Tag Archives: Industry

French champagne industry group fumes over new Russian champagne law

PARIS/MOSCOW, July 5 (Reuters) – France’s champagne industry group on Monday blasted a new Russian law forcing foreign champagne producers to add a “sparkling wine” reference to their bottles and called for champagne exports to Russia to be halted.

The law, signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, requires all foreign producers of sparkling wine to describe their product as such on the label on the back of the bottle — though not on the front — while makers of Russian “shampanskoye” may continue to use that term alone.

The French champagne industry group called on its members to halt all shipments to Russia for the time being and said the name “champagne”, which refers to the region in France the drink comes from, had legal protection in 120 countries.

“The Champagne Committee deplores the fact that this legislation does not ensure that Russian consumers have clear and transparent information about the origins and characteristics of wine,” group co-presidents Maxime Toubart and Jean-Marie Barillere said in a statement.

French Trade Minister Franck Riester said he was tracking the new Russian law closely, in contact with the wine industry and France’s European partners.

“We will unfailingly support our producers and French excellence,” he said on Twitter.

Moet Hennessy, the LVMH-owned French maker of Veuve Clicquot and Dom Perignon champagnes, said on Sunday it would begin adding the designation “sparkling wine” to the back of bottles destined for Russia to comply with the law.

LVMH (LVMH.PA) shares were down around 0.2% on Monday afternoon, underperforming the Paris bourse, which was up 0.34%.

Shares in Russian sparkling wine maker Abrau-Durso (ABRD.MM) were up more than 3% after rising as much 7.77% in early trade.

Abrau-Durso president Pavel Titov told Radio France Internationale on Saturday his firm does not have sparkling wines that would be called “champagne” in its portfolio and said he hoped the issue would be resolved in favor of global norms and standards.

“It is very important to protect the Russian wines on our market. But the legislation must be reasonable and not contradict common sense … I have no doubts that the real champagne is made in the Champagne region of France,” he said.

Reporting by Sudip Kar-Gupta and Leigh Thomas in Paris and Alexander Marrow in Moscow;
Writing by Geert De Clercq
Editing by Alison Williams, Andrea Ricci and Catherine Evans

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

FTC Charges Broadcom With Monopolization of Chip Industry

Photo: Justin Sullivan (Getty Images)

The Federal Trade Commission has filed charges against Broadcom over allegations that the chip maker monopolized the market for semiconductor components, the agency announced Friday.

According to the commission’s complaint, Broadcom entered into long-term exclusivity and loyalty agreements with both original equipment manufacturers and service providers to prevent them from buying chips from Broadcom’s rivals. The FTC’s investigation, which dates back years, found that Broadcom had been making “exclusive or near-exclusive” deals since 2016 with at least 10 manufacturers of TV set-top boxes and broadband devices. The company also threatened customers who used a rival’s product with retaliation, with nonexclusive customers facing higher prices for slower delivery times and less responsive customer support, the FTC claims.

“By entering exclusivity and loyalty agreements with key customers at two levels of the supply chain, Broadcom created insurmountable barriers for companies trying to compete with Broadcom,” the agency said in a press release Friday.

The FTC said that under a proposed consent order, Broadcom must stop engaging in these kinds of contracts and conditioning access to its chips based on exclusivity or loyalty deals. Broadcom would also be prohibited from retaliating against customers that do business with its competitors.

“America has a monopoly problem,” said Holly Vedova, acting director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, in a press statement. “Today’s action is a step toward addressing that problem by pushing back against strong-arm tactics by a monopolist in important markets for key broadband components. There is much more work to be done and we need the tools and resources to do it. But I have full confidence in FTC staff’s commitment to this effort.”

The proposed consent order is still subject to a public comment period and a final commission review. For its part, Broadcom has pushed back against the FTC’s allegations while also indicating that it’s willing to cooperate on a settlement. The company resolved a similar antitrust dispute with the European Union last October in which it agreed to stop pushing exclusivity arrangements for chips used in TV set-top boxes and modems for the next seven years.

“We are pleased to move toward resolving this Broadband matter with the FTC on terms that are substantially similar to our previous settlement with the [European Commission] involving the same products,” Broadcom said in a statement to CNBC. “While we disagree that our actions violated the law and disagree with the FTC’s characterizations of our business, we look forward to putting this matter behind us and continuing to focus on supporting our customers through an environment of accelerated digital transformation.”

Read original article here

NASA seeking proposals for next phase of Artemis lunar lander services despite industry protests

WASHINGTON — NASA is seeking proposals to begin the next phase of Artemis lunar lander services, moving quickly despite unresolved protests about its selection of SpaceX to develop a lunar lander.

NASA issued a request for proposals July 1 for what it calls “Sustainable Human Landing System Studies and Risk Reduction.” The solicitation, Appendix N of NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program, will fund initial studies of landers to support the agency’s later phases of the Artemis program after the initial Artemis 3 landing.

The studies will enable companies to mature their designs for crewed lunar landers and provide feedback to NASA on proposed standards and specifications, such as a series of trade studies on aspects of the lander architecture. The studies would also support specific risk reduction activities proposed by companies for their landers.

NASA announced plans for NextSTEP Appendix N in late April, shortly after awarding a $2.9 billion contract to SpaceX as the sole winner of the Human Landing System (HLS) competition for development of a lander and a single demonstration mission with astronauts. NextSTEP Appendix N is intended to be the first step in the future Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) program to acquire landing services after the Artemis 3 mission.

“This announcement is a chance for the pioneering private sector to claim their stake in the emerging lunar economy and make history with NASA,” Lisa Watson-Morgan, NASA HLS program manager, said in an agency statement about the new solicitation.

At an industry day May 3, Watson-Morgan said NASA anticipated making “a few” awards at about $15 million each. The request for proposals will support proposals worth up to $45 million, or up to $100 million if options for additional work are exercised. NASA did not disclose how much total funding is available.

Proposals are due to NASA Aug. 2 with awards expected in the fall. That deadline has raised concerns in industry because it comes just two days before the deadline for the Government Accountability Office to rule on protests filed by Blue Origin and Dynetics regarding NASA’s selection of SpaceX for the single HLS award. While the GAO could rule on the protests at any time before Aug. 4, the complexity of the two protests has led both industry observers and NASA officials, including Administrator Bill Nelson, to expect a ruling on Aug. 4.

One industry source, speaking on background, noted that NASA issued the NextSTEP Appendix N request for proposals without first issuing a draft version for comment. It gives the appearance, that person said, of NASA trying to rush this through before the GAO rules on the protests or before Congress weighs in on the program.

A NASA authorization bill included in broader competitiveness legislation passed by the Senate June 8 would direct NASA to select a second HLS company, authorizing about $10 billion for the overall HLS program through 2025. The House has yet to take up its own NASA bill, though, and appropriators are only now beginning work on fiscal year 2022 spending bills.

“They’re trying to make it a fait accompli,” the source said of NASA’s efforts to get ahead of both Congress and the GAO on its lunar landing services program. “I’ve never seen an agency do this kind of thing before.”

An outside expert agrees that the way the competition is structured puts Blue Origin and Dynetics in a bind. “The timing may compel the protesters to basically ‘conceding’ to participate in the NASA-defined process leading to LETS,” said Greg Autry, professor at Arizona State University’s Thunderbird School of Global Management and a former White House liaison at NASA during the Trump administration. Those companies “will surely feel pressure to respond simply to stay in the game.”

However, Autry said he was relieved that NASA is moving ahead with the LETS effort. The agency’s decision to select only one company, with just one guaranteed landing, “left me worried that the agency was contemplating a ‘touch and go’ on the moon” with no sustained presence before shifting focus to human Mars missions.

“In particular, it is good to see the words ‘sustaining’ and ‘sustainable’ all throughout this document,” he said of the solicitation. “I think that tacitly acknowledges a post-Artemis 3 presence. The structure of this also addresses my criticisms of the single vendor award in that any long-term lunar surface activity that depends on a single system is unsafe and a noncompetitive market will be unaffordable, in the long run.”

Read original article here

NYC Hotel Industry in a ‘Depression,’ Room Revenue Down 60%, Report Says – NBC New York

The hotel industry is in a recession or worse in 21 of the top 25 U.S. markets, and New York City is one of the worst off of all, according to a new report released Thursday by a lodging trade group.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association said the city has lost about a third of its hotel rooms since the pandemic. For those that are left, revenue per available room was $95 in May — down 62 percent from May 2019.

That’s a deep enough drop to put the city’s hotel industry in the “depression” category, the association said.

In percentage terms, only San Francisco, Boston and Washington are suffering more. (In dollar terms, NYC’s revenue drop is worse, though.)

Just four top markets nationwide have stabilized or returned to growth versus two years ago, the association said — Phoenix, Virginia Beach, Tampa and Miami.

Read original article here

How Washington and Big Tech won the global tax fight – POLITICO

Press play to listen to this article

Washington may have fallen out of love with Big Tech. But when it comes to revamping the world’s tax system, the United States backed Silicon Valley against the world.

The U.S. government fended off a largely European push to force the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon to pay more into national coffers worldwide. Instead of targeting digital — and almost exclusively American — companies, Washington succeeded in convincing countries to agree on a tax regime that requires the world’s largest companies, digital or not, to pay more tax in countries wherever they have local operations.

Those negotiations, overseen by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), come to a close Thursday. While talks are ongoing, the U.S. and Silicon Valley are on track to avoid the worst-case scenarios that had initially appeared likely, including national taxes in countries like France and the U.K. that would have solely targeted American tech companies.

The new system, expected to be approved by the Group of 20’s finance ministers on July 9, will also set a global minimum tax rate of roughly 15 percent to stop multinational firms from shopping around for international jurisdictions where they can pay the least amount of tax.

In Washington, the upcoming global tax announcement is already being framed as a win for the U.S. economy. It follows a long-standing strategy, one that has bipartisan support, to oppose other countries’ efforts to pocket more tax revenue from Silicon Valley’s biggest names — revenue that would otherwise go to U.S. coffers.

“Making sure we actually get rid of these discriminatory taxes has an enormous impact on our country, and I have made it clear the Biden administration actually has to get it done,” U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who chairs the Senate’s Finance Committee, told POLITICO. 

Big Tech disrupts tax

Under the prospective tax agreement, the largest U.S. tech companies will still have to pay more tax overseas in a complex formula where profits, above a certain threshold, will be divided among countries.

But by expanding the global tax overhaul to encompass the entire economy – and not just the digital world — U.S. policymakers and Silicon Valley sidestepped a charge, led by the European Union, to slap new levies exclusively on the tech giants. Under the new agreement, German carmaker Volkswagen or British bank HSBC will be just as liable to pay up as Google or Facebook.

Many EU leaders believed U.S. tech giants disproportionately benefited during the COVID-19 crisis, as much of everyday life moved online. U.S. tech companies argue it’s unfair to single out the sector as the entire economy becomes more digitized every year. 

“We should do what we can to avoid any arbitrary distinctions,” said Megan Funkhouser, director of tax and trade policy at the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group that counts Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and other tech companies as members. 

The culmination of the years-long negotiations in the coming days highlights how the tech sector, which has already upended large parts of the global economy, became a catalyst in disrupting the international tax system, according to tax officials, trade groups and independent analysts. 

“We’re at a point where it’s bigger than tech,” said Sam Rizzo, director of policy at ITI, the trade group, said in reference to the global tax talks. “It’s about what is a sustainable tax policy from a U.S. foreign policy perspective.”

Thanks to the U.S., initial efforts to capture profits from online advertising and other digital services — often parked in low-tax regimes like Ireland and Luxembourg — have now morphed into a comprehensive global tax overhaul whose effects will be felt in almost every industry and capitals worldwide.

“What the U.S. did was to jumpstart the talks,” said William Reinch, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, and former Clinton-era official. “These talks will go down to the wire. But if successful, they represent a watershed moment.”

A united front

Silicon Valley is still fighting U.S. policymakers on multiple fronts, including the big tech companies’ role in enabling the spread of election-related misinformation and alleged abuse of market dominance.

But policymakers put those fights aside when it came to tax policy. In recent months, they have been keen to keep their doors open to tech giants, which provided regular updates on how digital services taxes worldwide were affecting them and offered suggestions on how the U.S. can intervene to protect them. 

The detente is because on taxes, U.S. foreign policy and Big Tech’s interests are aligned. 

Washington is eager to hold on to the lion’s share of tax from these extremely profitable companies, which means ensuring other countries don’t dole out their own digital levies. 

“It’s not that they are tech companies, it’s that they are American companies,” said one Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It happens to be that there’s a single industry that is very large and successful and important and profitable that is almost exclusively American. It’s hard to think of another industry where the U.S. has such a strong position.”

On tax issues, tech companies and U.S. officials share memos, jump on Zoom calls and debrief each other regularly, according to seven officials, congressional aides, trade body representatives and corporate executives. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the interactions. 

The global digital tax conversations are separate from ongoing discussions about contentious policy topics like content moderation, privacy and antitrust. There’s little, if any, “cross-pollination” among those issues, those people said, adding company executives who handle tax policy often don’t handle other tech issues. 

It helps that in government, tax policy falls under the U.S. Congress’ finance-focused committees, not panels that oversee privacy and Big Tech’s content legal liability protections.

American officials view other countries’ unilateral digital taxes as discriminatory, and have threatened billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs if the likes of France and Spain don’t back down. Tech executives have been eager to promote that message, warning international policymakers they risk starting a potential transatlantic trade war if they pursue their own domestic taxes.

Sharing intel

The U.S. Treasury has kept the industry up to speed in its ongoing talks, while tech officials have shared details from their conversations with international policymakers, according to those aides, officials and executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 

In late 2020, for instance, tech companies alerted Capitol Hill staffers when France started collecting its digital services taxes after promising to postpone the levy while international talks continued. 

“We wouldn’t have known that until the companies said, ‘Hey just so you know, we got a bill from the French government,’” said another Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

OECD experts and politicians from business-friendly countries like Ireland — home to many of these companies’ international operations — have routinely met with tax experts from Microsoft, Facebook and others over the last two years to discuss the ongoing international negotiations, according to freedom of information requests to the Irish government submitted by POLITICO.

“One of my teams has been actively providing technical inputs to the OECD Secretariat for a good two years now to help them kind of work out how to do this,” Nick Clegg, head of Facebook’s global public policy and communications team, said in reference to the ongoing talks. “You can imagine what our interest is, and obviously I’ve also got a self interest, in having clear non-discriminatory rules, which are evenly applied and easy for us to follow.” 

Washington has been public in its support for the tech sector.

When the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) first began investigating France’s digital services taxes in 2019, eight of the 10 witnesses at its public hearings represented at least one of the top tech companies. Jennifer McCloskey, who participated as ITI’s vice president of policy, subsequently became a senior tax manager for Google in 2020, where she continues to work on the issue. 

Hearings held by President Joe Biden’s USTR on numerous countries’ digital services taxes earlier this year mostly featured representatives of the tech companies, particularly through ACT, a lobby group, which counts Apple as a member.

Despite their political differences, Biden and former President Donald Trump have pursued almost identical digital tax policies, although the new administration dropped proposals from Biden’s predecessor that would have made the pending global tax overhaul merely voluntary for companies worldwide.

Tax all companies

A turning point in the yearslong tax talks came in early April.

The U.S. unveiled a plan to reinvigorate the stuttering negotiations, which had descended into tit-for-tat threats from European capitals over imposing unilateral digital taxes, and from Washington about slapping foreign companies with retaliatory tariffs.

By focusing on the biggest firms — those with revenues of at least $20 billion and profit margins of more than 10 percent — the Biden administration hoped to streamline the global tax overhaul into a more manageable system that could be quickly approved, according to three officials involved in the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Both sides gave ground.

After France balked that Amazon, whose profit margins are below the 10 percent threshold, may not be included in the new regime, negotiators tweaked the deal so that a company’s profitable business units would be included even if its overall profit margin didn’t make the cut. That allowed the company’s cloud business, Amazon Web Services, to be part of the prospective deal even as the e-commerce giant’s overall profit margin hovered under 7 percent. 

The United Kingdom fought hard to keep its domestic financial services sector, which competes with that of New York, out of the pact. But U.S. officials rejected such a carve-out, arguing that if the U.S. tech companies were included, so too should other countries’ high-profile industries.

Negotiators are still finalizing the tax deal, expected to be announced Thursday, and details may still change, according to the officials close to the ongoing talks. 

Yet as the hours count down to a likely agreement, it is Washington and Silicon Valley, not other national capitals, that have the most to rejoice.

Some U.S. tech giants will be part of the overall tax revamp. But other countries’ industrial champions will also have to pay more — a recognition that to persuade the U.S. to sign on to the global deal, mostly-European policymakers had to give up their ambition to target Big Tech with new digital levies.

“If anybody has integrity. I think they’re going to say all companies are in for whatever criteria we finally adopt and let the chips fall where they may,” said Peter Barnes, a lawyer at the tax firm Caplin and Drysdale who was previously a senior international tax counsel for General Electric. “That’s the only way a deal is going to last.”

Want more analysis from POLITICO? POLITICO Pro is our premium intelligence service for professionals. From financial services to trade, technology, cybersecurity and more, Pro delivers real time intelligence, deep insight and breaking scoops you need to keep one step ahead. Email [email protected] to request a complimentary trial.

for(var key in aepc_pixel_args) args[key] = aepc_pixel_args[key];

return args; };

// Extend args if ( 'yes' === aepc_pixel.enable_advanced_events ) { aepc_pixel_args.userAgent = navigator.userAgent; aepc_pixel_args.language = navigator.language;

if ( document.referrer.indexOf( document.domain ) < 0 ) { aepc_pixel_args.referrer = document.referrer; } } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.agent="dvpixelcaffeinewordpress";n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', aepc_pixel.pixel_id, aepc_pixel.user); setTimeout( function() { fbq('track', "PageView", aepc_pixel_args); }, aepc_pixel.fire_delay * 1000 );

Read original article here

China manufacturing slows as supply shortages roil Asia industry

Growth in China’s June factory activity dipped to a four-month low on higher raw material costs, a shortage of semiconductors and a COVID-19 outbreak in the major export province of Guangdong, amid wider supply chain disruptions in Asia.

The chip supply crunch has hammered other manufacturing powerhouses in Asia. Industrial output in Japan and South Korea slumped in May from the previous month as auto production declined due to semiconductor shortages, adding to concerns of flagging momentum in their respective economies.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

China’s June official manufacturing Purchasing Manager’s Index (PMI) eased slightly to 50.9 versus 51.0 in May, data from the National Bureau of Statistics showed on Wednesday. It, however, exceeded analysts’ forecast for a slowdown to 50.8.

It remained above the 50-point mark that separates growth from contraction on a monthly basis.

“This was largely a result of COVID, which has affected factory output and also new export orders due to the rising waves of infections and resultant restrictions in some neighboring economies,” said Iris Pang, Great China chief economist at ING.

“Overall, (it’s) not a great month but no really worrying signs…China’s growth rate is still positive, though it would be a lot lower in H2 than H1, mostly because of the change in base effects,” said Pang, referring to year-ago comparisons with 2020’s pandemic disruptions.

CHINA’S DIDI WILL REPORTEDLY PRICE IPO ABOVE EXPECTED RANGE

The sub-index for production eased to 51.9, a four-month low, from 52.7 the previous month. Zhao Qinghe, a senior statistician at the NBS, attributed the slowdown in production to constraining factors such as a shortage of semiconductors, inadequate coal supply, a power crunch and maintenance of equipment.

A shortage of coal supply in China’s southern regions, which started in mid-May, hit factory operations though the government has said the power crunch should ease soon.

New export orders fell for a second consecutive month in June and at a faster pace, likely due to the global resurgence of COVID-19 variants, forcing some countries to reimpose lockdowns.

A sub-index for raw material costs in the official PMI stood at 61.2 in June, compared with May’s 72.8, as the government cracked down on high raw material prices.

Growth in new orders, however, picked up, as domestic demand improved.

The world’s second-largest economy has largely recovered from disruptions caused by the pandemic, but Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is set to moderate.

“Much of the recovery has occurred and the momentum is slowing. Combined with a relatively higher base, this means year-on-year GDP growth is expected to slow to 7.2% in Q2 from 18.3% in Q1,” said analysts at HSBC.

However, in two-year average terms, they expect growth to pick up to 5.2% from 5.0%, though this is still below pre-pandemic levels of 6.0% growth.

An outbreak of coronavirus infections in China’s major export province of Guangdong has also disrupted shipments.

The official non-manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) fell to 53.5 in June from 55.2 in May, a separate survey from the NBS showed, dampened by a sharp pull-back in the recovery of the services sector due to local COVID outbreaks.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The construction index held steady at 60.1, although analysts expect the sector to face headwinds amid Beijing’s clampdown on the property market.

 (Additional reporting by Colin Qian; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)

Read original article here

SpaceX to launch second rideshare, pressuring small-launch industry

SpaceX is preparing to launch its second dedicated rideshare mission for its Falcon 9 rocket, named Transporter-2, from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on Tuesday afternoon.

The mission will carry a total of 88 small satellites from a variety of customers, including private companies such as ICEYE and Umbra, as well as the US government’s Space Development Agency.

Part of the Department of Defense, the Space Development Agency seeks to advance the ability of the nation to get its satellites into space in a timely and cost-efficient manner. The agency is launching five satellites on the Transporter-2 mission at a cost of about $21 million.

“This figure represents a tremendous value to the government for four satellites and a payload,” an agency spokesman said. “The invaluable information gathered from these experiments will far outpace the monetary investment made up front as we begin to lay the foundation for the national defense space architecture.”

SpaceX developed the rideshare program for its Falcon 9 rocket to increase the number of purely commercial launches performed by the workhorse booster. The company advertises access to Sun Synchronous Orbit for as little as $1 million for 200 kg. SpaceX plans to launch such rideshare missions about every four months, depending on demand.

The rideshare service offered by SpaceX—which has the world’s lowest-cost, only fully reusable orbital rocket in the Falcon 9—helps the company fill out its manifest. The program also leverages the investment SpaceX put into developing reusability. Tuesday’s launch attempt will fly to orbit on a first stage that has already flown seven times. The anniversary of the rocket’s first flight is Wednesday.

However, SpaceX’s expansion into small-satellite launches has put considerable pressure on other companies developing small rockets to deliver satellites into orbit. These companies can offer dedicated launches to specific orbits, but the service comes at a price. For example, Rocket Lab’s Electron rocket can deliver about 300 kg into low Earth orbit for about $7.5 million. Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne can deliver up to 500 kg to Sun Synchronous Orbit for about $15 million. Neither of these vehicles can offer the reliability of a Falcon 9, however, which has more than 100 consecutive successful launches.

Weather conditions look favorable for Tuesday’s launch attempt, which has a nearly hour-long launch window that opens at 2:56 pm ET (18:56 UTC). The booster will return to the launch site instead of making a drone ship landing due to the spare fuel capacity on board the Falcon 9 for this mission.

Listing image by Trevor Mahlmann

Read original article here

Cruise industry salty over CDC plan to keep travelers safe from COVID at sea

Enlarge / YOKOHAMA, JAPAN – FEBRUARY 10: A member of the media wears a face mask while walking past the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

The cruise industry is rather salty about the latest federal guidance for safe pandemic sailing, calling it “burdensome” and “unworkable. “

The new guidance is an updated phase of the Framework for Conditional Sailing Order (CSO), released April 2 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While it does not mandate vaccinations for all staff and cruisegoers, it does recommend the shots and requires added layers of health measures to try giving any onboard COVID-19 outbreaks the heave-ho—which is exceedingly difficult to do on the tightly packed, highly social vessels.

Among several changes, the guidance requires cruise operators to increase how frequently they report the number of COVID-19 cases onboard, upping reporting from weekly to daily. It also requires cruise lines to implement new routine testing for crew members. Additionally, the guidance requires that cruise lines have agreements set up with port authorities and local health authorities to ensure that, in the event of an outbreak, there will be coordination and infrastructure necessary to safely quarantine, isolate, and treat passengers and crew on land.

Once those requirements are met, cruise operators can run mock cruises with volunteer passengers and, if all goes well, apply for a “Conditional Sailing Certificate.”

In a statement released Monday, the prominent industry trade group Cruise Lines International Association released a statement calling the new guidance “unduly burdensome, largely unworkable.”

Disappointing

The CLIA claims the health guidance “deprives US workers from participating in the economic recovery” and provides “no discernable path forward or timeframe for resumption” of cruises originating in the country. The group ended its statement by urging the Biden administration to “consider the ample evidence that supports lifting the CSO this month to allow for the planning of a controlled return to service this summer.”

Likewise, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings CEO Frank Del Rio told The Washington Post in an interview Monday that the company was “disappointed,” by the CDC’s latest guidance. “We thought it was a step backward, quite frankly,” Del Rio said.

The cruise executive sent a letter to CDC director Rochelle Walensky on Monday, touting the cruise company’s own plan to safely resume cruising, which includes mandatory vaccination for all passengers and employees. Del Rio balked at the agency’s additional requirements, regardless of vaccination status.

The CDC is unlikely to be moved on the subject. In its announcement of the guidance, the agency noted that “Cruising safely and responsibly during a global pandemic is difficult. While cruising will always pose some risk of COVID-19 transmission, following the phases of the CSO will ensure cruise ship passenger operations are conducted in a way that protects crew members, passengers, and port personnel, particularly with emerging COVID-19 variants of concern.”

In the early days of the pandemic, cruise ships were among the first high-profile victims of COVID-19 and experienced devastating outbreaks that gained international attention. Among the most memorable was the Diamond Princess, which was quarantined for weeks at a Japanese port in February 2020 amid a blazing outbreak. At one point, the luxury liner had the largest cluster of COVID-19 outside of China, where the pandemic began. In all, 712 of the ship’s 3,711 passengers and crew were infected, 37 required intensive care, and nine died.

Read original article here

Gun industry prepares for a surge in demand after back-to-back mass shootings

“When you hear more calls for firearm restrictions, we have observed gun sale increases primarily from people buying before they’re not able to,” said Rob Southwick, founder of the market research firm Southwick Associates.

It’s too soon to know how the back-to-back shootings will affect sales of firearms, industry experts say. Reliable figures from federal background checks won’t be released until next month. But if history is any guide, gun dealers and manufacturers can expect a surge in demand.

“I don’t need to wait another minute, let alone an hour, to take common-sense steps that will save lives in the future,” Biden said, listing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as strengthening the background check system by closing loopholes, as areas he would like to see Congress act.

The pattern of rising gun sales following mass shootings has held true regardless of which political party is in power: Fears of future restrictions prompt gun owners to stock up.

Gun sales surged in January 2013 in the weeks following the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting that left 27 dead, most of them children. At the time, former President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed for stricter federal gun control measures that ultimately stalled in the US Senate.
Similarly, gun sellers said they were inundated with orders for bump stocks after the devices were used in the Las Vegas massacre that killed 58 people in October 2017.

Soon after that shooting, President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw bump stocks -— attachments that essentially allow shooters to fire semiautomatic rifles continuously with one pull of the trigger. At his direction, the Justice Department later banned bump stocks in the United States, despite objections from gun lobbies.

Firearms sales rose 12.6% year over year in February 2018 following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, according to Bloomberg.

“It’s a longstanding pattern,” said David Kopel, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

The firearms industry wants to hear the results of the investigation into the Boulder mass shooting before proposing solutions, said Mark Oliva, spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group.

Oliva says gun manufacturers already have worked with government officials on a number of measures meant to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. He said the NSSF helped convince lawmakers in 16 states to include mental health records that would disqualify a customer from purchasing a firearm as part of each state’s mandatory gun background checks.
However, gun control advocates argue that mental illness is not a leading factor in gun violence, and the government must act to implement stricter laws that prevent shootings.

“We want the investigative process to go forward as it needs to,” Oliva told CNN Business. “We urge Congress and the White House to do the same.”

Read original article here

Billions poured into electric-vehicle companies, but much more will be needed before the auto industry changes

Wall Street and Silicon Valley poured billions of dollars into electric-vehicle and related companies in 2020, betting on their future dominance and in many cases fueling valuations that bear little relation to the companies’ current or expected production and sales.

There is little doubt that the automotive industry is trending toward electric vehicles amid the rise of Tesla Inc.
TSLA,
+2.05%
Declining prices and increasing availability of electric vehicles, or EVs; the potential for technology breakthroughs that offer a cheaper, longer-lasting, and faster-to-recharge battery; strides in EV infrastructure, and “green friendly” government initiatives taking root in the U.S. and elsewhere show the likely path.

And what once was an investment universe comprising solely Tesla and a smattering of fuel-cell companies has burgeoned into a subsector combining industrials, tech and transportation, with China as a major driving force both as EV makers’ base market and for EV demand. In total, at least $28 billion was invested in public and private electric-vehicle companies in 2020, according to data from CB Insights and Dow Jones Market Data Group.

Don’t miss: The explosion in electric-vehicle funding, valuation and trading in one chart

“The writing is on the wall with regard to the long-term EV versus internal combustion debate,” said John Mitchell, a partner at Blue Horizon Capital.

In several countries around the world, people will no longer be allowed to purchase internal combustion-engine vehicles within a short decade or two, and global auto makers have realized that “the transition to electrified vehicles is the only way to compete,” he said.

Not to be outdone, General Motors Co.
GM,
-2.23%,
Ford Motor Co.
F,
-1.27%
and other legacy auto makers amped investments in EVs and autonomous vehicles, with GM going as far as vowing to phase out internal combustion-engine vehicles within less than 15 years. Tesla, of course, joined the S&P 500 index
SPX,
+0.65%
in 2020 after finally showing consistent profit.
SPX,
+0.65%
New companies such as Nio Inc.
NIO,
-1.25%,
Nikola Corp.
NKLA,
+0.24%,
and Fisker Inc.
FSR,
-1.96%
attracted outsize investor attention, and the involvement of special-purpose acquisition companies became nearly common place.

“The EV party is just beginning, buckle the seat belts,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said recently. Recent weakness are short-term “growing pains,” he said.

That doesn’t mean that the switch from combustion engines to electric cars will take place quickly. Electric cars currently make up around 2% of global auto sales, and estimates for a future market share vary from a low-end forecast of 10% to 20% of cars sold by 2030 to as much as two-thirds of the market by that time.

Much more money will be needed to fund the switch, despite the billions that already found its way to EV-related investments. A recent note from B. of A. Securities put a price tag on a future EV “revolution,” saying that funding that change is still a “tremendous hurdle.”

Extrapolating from the relationship between Tesla’s capital raises and its capacity to make vehicles, the B. of A. analysts calculated that a shift to a 100% EV world would need more than $2.5 trillion in investments, coming from the companies, investors and governments across the world.

Recent capital raises by EV and related companies through the SPACs, or “blank-check” companies, “may be just a beginning,” they said.

‘Hyper growth’ in EV and renewables

The heightened interest in EV and related stocks has led to concerns about a bubble.

At a recent JPMorgan virtual investor conference, head of global research Joyce Chang and others told the audience that they were not seeing “a broad equity market bubble,” but that “certain pockets” of the market were experiencing “hyper growth, such as electric vehicles and renewables.”

Bubbles, of course, are easy to spot — in hindsight. It remains to be seen whether the current influx of money and attention to EV companies, as well as to autonomous vehicles and AV-adjacent companies, will resemble the short-lived notice paid to cloud-computing companies half a decade ago, or the early aughts’ spotlight on fuel-cell companies, several of which — 20 years later — have still not returned to record highs established then.

The Tesla bubble: Bets on electric cars and the rise of SPACs have led to a new version of the dot-com boom, columnist Therese Poletti writes

The JPMorgan analysts reminded the audience that EV, renewables and “innovation” stocks make up a small percentage of the broader equity market, with EVs only around 2% of the S&P 500.

Boding well for the future, however, Blue Horizon’s Mitchell pointed to the increasing quality and technical improvements for EVs.

“Battery life is only going to be extended and with the trillions being invested globally by all those supporting the electrification of the transportation system the infrastructure for widespread adoption and usage of EV technology is only going to increase,” he said.

Analysts at UBS forecast that global auto makers’ revenues from EVs are going to shift to $1.16 trillion by year 2030, from $182 billion today.

Conversely, revenue from ICE vehicles, at $1.77 trillion today, will dwindle to $1.07 trillion. Revenues for software will make an even bigger slice of that revenue pie by 2030, at nearly $2 trillion.

Here’s the UBS chart, in billions:

A company or a business plan?

Blank-check companies have been around for a long time, but took on a larger role in U.S. investing last year, when there were more initial public offerings through special-purpose acquisition companies than all other years combined, Garrett Nelson at CFRA said in a recent note.

Activity in 2021 is on track to exceed last year’s “by a wide margin,” and some of the largest SPAC deals are again likely to be in the “burgeoning electric and autonomous vehicle (EV/AV) space,” he said.

Some of the companies popping in “resemble business plans rather more than revenue- or profit-generating businesses,” but there’s reason for optimism, Nelson said.

The CFRA analyst singled out Fisker, Lucid Motors, which plans to go public via a SPAC merger with Churchill Capital Corp. IV
CCIV,
+7.17%
and privately held electric-truck maker Rivian as companies that are better positioned than others.

Tesla, of course, has established a first-mover advantage widely viewed as substantial.

The UBS analysts calculate that Tesla has a cost advantage around $1,000 to $2,000 per electric vehicle over other auto makers, although competition is increasing. Volkswagen AG’s
VOW,
+3.55%
MEB platform, the auto maker’s building block for its electric vehicles, is already “fully cost competitive” with Tesla.

VW, the No. 2 auto maker in the world, still lags behind in terms of battery costs, with Tesla likely to keep its price advantage in the battery space due to its vertical integration and technology advances, they said. Still, they see that large legacy auto makers such as VW would be able to reach an EV manufacturing cost and margin parity in four years.

EVs, not AVs, could be the real game-changer

Related to investor’s inflows to electric-vehicle makers is the interest generated by lidar, batteries, sensors and other components hailed as key to autonomous vehicles.

Full autonomy has been proven to be a stubborn and costly problem to solve, with regulatory and technological hurdles aplenty.

Despite lofty goals, most cars on the road today offer advanced driver-assistance systems that are not dramatically different from previous years’ systems and still far from being the game-changer they are expected to be for lives and economies in a not-so-distant future.

For now, auto makers are mostly focusing on partial autonomy and ADAS offerings that can be commercialized in the short term, with EVs pulling ahead in terms of consumer interest and regulatory push.

“EVs are simply a better product,” Blue Horizon’s Mitchell said.

Read original article here