Singh said that the “timing of the report’s publication clearly betrays a brazen, mala fide intention to undermine the Adani Group’s reputation with the principal objective of damaging the upcoming follow-on public offering.”

The conglomerate is also considering taking five new businesses to the stock market in the next two to five years.

A college dropout and a self-made industrialist, Adani is the world’s fourth richest man, ahead of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, according to Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. He is also seen as a close ally of India’s current prime minister, Narendra Modi.

The 60-year-old tycoon founded the Adani group over 30 years ago. It now has established businesses in industries ranging from logistics to mining, and is aggressively growing in diverse sectors such as media, data centers, airports, and cement.

But this is not the first time analysts have expressed fear that the rapid expansion of his business comes with a huge risk. Adani’s juggernaut has been fueled by a $30 billion borrowing binge, making his business one of the most indebted in the country.

Last year, CreditSights, a research firm owned by Fitch Group, published a report about Adani Group titled “Deeply Overleveraged” in which it expressed strong concerns about its debt-funded growth plans.

Adani Group responded to CreditSights with a 15-page report, saying that the “leverage ratios” of its companies “continue to be healthy and are in line with the industry benchmarks in the respective sectors” and that they “have consistently de-levered” in the last nine years.

Read original article here

Taylor Swift: Live Nation exec will face lawmakers about concert tickets fiasco


New York
CNN
 — 

Lawmakers are set to grill top executives from the event ticketing industry on Tuesday after Ticketmaster’s inability to process orders for Taylor Swift’s upcoming tour left millions of fans unable to buy tickets or without their ticket even after purchase.

Joe Berchtold, the president and CFO of Ticketmaster parent company Live Nation Entertainment, is set to testify before a Senate committee on Tuesday, two months after the Swift ticketing fiasco reignited public scrutiny of the industry. Jack Groetzinger, CEO of ticketing platform SeatGeek, is also scheduled to testify at the hearing.

Tickets for Swift’s new five-month Eras Tour – which kicks off March 17 and will have 52 concerts in multiple stadiums across the United States – went on sale on Ticketmaster in mid November. Heavy demand snarled the ticketing site, infuriating fans who couldn’t snag tickets. Customers complained about Ticketmaster not loading, saying the platform didn’t allow them to access tickets, even if they had a pre-sale code for verified fans.

Unable to resolve the problems, Ticketmaster subsequently canceled Swift’s concert ticket sales to the general public, citing “extraordinarily high demands on ticketing systems and insufficient remaining ticket inventory to meet that demand.”

As fury grew among legions of hardcore Swifties, Swift herself weighed in on the fiasco. “It goes without saying that I’m extremely protective of my fans,” Swift wrote on Instagram in November. “It’s really difficult for me to trust an outside entity with these relationships and loyalties, and excruciating for me to just watch mistakes happen with no recourse.”

As a result, the US Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled the hearing on Tuesday, titled “That’s The Ticket: Promoting Competition and Protecting Consumers in Live Entertainment” to examine the lack of competition in the ticketing industry.

“The issues within America’s ticketing industry were made painfully obvious when Ticketmaster’s website failed hundreds of thousands of fans hoping to purchase tickets for Taylor Swift’s new tour, but these problems are not new,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who sits on the committee, said in a statement about the hearing. “We will examine how consolidation in the live entertainment and ticketing industries harms customers and artists alike. Without competition to incentivize better services and fair prices, we all suffer the consequences.”

In his prepared opening remarks, Berchtold blamed “industrial scalpers” for recent online ticketing snafus and called for legislation to rein in those bad actors. Ticketmaster, he said, was “hit with three times the amount of bot traffic than we had ever experienced” amid the “unprecedented demand for Taylor Swift tickets.” The bot activity “required us to slow down and even pause our sales. This is what led to a terrible consumer experience that we deeply regret.”

“As we said after the onsale, and I reiterate today, we apologize to the many disappointed fans as well as to Ms. Swift,” he said in the opening remarks. Berchtold also noted some things the service could have done differently “in hindsight,” including “staggering the sales over a longer period of time and doing a better job setting fan expectations for getting tickets.”

In addition to the executives, the committee said witnesses at the hearing will include Jerry Mickelson, CEO of Jam Productions, one of the largest producers of live entertainment, and singer-songwriter Clyde Lawrence.

Lawrence, who has composed music for motion pictures including the Disney+ holiday comedy movie “Noelle,” wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times in December titled “Taylor Swift’s Live Nation Debacle Is Just the Beginning,” in which he criticized Live Nation for allegedly being a monopoly and detrimental to artists.

“Whether it meets the legal definition of a monopoly or not, Live Nation’s control of the live music ecosystem is staggering,” he wrote.

Criticism of Ticketmaster’s dominance dates back decades, but the Swift ticketing incident has once again turned that issue into a dinner table discussion at many households.

Concert promoter Live Nation and ticketing company Ticketmaster, two of the largest companies in the concert business, announced their merger in 2009. The deal at the time raised concerns, including from the US Department of Justice, that it would create a near-monopoly in the industry.

The Justice Department allowed the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger to proceed despite a 2010 court filing in the case that raised objections to the merger. In the filing, the Justice Department said that Ticketmaster’s share among major concert venues exceeded 80%.

Ticketmaster disputes that market share estimate and says it holds at most just over 30% of the concert market, according to comments on NPR recently by Berchtold.

While irate fans were left scrambling to wade through the Swift ticket confusion, their collective anger caught lawmakers’ attention.

Members of Congress used the debacle to criticize Ticketmaster’s control of the live music industry, saying that because Ticketmaster dominates so heavily, it has no reason to make things better for the millions of customers who have no other choice.

“Ticketmaster’s power in the primary ticket market insulates it from the competitive pressures that typically push companies to innovate and improve their services,” Klobuchar, who chairs the antitrust subcommittee, wrote in an open letter to Ticketmaster’s CEO in November. “That can result in the types of dramatic service failures we saw this week, where consumers are the ones that pay the price.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal echoed Klobuchar’s concerns. He tweeted at the time that the tour “is a perfect example of how the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger harms consumers by creating a near-monopoly.”

In December, lawmakers from the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino, demanding a briefing on what went wrong and what steps the company is taking to fix the problems.

“The recent pre-sales ticketing process for Taylor Swift’s upcoming Eras tour – in which millions of fans endured delays, lockouts, and competition with aggressive scammers, scalpers and bots – raises concerns over the potential unfair and deceptive practices that face consumers and eventgoers,” the committee wrote in its letter.

The committee noted it had previously raised concerns about the industry’s business practices and said it wanted to meet with Rapino to discuss how the company processes tickets for concerts and major tours. It also wants answers about how Ticketmaster plans to improve in the future.

Brian A. Marks, a senior lecturer in the department of economics and business analytics at University of New Haven’s Pompea College of Business, said he would have liked Swift to make an appearance at the hearing.

“This hearing seems to be focused on Swift and what happened with the ticket sales. We also have to remember that Taylor Swift and her team negotiated a contract with Ticketmaster for sale of her concert ticket,” said Marks.

“Will Congress want to look at that contract? To me, what happened with the Swift concert tickets was not necessarily the result of Ticketmaster being the dominant player in the industry,” he said. Artists, and especially larger artists like Swift, “are free to elsewhere,” he said. “This point may get missed in tomorrow’s hearing.”

– CNN’s Frank Pallotta, Chris Isidore and David Goldman contributed to this story



Read original article here

Here are the companies that have laid off employees this year


New York
CNN
 — 

Just this week, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, Microsoft

(MSFT) and Vox Media announced layoffs that will affect more than 22,000 workers.

Their moves follow on the heels of job cuts earlier this month at Amazon, Goldman Sachs and Salesforce. More companies are expected to do the same as firms that aggressively hired over the last two years slam on the brakes, and in many cases shift into reverse.

The cutbacks are in sharp contrast to 2022, which had the second-highest level of job gains on record, with 4.5 million. But last year’s job numbers began falling as the year went on, with December’s job report showing the lowest monthly gains in two years.

The highest level of hiring occurred in 2021, when 6.7 million jobs were added. But that came on the heels of the first year of the pandemic, when the US effectively shut down and 9.3 million jobs were lost.

The current layoffs are across multiple industries, from media firms to Wall Street, but so far are hitting Big Tech especially hard.

That’s a contrast from job losses during the pandemic, which saw consumers’ buying habits shifting toward e-commerce and other online services during lockdown. Tech firms went on a hiring spree.

But now, workers are returning to their offices and in-person shopping is bouncing back. Add in the increasing likelihood of a recession, higher interest rates and tepid demand due to rising prices, and tech businesses are slashing their costs.

January has been filled with headlines announcing job cuts at company after company. Here is a list of layoffs this month – so far.

Google

(GOOGL)’s parent said Friday it is laying off 12,000 workers across product areas and regions, or 6% of its workforce. Alphabet added 50,000 workers over the past two years as the pandemic created greater demand for its services. But recent recession fears has advertisers pulling back from its core digital ad business.

“Over the past two years we’ve seen periods of dramatic growth,” CEO Sundar Pichai said in an email to employees. “To match and fuel that growth, we hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today.”

The tech behemoth is laying off 10,000 employees, the company said in a securities filing on Wednesday. Globally, Microsoft has 221,000 full-time employees with 122,000 of them based in the US.

CEO Satya Nadella said during a talk at Davos that “no one can defy gravity” and that Microsoft could not ignore the weaker global economy.

“We’re living through times of significant change, and as I meet with customers and partners, a few things are clear,” Nadella wrote in a memo. “First, as we saw customers accelerate their digital spend during the pandemic, we’re now seeing them optimize their digital spend to do more with less.”

The publisher of the news and opinion website Vox, tech website The Verge and New York Magazine, announced Friday that it’s cutting 7% of its staff, or about 130 people.

“We are experiencing and expect more of the same economic and financial pressures that others in the media and tech industries have encountered,” chief executive Jim Bankoff said in a memo.

Layoffs are also hitting Wall Street hard. The world’s largest asset manager is eliminating 500 jobs, or less than 3% of its workforce.

Today’s “unprecedented market environment” is a stark contrast from its attitude over the last three years,, when it increased its staff by about 22%. Its last major round of cutbacks was in 2019.

The bank will lay off up to 3,200 workers this month amid a slump in global dealmaking activity. More than a third of the cuts are expected to be from the firm’s trading and banking units. Goldman Sachs

(FADXX) had almost 50,000 employees at the end of last year’s third quarter.

The crypto brokerage announced in early January that it’s cutting 950 people – almost one in five employees in its workforce. The move comes just a few months after Coinbase laid off 1,100 people.

Though Bitcoin had a solid start to the new year, crypto companies were slammed by significant drops in prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

McDonald’s

(MCD), which thrived during the pandemic, is planning on cutting some of its corporate staff, CEO Chris Kempczinski said this month.

“We will evaluate roles and staffing levels in parts of the organization and there will be difficult discussions and decisions ahead,” Kempszinski said, outlining a plan to “break down internal barriers, grow more innovative and reduce work that doesn’t align with the company’s priorities.”

The online personalized subscription clothing retailer said it plans to lay off 20% of its salaried staff.

“We will be losing many talented team members from across the company and I am truly sorry,” Stitch Fix

(SFIX) founder and former CEO Katrina Lake wrote in a blog post.

As the new year began, Amazon

(AMZN) said it plans to lay off more than 18,000 employees. Departments from human resources to the company’s Amazon

(AMZN) Stores will be affected.

“Companies that last a long time go through different phases. They’re not in heavy people expansion mode every year,” CEO Andy Jassy said in a memo to employees.

Amazon boomed during the pandemic, and hired rapidly over the last few years. But demand has cooled as consumers return to their offline lives and battle high prices. Amazon says it has more than 800,000 employees.

At The New York Times DealBook summit In November, Jassy said he believes Amazon “made the right decision” regarding its rapid infrastructure build out but said its hiring spree is a “lesson for everyone.”

Even as he spoke, Amazon warehouse workers who helped organize the company’s first-ever US labor union at a Staten Island facility last year were picketing Jassy’s appearance outside the conference venue.

“We definitely want to take this opportunity to let him know that the workers are waiting and we are ready to negotiate our first contract,” Amazon Labor Union President Chris Smalls said, calling the protest a “welcoming party” for Jassy.

Salesforce

(CRM) will cut about 10% of its workforce from its more than 70,000 employess and reduce its real estate footprint. In a letter to employees, Salesforce

(CRM)’s chair and co-CEO Marc Benioff admitted to adding too much to the company’s headcount early in the pandemic.

– CNN’s Clare Duffy, Matt Egan, Oliver Darcy, Julia Horowitz, Catherine Thorbecke, Paul R. La Monica, Nathaniel Meyersohn, Parija Kavilanz, Danielle Wiener-Bronner and Hanna Ziady contributed to this report.

Read original article here

How Ukraine became a laboratory for western weapons and battlefield innovation



CNN
 — 

Last fall, as Ukraine won back large swaths of territory in a series of counterattacks, it pounded Russian forces with American-made artillery and rockets. Guiding some of that artillery was a homemade targeting system that Ukraine developed on the battlefield.

A piece of Ukrainian-made software has turned readily available tablet computers and smartphones into sophisticated targeting tools that are now used widely across the Ukrainian military.

The result is a mobile app that feeds satellite and other intelligence imagery into a real-time targeting algorithm that helps units near the front direct fire onto specific targets. And because it’s an app, not a piece of hardware, it’s easy to quickly update and upgrade, and available to a wide range of personnel.

US officials familiar with the tool say it has been highly effective at directing Ukrainian artillery fire onto Russian targets.

The targeting app is among dozens of examples of battlefield innovations that Ukraine has come up with over nearly a year of war, often finding cheap fixes to expensive problems.

Small, plastic drones, buzzing quietly overhead, drop grenades and other ordinance on Russian troops. 3D printers now make spare parts so soldiers can repair heavy equipment in the field. Technicians have converted ordinary pickup trucks into mobile missile launchers. Engineers have figured out how to strap sophisticated US missiles onto older Soviet fighter jets such as the MiG-29, helping keep the Ukrainian air force flying after nine months of war.

Ukraine has even developed its own anti-ship weapon, the Neptune, based off Soviet rocket designs that can target the Russian fleet from almost 200 miles away.

This kind of Ukrainian ingenuity has impressed US officials, who have praised Kyiv’s ability to “MacGyver” solutions to its battlefield needs that fill in important tactical gaps left by the larger, more sophisticated Western weaponry.

While US and other Western officials don’t always have perfect insight into exactly how Ukraine’s custom-made systems work – in large part because they are not on the ground – both officials and open-source analysts say Ukraine has become a veritable battle lab for cheap but effective solutions.

“Their innovation is just incredibly impressive,” said Seth Jones, director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine has also offered the United States and its allies a rare opportunity to study how their own weapons systems perform under intense use – and what munitions both sides are using to score wins in this hotly fought modern war. US operations officers and other military officials have also tracked how successfully Russia has used cheap, expendable drones that explode on impact, provided by Iran, to decimate the Ukrainian power grid.

Ukraine is “absolutely a weapons lab in every sense because none of this equipment has ever actually been used in a war between two industrially developed nations,” said one source familiar with Western intelligence. “This is real-world battle testing.”

For the US military, the war in Ukraine has been an incredible source of data on the utility of its own systems.

Some high-profile systems given to the Ukrainians – such as the Switchblade 300 drone and a missile designed to target enemy radar systems – have turned out to be less effective on the battlefield than anticipated, according to a US military operations officer with knowledge of the battlefield, as well as a recent British think tank study.

But the lightweight American-made M142 multiple rocket launcher, or HIMARS, has been critical to Ukraine’s success – even as officials have learned valuable lessons about the rate of maintenance repair those systems have required under such heavy use.

How Ukraine has used its limited supply of HIMARS missiles to wreak havoc on Russian command and control, striking command posts, headquarters and supply depots, has been eye-opening, a defense official said, adding that military leaders would be studying this for years.

Another crucial piece of insight has been about the M777 howitzer, the powerful artillery that has been a critical part of Ukraine’s battlefield power. But the barrels of the howitzers lose their rifling if too many shells are fired in a short time frame, another defense official said, making the artillery less accurate and less effective.

The Ukrainians have also made tactical innovations that have impressed Western officials. During the early weeks of the war, Ukrainian commanders adapted their operations to employ small teams of dismounted infantry during the Russian advance on Kyiv. Armed with shoulder-mounted Stinger and Javelin rockets, Ukrainian troops were able to sneak up on Russian tanks without infantry on their flanks.

The US has also closely studied the conflict for larger lessons on how a war between two modern nations might be waged in the 21st century.

The operations officer said that one lesson the US may take from this conflict is that towed artillery – like the M777 howitzer system – may be a thing of the past. Those systems are harder to move quickly to avoid return fire – and in a world of ubiquitous drones and overhead surveillance, “it’s very hard to hide nowadays,” this person said.

When it comes to lessons learned, “there’s a book to be written about this,” said Democratic Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

US defense contractors have also taken note of the novel opportunity to study – and market – their systems.

BAE Systems has already announced that the Russian success with their kamikaze drones has influenced how it is designing a new armored fighting vehicle for the Army, adding more armor to protect soldiers from attacks from above.

And different parts of the US government and industry have sought to test novel systems and solutions in a fight for which Ukraine needed all the help it could get.

In the early days of the conflict, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency sent five lightweight, high-resolution surveillance drones to US Special Operations Command in Europe – just in case they might come in handy in Ukraine. The drones, made by a company called Hexagon, weren’t part of a so-called program of record at the Defense Department, hinting at the experimental nature of the conflict.

Navy Vice Adm. Robert Sharp, the head of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at the time, even boasted publicly that the US had trained a “military partner” in Europe on the system.

“What this allows you to do is to go out underneath cloud cover and collect your own [geointelligence] data,” Sharp told CNN on the sidelines of a satellite conference in Denver last spring.

Despite intense effort by a small group of US officials and outside industry, it remains unclear whether these drones ever made it into the fight.

Meanwhile, multiple intelligence and military officials told CNN they hoped that creating what the US military terms “attritable” drones – cheap, single-use weapons – has become a top priority for defense contractors.

“I wish we could make a $10,000 one-way attack drone,” one of these officials said, wistfully.

Read original article here

How WWE’s Vince McMahon ruthlessly got his job back despite allegations of sexual assault and misuse of company funds


Washington
CNN
 — 

Professional wrestling is known for its outlandish, dramatic stories that have captivated generations. It’s an athletic soap opera built on emotional drama with wrestlers sometimes scheming in the background for months only to make their move at the opportune moment, drawing crazed reactions from arenas packed with fans who have followed every beat.

But the real-life saga playing out in World Wrestling Entertainment’s corporate office over the last several weeks surpasses even what most of what those performers and their backstage colleagues could dream up.

Vince McMahon, the longtime force behind WWE at the corporate and creative levels, made a shocking return to the company on January 10, nearly six months after announcing his retirement. McMahon was alleged to have used company funds to pay millions to multiple women in order to cover up infidelity and allegations of sexual misconduct.

But over a series of just a few days last week, McMahon engineered his return to the company’s board of directors, reshaped it by forcing out some members, replaced them with his own allies, and used that new boardroom power to install himself in his old job as executive chairman. His own daughter – the heir apparent to the company who had appeared groomed to take the job for years – resigned.

The stunning and swift developments have the wrestling world reeling, with rumors of a sale burning up Wrestling Twitter and people inside and outside the company wondering what it all means for the future of WWE and professional wrestling itself.

In July, Vince McMahon – an ever-present force in WWE and professional wrestling, the man who remade the business in service of a vision that upended generations of tradition, creating his own hegemony – retired. Or he resigned, depending on who you ask.

It was a moment many wrestling fans and observers never thought would come. The longtime chairman and CEO of WWE was such an intense micromanager that he barely slept, rarely took vacations and almost never stopped putting his own spin on every single aspect of the company’s output. Many longtime followers of the company simply assumed he’d die in the role rather than retire.

But a series of revelations first reported in The Wall Street Journal about hush money payments to multiple women to cover up infidelity and allegations of sexual misconduct seemed to bring McMahon’s legendary run as the head of wrestling’s most important company to an end. Additional reporting came in December, with additional women accusing McMahon of sexual assault, seemed to cement his status as being permanently gone from WWE.

WWE has always been a family business – Vince McMahon, Sr., handed over the reins to his son in the 1980s – and it seemed set to continue that way. Vince McMahon’s daughter, Stephanie, who only weeks before had taken a leave of absence from the company, stepped into the role of co-CEO with Nick Khan, a longtime executive in the entertainment and media industry.

And Paul Levesque – Stephanie McMahon’s husband and a Hall of Fame professional wrestler himself and better known by his ring name, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, or Triple H – assumed the job as the head of creative, putting him in charge of WWE’s storylines and in-ring action, which his father-in-law had long managed.

That moment last summer signaled a sea change in the professional wrestling industry.

Vince McMahon was more akin to a king than a business executive in the world of WWE, his fingerprints on everything. Through his ruthless business practices, he had molded the industry in his image, running most of his competition out of business and turning his company into the destination for pro wrestling. For most of two decades, he had a monopoly on the business.

But his creative output cratered in recent years. Stars who left WWE described a frustrating creative process dominated by McMahon that stifled their visions and led to a homogenized product that felt miles away from the company’s peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

With the vast majority of company revenue coming from TV rights, instead of fans spending money on tickets or pay-per-view events, the need to give the people what they want was replaced by content production. Sometimes it seemed as if Vince McMahon’s creative decisions were meant to antagonize and annoy his audience, appearing to ram home his vision of “sports entertainment” whether they liked it or not.

A turning point for many was the 2015 Royal Rumble event. Fans were clamoring for their favorite Daniel Bryan, one of the most gifted wrestlers on the planet, to win the event’s namesake. To many fans, Bryan’s run symbolized hope that the company would promote their favorite wrestlers instead of McMahon’s chosen ones.

But Bryan was unceremoniously eliminated in the first half of the match. The crowd in Philadelphia booed throughout the second half, chanting Bryan’s name and refusing to celebrate when Roman Reigns – widely seen as McMahon’s choice to be the future of the company despite fan apathy – won.

Shrinking viewership numbers reflected that loss of hope. While TV ratings overall have dropped in the last several years, with some exceptions, WWE’s drop outpaced the general decline in overall viewership and in the key 18-49 demographic, according to Wrestlenomics, a website that tracks the business side of the industry.

Once considered a wrestling genius, critics have more recently come to consider Vince McMahon a creative liability. The elevation of Levesque and the Stephanie McMahon-Khan duo appeared to signal hope that a new era was dawning over the WWE and that its creative system would finally get the long-needed injection of new ideas, new faces and new energy.

In December, The Wall Street Journal reported McMahon was eying a comeback – the first rumblings that the new era might be on shaky ground.

According to the Journal’s reporting, McMahon was telling people around him that he had received bad advice to step aside after the paper reported he used company funds to pay more than $12 million in hush money settlements to women to cover up “allegations of sexual misconduct and infidelity.”

The WSJ also reported McMahon believed the controversy would have blown over if he had just stayed on as head of creative and chairman of the company’s board of directors.

Then, in early January, McMahon made his move.

As revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, McMahon said he had to return to the company because negotiations over media rights and a “strategic alternatives review” required his “direct participation, leadership and support.” He told the SEC he was putting himself back on the company’s board of directors, along with two longtime allies – both of whom McMahon had fired from the company in 2020.

How could he do this, despite retiring in disgrace and ostensibly being away from the company for months? McMahon never sold his stock in the company and remained WWE’s controlling shareholder.

“The only way for WWE to fully capitalize on this opportunity is for me to return as Executive Chairman and support the management team in the negotiations for our media rights and to combine that with a review of strategic alternatives,” McMahon said in a news release. “My return will allow WWE, as well as any transaction counterparties, to engage in these processes knowing they will have the support of the controlling shareholder.”

Over the course of just a few days, he had gone from ostracized former wrestling executive to once again running the company that he had taken from a regional player to a global power. It just was the kind of swerve one might have expected from “Mr. McMahon,” Vince McMahon’s devious on-screen character, who served as wrestling’s greatest heel for years in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Just days after reinstalling himself on the company’s board, WWE’s board of directors unanimously returned him to his old job as executive chairman.

Not only that, his daughter, Stephanie McMahon – who had seemed groomed to take over the company for years and played prominent roles on screen and off – resigned as chairwoman and co-CEO of WWE, leaving it all together.

Nick Khan was left as the company’s lone CEO. But the corporate machinations over the last week showed that, once again, McMahon was the real power in WWE.

There are reports that McMahon is exploring selling the company, but it’s not clear if there’s any truth to them.

So far, all of McMahon’s statements about his intentions pertain to business negotiations. But Stephanie McMahon’s departure has cast a cloud over her husband’s future with the company.

As his father-in-law forced his way back into the company, Levesque was gearing up for his first major period in charge of WWE’s storytelling heading into its most important time of year. WrestleMania season kicks off with January 28’s Royal Rumble event and continues through the first weekend of April, when WWE runs a two-night WrestleMania event – its biggest shows of the year – at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. This was likely to be the first major test for Levesque’s creative vision for WWE and had been hotly anticipated by wrestling fans.

McMahon’s reemergence now leads to questions over how much influence the chairman will seek to exercise over the creative direction of the company, and how it might clash with Levesque’s own vision.

Upon taking control of creative, the WWE Hall of Famer re-signed scores of wrestlers who McMahon had released in recent years, including stars like Bray Wyatt and Braun Strowman, and given priority to other wrestlers who don’t fit McMahon’s typical vision of a professional wrestler – someone taller than 6-foot-3 inches, muscular, good looking and with actual wrestling ability considered optional.

The futures of those Levesque favorites now seem less certain than they did just a few weeks ago.

There are real questions over how fans will receive the news of McMahon’s return. A man once seen as a legend in the business is accused of sexually assaulting multiple women, then using the levers of corporate power to escape accountability. Fans have already tuned out from the company in droves in recent years and some may decide not to spend their money, time and attention on a product helmed by McMahon.

And then there’s the question of how McMahon’s return affects the pro wrestling industry as a whole.

All Elite Wrestling (AEW), an upstart promotion begun in 2019 by Tony Khan – the son of auto parts billionaire Shahid Khan and no relation to the WWE CEO – and several of independent wrestling’s biggest stars, has become the second-biggest wrestling company in the world by simply being what WWE is not.

Its focus on long-term storytelling, great matches, charismatic stars and less sanitized production has allowed AEW to break WWE’s monopoly on the wrestling industry and become a verified player in the business.

As such, it had become a home for some of the highest profile wrestlers in the industry who had been burnt out on WWE’s corporate culture and bending to McMahon’s whims. His departure back in July and Levesque’s ascension to the WWE creative throne led many observers to wonder if AEW stars would be looking to jump ship and head to WWE.

There were some hopes among WWE diehards that Levesque’s new regime might be successful enough to snuff out AEW’s rise. McMahon’s return may toss some doubt into the minds of AEW wrestlers who were thinking about moving to WWE in the future.

Read original article here

How WWE’s Vince McMahon ruthlessly got his job back despite allegations of sexual assault and misuse of company funds


Washington
CNN
 — 

Professional wrestling is known for its outlandish, dramatic stories that have captivated generations. It’s an athletic soap opera built on emotional drama with wrestlers sometimes scheming in the background for months only to make their move at the opportune moment, drawing crazed reactions from arenas packed with fans who have followed every beat.

But the real-life saga playing out in World Wrestling Entertainment’s corporate office over the last several weeks surpasses even what most of what those performers and their backstage colleagues could dream up.

Vince McMahon, the longtime force behind WWE at the corporate and creative levels, made a shocking return to the company on January 10, nearly six months after announcing his retirement. McMahon was alleged to have used company funds to pay millions to multiple women in order to cover up infidelity and allegations of sexual misconduct.

But over a series of just a few days last week, McMahon engineered his return to the company’s board of directors, reshaped it by forcing out some members, replaced them with his own allies, and used that new boardroom power to install himself in his old job as executive chairman. His own daughter – the heir apparent to the company who had appeared groomed to take the job for years – resigned.

The stunning and swift developments have the wrestling world reeling, with rumors of a sale burning up Wrestling Twitter and people inside and outside the company wondering what it all means for the future of WWE and professional wrestling itself.

In July, Vince McMahon – an ever-present force in WWE and professional wrestling, the man who remade the business in service of a vision that upended generations of tradition, creating his own hegemony – retired. Or he resigned, depending on who you ask.

It was a moment many wrestling fans and observers never thought would come. The longtime chairman and CEO of WWE was such an intense micromanager that he barely slept, rarely took vacations and almost never stopped putting his own spin on every single aspect of the company’s output. Many longtime followers of the company simply assumed he’d die in the role rather than retire.

But a series of revelations first reported in The Wall Street Journal about hush money payments to multiple women to cover up infidelity and allegations of sexual misconduct seemed to bring McMahon’s legendary run as the head of wrestling’s most important company to an end. Additional reporting came in December, with additional women accusing McMahon of sexual assault, seemed to cement his status as being permanently gone from WWE.

WWE has always been a family business – Vince McMahon, Sr., handed over the reins to his son in the 1980s – and it seemed set to continue that way. Vince McMahon’s daughter, Stephanie, who only weeks before had taken a leave of absence from the company, stepped into the role of co-CEO with Nick Khan, a longtime executive in the entertainment and media industry.

And Paul Levesque – Stephanie McMahon’s husband and a Hall of Fame professional wrestler himself and better known by his ring name, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, or Triple H – assumed the job as the head of creative, putting him in charge of WWE’s storylines and in-ring action, which his father-in-law had long managed.

That moment last summer signaled a sea change in the professional wrestling industry.

Vince McMahon was more akin to a king than a business executive in the world of WWE, his fingerprints on everything. Through his ruthless business practices, he had molded the industry in his image, running most of his competition out of business and turning his company into the destination for pro wrestling. For most of two decades, he had a monopoly on the business.

But his creative output cratered in recent years. Stars who left WWE described a frustrating creative process dominated by McMahon that stifled their visions and led to a homogenized product that felt miles away from the company’s peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

With the vast majority of company revenue coming from TV rights, instead of fans spending money on tickets or pay-per-view events, the need to give the people what they want was replaced by content production. Sometimes it seemed as if Vince McMahon’s creative decisions were meant to antagonize and annoy his audience, appearing to ram home his vision of “sports entertainment” whether they liked it or not.

A turning point for many was the 2015 Royal Rumble event. Fans were clamoring for their favorite Daniel Bryan, one of the most gifted wrestlers on the planet, to win the event’s namesake. To many fans, Bryan’s run symbolized hope that the company would promote their favorite wrestlers instead of McMahon’s chosen ones.

But Bryan was unceremoniously eliminated in the first half of the match. The crowd in Philadelphia booed throughout the second half, chanting Bryan’s name and refusing to celebrate when Roman Reigns – widely seen as McMahon’s choice to be the future of the company despite fan apathy – won.

Shrinking viewership numbers reflected that loss of hope. While TV ratings overall have dropped in the last several years, with some exceptions, WWE’s drop outpaced the general decline in overall viewership and in the key 18-49 demographic, according to Wrestlenomics, a website that tracks the business side of the industry.

Once considered a wrestling genius, critics have more recently come to consider Vince McMahon a creative liability. The elevation of Levesque and the Stephanie McMahon-Khan duo appeared to signal hope that a new era was dawning over the WWE and that its creative system would finally get the long-needed injection of new ideas, new faces and new energy.

In December, The Wall Street Journal reported McMahon was eying a comeback – the first rumblings that the new era might be on shaky ground.

According to the Journal’s reporting, McMahon was telling people around him that he had received bad advice to step aside after the paper reported he used company funds to pay more than $12 million in hush money settlements to women to cover up “allegations of sexual misconduct and infidelity.”

The WSJ also reported McMahon believed the controversy would have blown over if he had just stayed on as head of creative and chairman of the company’s board of directors.

Then, in early January, McMahon made his move.

As revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, McMahon said he had to return to the company because negotiations over media rights and a “strategic alternatives review” required his “direct participation, leadership and support.” He told the SEC he was putting himself back on the company’s board of directors, along with two longtime allies – both of whom McMahon had fired from the company in 2020.

How could he do this, despite retiring in disgrace and ostensibly being away from the company for months? McMahon never sold his stock in the company and remained WWE’s controlling shareholder.

“The only way for WWE to fully capitalize on this opportunity is for me to return as Executive Chairman and support the management team in the negotiations for our media rights and to combine that with a review of strategic alternatives,” McMahon said in a news release. “My return will allow WWE, as well as any transaction counterparties, to engage in these processes knowing they will have the support of the controlling shareholder.”

Over the course of just a few days, he had gone from ostracized former wrestling executive to once again running the company that he had taken from a regional player to a global power. It just was the kind of swerve one might have expected from “Mr. McMahon,” Vince McMahon’s devious on-screen character, who served as wrestling’s greatest heel for years in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Just days after reinstalling himself on the company’s board, WWE’s board of directors unanimously returned him to his old job as executive chairman.

Not only that, his daughter, Stephanie McMahon – who had seemed groomed to take over the company for years and played prominent roles on screen and off – resigned as chairwoman and co-CEO of WWE, leaving it all together.

Nick Khan was left as the company’s lone CEO. But the corporate machinations over the last week showed that, once again, McMahon was the real power in WWE.

There are reports that McMahon is exploring selling the company, but it’s not clear if there’s any truth to them.

So far, all of McMahon’s statements about his intentions pertain to business negotiations. But Stephanie McMahon’s departure has cast a cloud over her husband’s future with the company.

As his father-in-law forced his way back into the company, Levesque was gearing up for his first major period in charge of WWE’s storytelling heading into its most important time of year. WrestleMania season kicks off with January 28’s Royal Rumble event and continues through the first weekend of April, when WWE runs a two-night WrestleMania event – its biggest shows of the year – at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles. This was likely to be the first major test for Levesque’s creative vision for WWE and had been hotly anticipated by wrestling fans.

McMahon’s reemergence now leads to questions over how much influence the chairman will seek to exercise over the creative direction of the company, and how it might clash with Levesque’s own vision.

Upon taking control of creative, the WWE Hall of Famer re-signed scores of wrestlers who McMahon had released in recent years, including stars like Bray Wyatt and Braun Strowman, and given priority to other wrestlers who don’t fit McMahon’s typical vision of a professional wrestler – someone taller than 6-foot-3 inches, muscular, good looking and with actual wrestling ability considered optional.

The futures of those Levesque favorites now seem less certain than they did just a few weeks ago.

There are real questions over how fans will receive the news of McMahon’s return. A man once seen as a legend in the business is accused of sexually assaulting multiple women, then using the levers of corporate power to escape accountability. Fans have already tuned out from the company in droves in recent years and some may decide not to spend their money, time and attention on a product helmed by McMahon.

And then there’s the question of how McMahon’s return affects the pro wrestling industry as a whole.

All Elite Wrestling (AEW), an upstart promotion begun in 2019 by Tony Khan – the son of auto parts billionaire Shahid Khan and no relation to the WWE CEO – and several of independent wrestling’s biggest stars, has become the second-biggest wrestling company in the world by simply being what WWE is not.

Its focus on long-term storytelling, great matches, charismatic stars and less sanitized production has allowed AEW to break WWE’s monopoly on the wrestling industry and become a verified player in the business.

As such, it had become a home for some of the highest profile wrestlers in the industry who had been burnt out on WWE’s corporate culture and bending to McMahon’s whims. His departure back in July and Levesque’s ascension to the WWE creative throne led many observers to wonder if AEW stars would be looking to jump ship and head to WWE.

There were some hopes among WWE diehards that Levesque’s new regime might be successful enough to snuff out AEW’s rise. McMahon’s return may toss some doubt into the minds of AEW wrestlers who were thinking about moving to WWE in the future.

Read original article here