Qꔧo lX8vmen$y]FVg#o1w Gr5 ?xx .P!761sӑFAU8l"> #h\Ü+a7."Wdz U B:dץ6It]&>Qꔧo lX8vmen$y]FVg#o1w Gr5 ?xx .P!761sӑFAU8lThe City Council’s housing and homelessness committee is considering adding inspectors, imposing stiffer penalties and requiring websites like Airbnb and Booking.com to use an electronic system already in place in New York City that would automatically reject bookings at properties that aren’t approved for short-term rental. A July investigation by Capital & Main and ProPublica found more than 60 rent-controlled buildings with units advertised on booking sites despite LA’s Home Sharing Ordinance , which prohibits such stays in rent-controlled apartments. In some cases, entire apartment buildings were listed as boutique hotels on reservation sites. Rent-controlled units make up nearly 75% of the city’s rental market; the designation caps annual rent increases at about 4% and is intended to preserve affordable housing for city residents. The number of buildings with illegal listings is likely far higher than the news organizations found because most booking platforms mask the addresses of the properties. The LA Housing Department now estimates that 7,500, or about 60% of the city’s short-term rentals in multiunit buildings, are illegal , according to a memo sent by the agency’s interim general manager, Tricia Keane, to the City Council. “I think having the capacity to do stronger enforcement is the big missing piece,” said Councilmember Nithya Raman, who chairs the housing and homelessness committee. She said very few violators were receiving citations and fines “because of how broken the process is.” At a committee hearing in early December, the proposals faced opposition from several property owners, who urged the committee not to impose stricter rules. “I have become absolutely reliant on Airbnb to make ends meet,” said Joni Day, a freelance TV producer. Airbnb and Booking.com representatives didn’t answer emails requesting comment on the city’s enforcement proposals. Airbnb previously told the news organizations that it works closely with city staff “to address Hosts who try to evade the rules.” For more than a year, the housing and homelessness committee has been looking into the growth of home-sharing in LA. It has convened representatives of key city departments and the city attorney’s office to learn about enforcement of the 2019 home-sharing law against unapproved listings and what can be done to improve it. Raman said the dysfunction in the city’s home-sharing enforcement system is a matter of “priorities and staffing.” Additionally, she said, “There are real breakdowns of communication between departments.” In addition to spotlighting the misuse of rent-controlled apartments, Capital & Main and ProPublica documented how those breakdowns hobbled enforcement as cases were passed between the planning department, whose computer system flags potential home-sharing violations, and the Housing Department, which is tasked with actually citing violators. Raman has asked city officials to draft plans to establish a single home-sharing task force to streamline the process. However it’s organized, Housing Department Director of Code Enforcement Robert Galardi said he simply needs “boots on the ground” to investigate what he argues is an “underground” of illegal vacation rentals, which are often disguised as legal monthly rentals by some hosts to evade enforcement. Capital & Main and ProPublica’s investigation found that relatively few property owners have been cited under the ordinance and that some of those who had been cited continued to offer short-term rentals after paying minimal fines or while their cases awaited appeal hearings. In one case, residents and neighbors of 1940 Carmen Ave., a 21-unit apartment building in Hollywood, had repeatedly complained to the city about illegal vacation rentals. But the owner had never been fined for home-sharing. However, after the investigation, the owner was fined, and the building appears to no longer accept reservations on booking sites. Building owner Alexander Stein didn’t return calls seeking comment. Currently, the city imposes a $587 fine on first-time violators, but the department is proposing higher penalties that would escalate from $1,000 for first violations on the smallest properties to $64,000 for a third violation on the largest. Another proposal from City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield would give any LA resident the right to sue property owners who offer illegal short-term rentals and to reap some of the damages if they win. Activists who monitor home-sharing applauded the city’s efforts to strengthen the Home Sharing Ordinance. “Now, the problem is the city still has to develop the will to actually enforce this law,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, an organizer for Better Neighbors LA. As the housing and homelessness committee pieces together its proposals, a process that will likely continue well into 2025, it has asked city departments to report back on how the city could put them into effect. The committee has also ordered the Housing Department to provide annual reports on its enforcement of another law aimed at preserving some of the city’s lowest-cost housing — in LA’s residential hotels, which typically provide single-room dwellings with shared bathrooms. The Housing Department was granted five new positions this year to enforce the Residential Hotel Ordinance, which prohibits the conversion of residential hotels to tourist accommodations. The budget allocation came in response to a 2023 investigation by Capital & Main and ProPublica , which found that lax enforcement of the law had allowed the loss of nearly 800 housing units to tourist rooms.Donald Trump said Saturday that a surprise meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Florida was "very productive," days after the incoming US leader rattled Ottawa with a vow to impose tariffs on Canadian imports. Trudeau, on an unannounced visit, had been seen smiling Friday as he exited a hotel in West Palm Beach to head to a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. Afterward, Trump posted on his Truth Social website that he had had "a very productive meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau." He said the two men had discussed issues including "the Fentanyl and Drug Crisis that has decimated so many lives as a result of Illegal Immigration." He added, "Prime Minister Trudeau has made a commitment to work with us to end this terrible devastation of U.S. Families." Trudeau told journalists that he had had an "excellent conversation" with Trump, but did not elaborate. Trump has blamed Canada and Mexico for not stemming an influx of undocumented migrants and he blames them, and China, for drug problems in the United States. Trudeau's trip came after Trump sent shockwaves through the region Monday when he announced 25 percent import tariffs against Canada and Mexico and 10 percent against China if they failed to address the drug and migration problems. Such tariffs could have a devastating impact if imposed. More than three-quarters of Canadian exports, or Can$592.7 billion ($423 billion), went to the United States last year, and nearly two million Canadian jobs are dependent on trade. A Canadian government source had told AFP that Canada was considering possible retaliatory tariffs against the United States. Trudeau was the first foreign leader to meet with the US president-elect. But on Wednesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum spoke to Trump by phone and later ruled out a trade war with the United States. "There will not be a potential tariff war," she told reporters Thursday. Trump later said that Sheinbaum had "agreed to stop migration through Mexico... effectively closing our Southern border." But she said that there would be no closing of the border, stating: "Of course we do not agree with that." Some have suggested Trump's tariff threat was bluster, or an opening salvo in future trade negotiations. But Trudeau rejected those views when he spoke with reporters earlier in Prince Edward Island province. "Donald Trump, when he makes statements like that, he plans on carrying them out," Trudeau said. "There's no question about it." amc/jgc/nro/bbk/bfm
-- Shares Facebook Twitter Reddit Email By some measures — depending on how much caviar is in your diet — you might call it a tough week for a couple of America’s most prominent CEOs. The chief executives of Tesla and Intel lost out on massive stock payout packages: Tesla’s Elon Musk would've received $56 billion if a judge hadn't voided the plan , while Intel’s now former CEO Pat Gelsinger could’ve taken home an estimated $140 million if he had turned the company around. But don’t fret — Musk, Gelsinger and the nation’s top CEOs are still very, very rich. Musk, who runs several other businesses , has an estimated net worth of $353 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index , which lists him as the world's richest person. Gelsinger earned at least $46 million during his four years at Intel, according to a Fortune analysis. They’re in gilded company: The average top American CEO took home $22.2 million in 2023, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute . Meanwhile the average American earns roughly $59,228 per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is a reminder — or, perhaps, an education — of two things. First, those who don't meticulously track CEO compensation may be unaware that for many American chief executives, most of their pay comes in the form of stock payout packages that accompany their base salaries and bonuses. And second, even when they miss out on their packages, they’re still staggeringly wealthy, and their paydays dwarf the cash earnings their average employee will see. Related Is America's fascination with billionaires finally coming to an end? Stocks account for most CEO pay Payout packages can be mind-boggling for the average person who isn’t a member of their local yacht club. In 2023, stock awards — which can trigger millions of dollars in payouts to a CEO if their company’s stock price reaches a certain value — made up roughly 77% of the average CEO’s compensation, according to the Economic Policy Institute. For CEOs taking home $22.2 million per year, that means roughly $17 million of those earnings would come in the form of stock payout packages. (In 2023, the median value of a CEO’s stock awards package was roughly $9.4 million .) One theory of why CEOs' compensation structure has shifted toward stock incentives is that it incentives the CEO to make business decisions geared toward raising the stock price, rather than betting on a long-term plan that may not immediately turn a profit. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism Corporate decisions to downsize can also increase stock prices. A Bloomberg analysis in 2023 found that, on average, major American tech companies’ stock prices rose 5.6% in the month following layoff announcements. In 2023, after Google’s parent company Alphabet announced it would lay off 12,000 workers, its stock price rose 5%, according to The New York Times . Microsoft laid off 10,000 workers that year, too; its stock price rose roughly 6% . Those workers, typically, earn a miniscule fraction of what their CEO makes. In 2023, top CEOs earned 290 times as much as their average worker, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That means that at a company in which the average worker makes a $60,000 salary, its CEO would be taking home an average of $17.5 million. The earnings gap between CEOs and their workers wasn’t always this dramatic. In 1965, the average CEO made 21 times as much as one of their typical workers, per the Economic Policy Institute data. That’s still a steep discrepancy — hypothetically, $60,000 for the worker versus $1.26 million for the CEO. CEO pay soars above workers’ wage growth Top executives' earnings serve as a stark illustration of corporate America’s wage inequality, which has become more severe over the last 40 years. Between 1978 and 2023, top CEO compensation rose 1,805% while the average worker’s compensation rose 24% over that same time period Between 1978 and 2023, top CEO compensation rose 1,805% while the average worker’s compensation rose 24% over that same time period, per the Economic Policy Institute. To illustrate that difference: a $60,000 salary increasing by 24% would translate to $74,400, while that same salary growing by 1,805% would yield $1.1 million. Now, consider that the CEO’s compensation was likely starting at far above $60,000, and you’ve got a working understanding of just how wide the gulf has become between a company’s top executive and the workers who, in theory, are producing the product or service that earns the company its profits. The Institute also found that top executives' base salaries, bonuses, stock awards and stock options fell 19.4% from 2022 to 2023 even though the stock market was up. But this doesn't necessarily mean that company boards are pulling back on CEO pay. 'An activist posing as a judge' On Dec. 1, a Delaware judge reaffirmed her ruling to void Musk’s colossal pay package — “the largest executive compensation award in the history of public markets,” as she described it in her ruling . The 10-year, performance-based plan didn't include a salary but would have given Musk additional Tesla shares the more the company grew, NPR reported. The pay package was worth $2.6 billion when it was granted by Tesla's board in 2018; by the time Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick initially voided it in January 2024, its value had swelled to $56 billion, per Bloomberg . McCormick called the pay package “ deeply flawed ,” observing that the board’s compensation committee “worked alongside [Musk], almost as an advisory body,” rather than negotiating with him. The ruling resulted from a 2019 lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder in which he claimed the pay package was approved without requiring Musk to focus solely on Tesla operations. (In addition to running Tesla, Musk also leads the social media platform X — formerly known as Twitter — along with SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company and xAI.) After her ruling, Musk posted a succinct tweet (Xeet?) on X: “ Absolute corruption .” He later called McCormick “ an activist posing as a judge " and said he planned to appeal. Also on Dec. 1, Intel announced the departure of Gelsinger, who took the helm in 2021 with big plans to rescue a company that has struggled in recent years against new chipmakers like Nvidia. Intel’s stock has fallen more than 50% this year, and a source told Fortune that Gelsinger’s efforts “were not showing results quickly enough.” Gelsinger, who received $38.7 billion in salary, bonus, and vested stock and exercised stock options since his tenure began, is set to receive an additional $7 million to $10 million in severance as it ends, Fortune reported. He missed out on a larger payday in the form of performance-stock because Intel's stock plummeted amid its competitors' success, per Fortune. Read more about personal finance Why do some people worship the rich? Billionaires had "a terrific pandemic" Why most millionaires want a wealth tax By Cara Michelle Smith Cara Michelle Smith is a writer, reporter and performer living in Brooklyn. She’s spent more than a decade in financial journalism; her award-winning reporting can be found in NerdWallet, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, the Houston Business Journal, CoStar News and other outlets. MORE FROM Cara Michelle Smith Related Topics ------------------------------------------ Analysis Elon Musk Intel Pat Gensinger Pay Tesla Related Articles Advertisement:
VA.-LYNCHBURG (0-4) T.Johnson 3-7 9-13 15, Bratcher 0-4 0-0 0, Corrigan 1-1 0-0 3, Jackson 3-8 10-12 16, Robinson 6-18 3-4 17, Joppy 0-1 0-0 0. Totals 13-39 22-29 51. NC CENTRAL (3-6) Adedire 1-4 1-2 4, P.Smith 2-2 1-2 5, D.Johnson 3-7 0-0 6, King 6-12 3-3 19, Porter 9-11 2-2 23, Okworogwo 6-11 6-7 18, Murray 7-9 2-2 16, Parson 3-7 2-5 10, Rideau 5-12 2-3 16, Ch.Daniels 2-4 0-0 4, Smart 4-7 0-1 10, Ellison 0-1 0-0 0. Totals 48-87 19-27 131. Halftime_NC Central 67-25. 3-Point Goals_Va.-Lynchburg 3-15 (Robinson 2-9, Corrigan 1-1, Bratcher 0-1, Jackson 0-2, T.Johnson 0-2), NC Central 16-37 (King 4-9, Rideau 4-11, Porter 3-4, Smart 2-3, Parson 2-5, Adedire 1-2, D.Johnson 0-1, Ch.Daniels 0-2). Fouled Out_Corrigan, Smart. Rebounds_Va.-Lynchburg 19 (T.Johnson 8), NC Central 41 (Okworogwo, Murray 10). Assists_Va.-Lynchburg 6 (Bratcher 3), NC Central 31 (Adedire 7). Total Fouls_Va.-Lynchburg 16, NC Central 24. A_145 (3,056).BOSTON – The Timberwolves needed a get-right game after a bad loss Thursday in Toronto on a night that featured teammates sulking and squabbling on the court and a frank discussion after the game to has out their issues. Unfortunately, the Wolves faced the defending champion Celtics, who handed them a 107-105 loss at TD Garden, dropping the Wolves back to .500 at 8-8. The Wolves trailed as much as 19 in the second half before cutting Boston’s lead to two with two minutes to play. Anthony Edwards missed a three that would’ve given the Wolves their first lead since 27-24 before Jaylen Brown’s seventh three-pointer of the game gave the Celtics a 107-102 lead with 1:15 to play. Julius Randle hit one of two free throws and got a layup before the Wolves got a stop on a Brown missed three. They got the ball back with 7.1 seconds to play, but Naz Reid’s winning three-point attempt missed at the buzzer. Edwards had 28 points while Brown had 29 for Boston. How it happened Jaylen Brown began the game on first by hitting his first five threes of the afternoon. But Boston began the game 5-for-18 outside of Brown’s makes. That allowed the Wolves to survive his outburst and get back in the game behind 16 paint points. With Mike Conley out (left great toe sprain) Donte DiVincenzo started instead of Nickeil Alexander-Walker, who had started the previous two games Conley missed. The Wolves led 27-24 after one quarter but Boston got going to open the second. The Celtics built a 12-point lead while the Wolves bench struggled to score. Both Alexander-Walker and Naz Reid didn’t score a field goal, but behind 14 from Julius Randle, the Wolves trailed just 55-52 at the half after closing on a 9-0 run. The Celtics blitzed the Wolves coming out of the half with a 22-6 run that grew their lead to as much as 19 before Edwards led an 8-0 Minnesota run to close the quarter down 11. Tatum finished with 11 in the quarter for Boston. The Wovles hung around in the opening minutes of the fourth and cut Boston’s lead, but they could never get it back Dillingham get his shot Rookie Rob Dillingham saw his most playing time of the season Sunday and scored a career high 14 points in 16 minutes. Player of the game Brown set the tone for Boston on both ends and scored a game-high 29 points thanks to his early three-point barrage. Stat of the game 3-for-16 Combined shooting for Alexander-Walker and Reid off the bench.
Ifedi starts at left tackle for Browns in prime-time matchup against AFC North-leading Steelers
In 2023, the global arms trade has reached an unprecedented level. Incomes and profits from the sale of weapons and military services have surged to US $632 billion, or nearly Rs 22 Lakh crore, an increase of 4.2% from the previous year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Today in this modern world, we have several international treaties that are supposed to reduce the effect of arms and lethal weapons, still, the world is witnessing an unstoppable arms race amid increasing geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, and unchecked militarisation of weapons. This unwanted growth in weapons is a direct threat to future of the humanity, as even the smallest arms can spread fear, chaos, and destruction. On the other hand, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous weapons systems equally is adding a dangerous new dimension to the global arms race. These new technologies can operate with minimal or no human intervention. Self-directed drones, for example, can select and engage targets without direct human oversight. it increases the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation in conflict zones. Additionally, AI-driven cyber weapons have the potential to disrupt critical infrastructure, further destabilising regions already inundated by war and conflict. There is hardly any strong international regulation to yet control autonomous or AI-driven weapons as the majority of them are in the development stage. These advancements without any global check are challenging to existing treaties and make conflicts more unpredictable and shocking. A World Overflowing with Weapons From the wars in Ukraine and Gaza to escalating tensions in West and East Asia, and some parts of the African continent, conflict is driving demand for arms. The global arms industry has become a juggernaut, thriving on the instability of international politics and conflict. According to SIPRI, nearly three-quarters of the top 100 arms companies increased their revenues in 2023. This surge is not limited to traditional powers like the United States and Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Middle Eastern nations have also emerged as weighty players. While some argue this is a response to legitimate security concerns, the proliferation of arms often aggravates the very conflicts it means to address. Smaller arms producers, particularly those in Russia and the Middle East, are ramping up production to record levels to meet the growing demands. In one of the latest examples , t he United States supplied controversial weapons such as landmines to Ukraine amid its war with Russia a month ago. Reports also suggest that cluster munitions were also supplied. This decision drew widespread criticism due to the indiscriminate harm these weapons can caus e . The use of landmines has been condemned globally, yet the U.S. justified their supply to Ukraine as a measure to bolster defence capabilities and stop the advancing Russian soldiers in Ukraine’s territory. Similarly, Cluster Munitions are also banned under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by over 120 plus countries. They have a history of causing civilian casualties long after conflicts end. Several political pundits say this sets a dangerous precedent and undermines international norms against such weapons forcing many countries to rethink the international treaties. International treaties as we all know are meant to impose order on the misuse of weapons and regulate the chaos of the arms trade. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), ratified by nearly 120 plus states, aims to regulate the sale of conventional weapons to reduce human suffering. Similarly, the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) attempts to prevent the spread of nuclear arms and promote disarmament. In addition, some other international treaties like the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines and the Chemical Weapons Convention, are also attempting to ban some of the indiscriminate categories of weaponry. Yet these treaties are violated many times. Some of the leading global powers like the United States, Russia, and China, have refused to ratify key international treaties. The Ottawa Treaty of banning landmines for example has not been signed by countries like the U.S., Russia, India, and Pakistan. These countries continue to manufacture and stockpile landmines. The NPT, for example, has been unable to halt the modernisation of nuclear arsenals by existing nuclear powers, which collectively possess over 13,000 warheads. Countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel remain outside the treaty’s framework. Meanwhile, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which aims to prohibit all nuclear explosions, has yet to come into force due to the refusal of key nations to ratify it. Profiting out of Conflicts Arms production is big business, deeply entrenched in the economies of many nations. In the United States, arms revenues reached $317 billion in 2023, accounting for half of the global sales. American firms like Lockheed Martin and RTX dominate the industry, driven by domestic and international demand. Europe remains a critical player. Companies like Germany’s Rheinmetall have increased production of ammunition and tanks, responding to the war in Ukraine and other regional conflicts. However, Europe’s reliance on complex, long-term contracts has slowed its ability to adapt to immediate shifts in demand. Asia and the Middle East are also emerging as key arms markets as said by SIPRI. South Korean and Japanese companies have recorded substantial revenue growth, fuelled by military build-ups and regional tensions as reported by the research of SIPRI. In West Asia, Israel and Turkey have seen unprecedented demand for their weaponry, particularly in response to the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Presently, the arms race is not confined to traditional weaponry. It has gone beyond it. Drones, cyber weapons, and autonomous systems are rapidly reshaping the battlefield and modern weapons with most armies. Nations are investing heavily in these new technologies, often bypassing traditional regulatory frameworks that worry those who are fighting to regulate these weapons. Another current example is Turkey’s Baykar. The company has become a global leader in armed drones, which have been extensively used in Ukraine and other conflicts. These drones are known for their precision and also raise ethical and legal questions about accountability in warfare. The development of fully autonomous weapons capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention is even more controversial, with many calling for a pre-emptive ban. Space militarization is another frontier. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits placing weapons of mass destruction in space, but it does not address conventional or emerging weapons. As tensions between the U.S., China, and Russia spill into space, the lack of comprehensive regulation could have catastrophic consequences. The human cost of these deadly weapons cannot be ignored. We all have seen in the last two years how from the trenches of Ukraine to the streets of Gaza, the proliferation of weapons has done more collateral damage in cities where civilians have been living. They have suffered the most. Civilian casualties, destruction of their houses, hospitals, schools massive displacements are heart-rending shocking consequences of a world awash in arms. In Yemen, for example, the Saudi-led coalition has used U.S.-supplied weapons, including cluster munitions, killing hundreds of civilians. In Syria, the use of chemical weapons has been documented despite the Chemical Weapons Convention’s prohibitions. Non-State Actors Non-state groups, from militias to terrorist organisations, often gain access to weapons through black markets, looted stockpiles, or state sponsorship. The black and dark market of illegal sales of weapons is equally flourishing. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons has fuelled conflicts in regions like Africa and the West and East Asia, where weak governance and porous borders exacerbate the problem. In Somalia, arms intended for government forces have ended up in the hands of al-Shabaab militants. Similarly, weapons supplied to Syrian rebels have often found their way to extremist groups, complicating efforts to resolve the conflict. In South Asia, we have seen the consequences in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. The unchecked growth of the arms industry needs to be arrested. An urgent need for stronger international cooperation and regulation is the need of the hour. Existing treaties must be reinforced and made accountable with forceful enforcement mechanisms to check the menace of these weapons including control of emerging new technologies. Diplomacy and dialogue are the first steps to control the growing race of arms manufacturing. Equally, public awareness is necessary. Civil society organisations, from grassroots activists to global NGOs and international organisations have been instrumental in pushing for bans on landmines, cluster munitions, and other inhumane weapons but still, it needs more effort. We have seen how some of the weapons like laser guns that would blind soldiers were banned before their use or all those chemicals that once were used in World War I and II were banned. One example is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which played a pivotal role in the adoption of the Ottawa Treaty by mobilising public opinion. The world stands at a crossroads without much action to stop the arms race. In return, the modernisation of lethal weapons and war machines continues to threaten humanity leading to cycles of violence and suffering. By confronting the forces that drive the arms trade and committing ourselves to a vision of shared security and peace, the global community can chart a different course. A cooperative campaign and action can do wonders to stop the indiscriminate proliferation of weapons for economic growth. As we all many times keep discussing the arms race is just an outcome or a symptom of deeper geopolitical and economic imbalances. Addressing these root causes may help in curbing inequality, resource competition, and ideological divisions. It requires a strategic effort by the business tycoons, tech giants and individuals rather than the governments to support the implementation of the rules of war. It is time we all invest in conflict prevention and peacebuilding that can save nature, and human life and much-needed attention to climate change and the future of our planet. The time to act is now, before the balance tips toward destruction. The arms race is not just a battle for dominance but a test of humanity’s capacity to choose peace over profit. Author is National Editor, Greater KashmirSwiss National Bank reduced its stake in shares of MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. ( NASDAQ:MTSI – Free Report ) by 0.6% in the 3rd quarter, Holdings Channel reports. The firm owned 112,650 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock after selling 700 shares during the quarter. Swiss National Bank’s holdings in MACOM Technology Solutions were worth $12,533,000 at the end of the most recent quarter. Other hedge funds and other institutional investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans raised its position in shares of MACOM Technology Solutions by 2.5% during the third quarter. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans now owns 13,568 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock worth $1,510,000 after acquiring an additional 327 shares during the last quarter. Natixis Advisors LLC grew its stake in MACOM Technology Solutions by 1.8% during the third quarter. Natixis Advisors LLC now owns 29,025 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock worth $3,229,000 after purchasing an additional 512 shares during the period. Parametrica Management Ltd acquired a new stake in MACOM Technology Solutions during the third quarter worth approximately $399,000. Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Group Inc. bought a new stake in MACOM Technology Solutions in the third quarter worth approximately $277,000. Finally, GSA Capital Partners LLP acquired a new position in MACOM Technology Solutions in the third quarter valued at approximately $888,000. 76.14% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. MACOM Technology Solutions Trading Up 2.4 % NASDAQ MTSI opened at $134.50 on Friday. The company has a current ratio of 8.35, a quick ratio of 6.55 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.43. The business has a fifty day simple moving average of $116.33 and a 200 day simple moving average of $108.52. MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. has a 12 month low of $79.25 and a 12 month high of $140.27. The firm has a market capitalization of $9.74 billion, a P/E ratio of 130.58, a PEG ratio of 2.31 and a beta of 1.69. Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth View Our Latest Report on MACOM Technology Solutions Insider Transactions at MACOM Technology Solutions In other news, CFO John Kober sold 19,470 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Wednesday, November 20th. The stock was sold at an average price of $126.88, for a total value of $2,470,353.60. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief financial officer now directly owns 51,489 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $6,532,924.32. This represents a 27.44 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at this hyperlink . Also, SVP Donghyun Thomas Hwang sold 4,375 shares of MACOM Technology Solutions stock in a transaction on Tuesday, September 3rd. The stock was sold at an average price of $104.57, for a total value of $457,493.75. Following the sale, the senior vice president now owns 37,148 shares in the company, valued at $3,884,566.36. This trade represents a 10.54 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . Insiders sold a total of 273,268 shares of company stock worth $32,128,941 in the last quarter. 22.75% of the stock is currently owned by corporate insiders. MACOM Technology Solutions Company Profile ( Free Report ) MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, designs and manufactures analog semiconductor solutions for use in wireless and wireline applications across the radio frequency (RF), microwave, millimeter wave, and lightwave spectrum in the United States, China, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and internationally. See Also Want to see what other hedge funds are holding MTSI? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. ( NASDAQ:MTSI – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for MACOM Technology Solutions Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for MACOM Technology Solutions and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
NoneProspera Financial Services Inc Has $476,000 Stock Position in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (NASDAQ:ICLN)The power of working together
It’s been heartening to see Democratic introspection following our 2024 election losses. Some Democrats are clinging to the idea that Americans are too mean, selfish or racist to vote for a left-of-center party, but others are realizing our party itself is the problem. If 2024 is a wake-up call, 2025 can be a year of Democratic renewal. We can appreciate the passion of the left but decide the center is better suited to set our agenda. Thoughtful members of the left may realize the country isn’t with them. They may see that a center-left Democratic Party that shares some of their views and wins elections is a better option than ceding ground to a Republican Party with whom they have much less in common. I’m excited for a more centrist Democratic Party and think it’s useful to have a vision the party can adopt or debate. I define centrist Democrats in two ways: first by a mindset, then by a commitment to achievable policies. First, the mindset. Centrist Democrats understand our party doesn’t have all the answers. We recognize that collaborating with conservative partners is a path to better and more sustainable policies. We celebrate our diverse society, including those Americans whose political beliefs don’t comport with our own. We’re willing to settle for incremental progress when the alternative is no progress at all. We don’t automatically oppose Republican policies but accept, modify or reject them based on our analysis of their merits. We don’t impose our views on others but set a constructive example, achieve results, honor our nation and communicate calmly, honestly and well. We do these things because they’re right, and to earn the support of Americans. Our positions respect the aspirational but pursue the achievable. Centrist Democrats are pro-choice, unequivocally in the case of rape and the health of the mother, but accept limitations at the point of fetal viability. We support policies that make it easier for women exercising their reproductive rights to make the choice to continue a pregnancy. On guns, we support universal background checks and red flag laws that remove weapons from people deemed dangerous after careful adherence to due process. We can imagine a country without assault-style weapons but focus on government policies that incentivize the purchase of gun safes and trigger locks, and we seek a partnership with the National Rifle Association to inculcate a culture of responsible gun ownership and training. We believe these reasonable positions on guns do more to save lives than an endless battle about gun prohibitions and confiscation. Centrist Democrats are pro-immigrant and pro-immigration but believe controlling the southern border is necessary. Uncontrolled crossings make a mockery of the government’s authority and validate a culture of lawlessness, where everyone seems able to choose which laws should be followed. Centrist Democrats have compassion for migrants and make efforts to improve conditions in their home countries, but we honor our laws by enforcing them. We believe the free market is a powerful tool to generate wealth and increase living standards. But we don’t believe an unregulated market is best for the American people. We seek a balance that prevents excess but preserves the incentives required to spur investment and innovation. We remember that spending on national defense and social programs is impossible without the revenue generated by the private sector. Centrist Democrats are hesitant to alter the structures of government. Expanding the Supreme Court or eliminating the Senate filibuster might advance our positions in the short term, but we know any gains would be tenuous and reversible when Republicans achieve a majority or decide to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with their own friendly justices. Centrist Democrats support national service and civics education in schools. We believe Americans should be educated in their responsibilities as well as their rights. For Americans to see the beauty of our system they need to understand its tenets. Centrist Democrats know we can teach our children about the faults of our nation without undermining their love of country. And we believe national service can help stitch together a divided nation. While I hope for the revival of a more traditional Republican Party, it’s right in the meantime for Democrats to oppose Republican extremes. In our constitutional system, that’s the job of the minority party. As the Republicans prepare to exercise their electoral mandate, Democrats would do well to focus on the renovation of our party. We can earn our own electoral mandate if we get it right.Top Trump, Biden, and Harris Advisers Spill the Tea on 2024
Get a Hobby, Keith! Olbermann's Terminal Case of TDS Leads Him to Pounce on a Trump Typo
MICHELIN STARRED CULINARY BREWERY, MOODY TONGUE, TO OPEN FIRST PERMANENT FLORIDA LOCATION AT HILTON WEST PALM BEACHThe 59-year-old former Florida attorney general, if confirmed by the Senate, will now serve as the top law enforcement official in a second Trump administration. "For too long, the partisan Department of Justice has been weaponized against me and other Republicans -- Not anymore," Trump wrote on his Truth Social network. "Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, and Making America Safe Again." Bondi's nomination means the top ranks of the Justice Department will be filled by Trump loyalists, as the president-elect has named three of the lawyers who defended him in his multiple criminal cases to its other high-ranking roles. Trump tapped Bondi to be attorney general on Thursday after his first pick, firebrand ex-Florida lawmaker Matt Gaetz, dropped out amid sexual misconduct allegations and doubts that he could obtain Senate confirmation. A graduate of the University of Florida with a law degree from Stetson University, Bondi served as a prosecutor for 18 years before being elected attorney general of the "Sunshine State" in 2010, the first woman to hold the post. Bondi, a native of Trump's adopted home state of Florida, was reelected to a second term in 2014. As attorney general, Bondi notably fought opioid addiction and human trafficking while taking a tough stance on crime and supporting the death penalty. She sued BP for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and obtained more than $2 billion in economic relief for Florida, according to her biography page at Ballard Partners, a powerful lobbying firm where she has worked after leaving office. While serving as attorney general, Bondi was drawn into a controversy involving Trump when she declined in 2013 to join a multi-state prosecution accusing Trump University of fraud. It emerged later that Bondi's reelection committee had received a $25,000 donation from the charitable Trump Foundation. Both Trump and Bondi denied any wrongdoing. Bondi joined Trump's legal team during his first impeachment trial, in which he was alleged to have pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to find political dirt on his 2020 election opponent, Democrat Joe Biden. Trump was impeached by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives but acquitted by the Republican-majority Senate. After the 2020 election, Bondi made television appearances on behalf of Trump and pushed to de-legitimize vote counting in battleground states as part of the push by the former president to overturn the results of the vote. Bondi has also criticized the criminal cases brought against Trump, appearing in solidarity at his New York trial, where he was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star. At Ballard Partners, Bondi has done work for Amazon, General Motors and Uber and as a registered lobbyist for the oil-rich Gulf nation of Qatar, according to press reports. She is also a member of the America First Policy Institute, a Trump-aligned right-wing think tank. cl/dw
It is tempting but mistaken to say that the current administration of the universe is defective because people are not required to read op-ed columns. That thought is too adjacent to progressivism, which, a critic has said, does not care what people do as long as it is compulsory. Besides, a smaller readership can be superior to a bigger one. Most people do not read newspapers; most who do skip the op-ed page. This means that the few, the happy few, who do read columns do so because their mental pantries are stocked with curiosity, information and opinions. So, the columnist can assume the readers’ foundation of knowledge, which enables large arguments in small spaces. The 15th century produced what remains the most consequential communication technology ever: Johannes Gutenberg’s movable type. Glassy-eyed Americans squinting at their smartphones for videos of kittens might consider it quaint to ascribe history-shaping potency to mere print, especially during today’s digital typhoon. Media constantly clamor for Americans’ attention, which is increasingly elusive and of decreasing duration. A newspaper column — one musty option on a rapidly expanding menu of distractions — requires reading, which, unlike passive grazing at an endless buffet of graphic distractions, is an activity. It demands one’s mental engagement. So, a column had better be pleasurable from the start, even if its subject is not pleasant. Here is Murray Kempton (1917-1997), in a column on President Dwight D. Eisenhower campaigning in Florida in 1956: “In Miami he had walked carefully by the harsher realities, speaking some 20 feet from an airport drinking fountain labeled ‘Colored’ and saying that the condition it represented was more amenable to solution by the hearts of men than by laws, and complimenting Florida as ‘typical today of what is best in America,’ a verdict which might seem to some contingent on finding out what happened to the Negro snatched from the Wildwood jail Sunday.” That sinuous 75-word sentence, although stiletto-sharp, deployed Kempton’s pointed judgments obliquely. His demanding syntax drew readers into participating in his searing perception. His style, suited to concision, enabled him to make arguments by intimation — arguments that readers internalized almost without noticing. Do notice Kempton’s desert-dry wit: “... which might seem to some contingent on ...” A spoonful of humor helps the medicine (information, argument) go down. An enchanting idea of heaven is this: endless learning. For the self-selected cohort of op-ed readers, learning is treasured as fun. Columns are properly quarantined on “opinion” pages, but a columnist’s opinions will lack momentum for respect unless they are accompanied by platoons of facts that give readers the delight of discovery: “I didn’t know that.” It has been said that a deadline is a writer’s best friend. But if writing is a chore — a painful duty — for a columnist, he or she should find another vocation. Enjoyment is infectious, and readers will only value, over time, the company of a columnist who clearly enjoys the craft of assembling sentences, paragraphs and arguments. This columnist is caught in a contradiction: He believes that in our market society, prices are rational. Yet he would pay for the pleasure of doing what he is paid to do. He is in the right city. John F. Kennedy once drolly characterized Washington as a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm. The city he knew was, however, a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. It was acquiring a physical and cultural infrastructure worthy of a great metropolis. The Beltway opened in 1964, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 1971, the subway in 1976. This columnist is, in a sense, doing what he was doing before he came to Washington. Until then, he had taught political philosophy at the University of Toronto. Since then, he has been working to discern the small kernels of large philosophical principles lurking in the welter of events. Amid today’s rancorousness, it is difficult to remember when America’s consensus was considered suffocatingly bland. This columnist, now 83, remembers when, as he became politically sentient in the 1950s, many intellectuals lamented the absence of scalding treatises about burning questions: too much Locke, not enough Lenin. Actually, however, in the unending American dialectic between legislatures and courts — between majorities and restraints thereon — the perennial subjects of Western political argument are constantly contested: the concepts of freedom, equality, consent, representation and justice. Americans are permanently enrolled in this seminar. And being a columnist is as much fun as can be had away from a ballpark. George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post.DEADLINE ALERT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors of Xiao-I CorporationFlowserve Announces Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.21 Per Share
Quebec Premier François Legault says he’s looking at ways to end prayer in public places, including parks, as his government promises to table new legislation to strengthen secularism in schools. Legault made the comments during a press conference in Quebec City on Friday to mark the end of the fall legislative session. He said he wants to send a “very clear message to Islamists” that Quebec will fight against any disrespect of its fundamental values, including secularism. The premier said that recent reports of teachers allowing prayers in classrooms and preventing girls from playing sports, which have triggered an outcry in Quebec, are “totally unacceptable.” “There are teachers who are bringing Islamist religious concepts into Quebec schools,” he said. “I will definitely not tolerate that. We don’t want that in Quebec.” Legault then went a step further when asked by a reporter if he was also bothered by prayer in public places. “Seeing people on their knees in the streets, praying, I think we have to ask ourselves the question. I don’t think it’s something we should see,” he said, adding that his government is considering whether it can legislate on the issue. He went on to say he doesn’t want to see people praying “in public parks or public streets.” When questioned about the constitutionality of banning public prayer, he said the government is “looking at all possibilities, including the use of the notwithstanding clause,” which allows governments to override certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Images of Muslims praying in Montreal have sparked controversy in recent months, including when a group gathered in a city park to celebrate Eid al-Adha last June, prompting the borough mayor to muse about banning all religious events in public parks. In a statement, the Canadian Muslim Forum said Legault’s comments suggest that some politicians view Muslims as second-class citizens. “These remarks add to a pattern of political rhetoric that unfairly targets Quebecers, especially those of Muslim faith, based solely on their backgrounds,” the statement reads. Legault’s comments come as the province grapples with a series of reports about Muslim religious practices appearing in some of the province’s public schools. On Friday, Education Minister Bernard Drainville declared the government will introduce a new bill aimed at reinforcing secularism in Quebec schools. The announcement followed a Friday report in La Presse that documented students at a high school in Laval, north of Montreal, praying in classrooms and hallways and disrupting a play focused on sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy prevention. Drainville told reporters in Quebec City that the behaviour does not represent “our Quebec” and is “completely intolerable and unacceptable.” “These acts of a religious nature clearly contravene secularism obligations,” he said in a social media statement. “One can easily imagine the psychological impact that some of these behaviours may have had on students.” The news story is the latest in a growing number of incidents reported at Quebec schools involving Muslim teachers and students. The wave of allegations was sparked by a government investigation, made public in October, that found a toxic climate at a Montreal elementary school. The report found that a group of teachers at Bedford school, mostly of North African descent, yelled at and humiliated students. Some teachers didn’t believe in learning disabilities and attributed students’ difficulties to laziness. Subjects like science and sex education were either ignored or barely taught, and girls were prevented from playing soccer. Eleven teachers have since been suspended from the school. The government is now looking into 17 schools it believes may have breached the province’s secularism law. The report on those schools is expected in January, but Drainville says he can already confirm that the government is going to act. Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to shield the province’s controversial secularism law, Bill 21, from constitutional challenges. That law prevents certain public sector workers, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols on the job. The government also invoked the clause to protect its contentious language law, Bill 96. On Friday, Legault said the protection of Quebec’s identity has been one of his top priorities over the last year and repeated his claims that temporary immigration is threatening the French language in Montreal. He also reiterated that he’s “open” to the idea of a Quebec constitution, following a recent recommendation from a committee tasked with coming up with ways to boost Quebec’s autonomy. He said a constitution could enshrine Quebec’s values, including secularism and equality between men and women.Book review: Quran and Modernity written by Ishrat AzizCELEBRATING THE ARTS The Boerne Performing Arts grand finale holiday concert is swiftly approaching, on Dec. 12 at 7 p.m. in the Champion High School auditorium. “The Four Phantoms” return, this time for a holiday concert; a few hundred tickets remain. If you have not yet purchased tickets, please help us show our gratitude to the Boerne Performing Arts board and advisers, most of whom have volunteered their time, efforts and passion to bring our community together through the performing arts. This will be the final show, of the final season, for Performing Arts, which made the horribly difficult decision earlier this year, to bring the arts series to a close after 12 years of entertainment. “Four Phantoms” tickets can be purchased online at: www.boerneperformingarts. com; call 830-331-9079; or email [email protected] . Over the years, Boerne Performing Arts has hosted almost 40,0000 Boerne ISD elementary school students at free performances — hopefully instilling in them a love of the performing arts, while giving many a once- in- a- lifetime opportunity to experience performers from around the world. Thousands of BISD fine art students’ artwork was displayed, and a venue was provided for the BISD choir, band and orchestra students to perform for the public. BISD has been a wonderful and invaluable partner for Boerne Performing Arts and provided us with a state-of-the-art facility in which to hold the performances. The city of Boerne, together with Hill Country Council for the Arts, who acted as an incubator organization while preparing their 501(c)(3) application, along with numerous local businesses, provided support over the years. Our Boerne arts community remains grateful to all mentioned above, for the joy brought to our community. Stocking Stuffer program; join us Hill Country Council for the Arts invites all readers and followers to join us in this season of giving as HCCArts again partners with the Cibolo Creek Quilters Guild and Hill Country Daily Bread Ministries for our annual Stocking Stuffer program. We have combined forces to sew 150 custom stockings and stuff them full of goodies for the women served by Kendall County Women’s Shelter and the Hill Country Pregnancy Care Center. You can sponsor a stocking with a $ 100 donation, and we will do the shopping for you. Let us know how many stockings you would like to sponsor and send the check to: HCCArts, c/o Stocking Stuffer Program, P.O. Box 2024, Boerne, TX 78006; or go to the website www. hccarts.org and donate online. All donations are tax deductible. Contact [email protected] if your company has a bulk donation you would like to donate. We will be stuffing the stockings Dec. 8, with Santa deliveries made on Dec. 9. We welcome volunteers to join us on the 8th as we gather to stuff the stockings. To join in, call Paula at 210-2698349 for details. Follow HCCArts on Facebook and Instagram and visit our website often: www.hccarts.org. Send inquiries to: president@ hccarts.org. HCCArts develops and enriches an environment that supports and promotes awareness, appreciation, education and access to all the arts.
AS Bryden plans full takeover of Jamaican distributorLittle-known TV licence rule means nearly 1million households could save £174 a year ahead of bill hikeIt’s official: Dodgers sign Blake Snell for 5 years, $182 million
Sam Altman may be playing Santa with OpenAI’s – a series of splashy product releases that kicked off Thursday – but with the news that Donald Trump plans to appoint investor and former COO working closely with Elon Musk as head of a Department of Government Efficiency, Altman may soon find himself facing a two-headed Grinch. The Musk-Sacks duo have been publicly critical of OpenAI, and there's a fair amount of contentious history among the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Musk, of course, nine years ago but left after a power struggle and has since launched rival company xAI. (Musk has also filed multiple lawsuits against OpenAI, including the latest which seeks to stop OpenAI from transitioning from a "capped-profit" company into a fully for-profit enterprise). Sacks' VC firm Craft Ventures has invested an undisclosed amount of money in Musk’s xAI. And Sacks has not been shy in expressing his disdain for some of OpenAI’s recent moves, saying on his last month that OpenAI has "gone from nonprofit philanthropy to piranha for-profit company.” What could a Musk-Sacks one-two punch do to harm a competitor like OpenAI? In theory, as earlier this week, Trump's new billionaire advisors could use their positions and influence to steer government AI contracts to their own companies, and to push the government to crack down on competitors like OpenAI. In addition to wearing the AI and crypto , Sacks will lead the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which makes science, technology, and innovation policy recommendations to the President and the White House. Musk, meanwhile, could use his to eliminate governmental hurdles facing xAI or artificial intelligence more broadly, said Richard Schoenstein, vice chair of litigation practice at law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, who called Musk’s dual role as businessman and Trump advisor a “dangerous combination." It's no wonder Altman is trying to make nice. At the this week, Altman said he was “tremendously sad” about tensions with Musk, and dismissed the idea that Musk could use political power to hurt competitors and advantage his own businesses. “It would be profoundly un-American,” he said. And when Trump anointed Sacks as AI czar on Thursday evening, Altman quickly posted a congratulatory message on . If the intent was to make a public gesture of goodwill however, it had the opposite effect, and only further confirmed Altman's predicament: All of this comes at a delicate moment for OpenAI. The $157 billion-valued startup is not only working on a plan to that is not controlled by a non-profit board, but is also reportedly hoping for more investment by removing the infamous 'AGI' clause with , which is OpenAI’s largest shareholder thanks to a $13 billion investment. The AGI clause was implemented to keep powerful artificial general intelligence from being exploited by commercial interests and OpenAI’s nonprofit board exclusively determines when AGI is achieved. By removing the clause and transitioning OpenAI to a for-profit, Altman could be in a position to gain significant equity in the company, something investors are “pushing hard” for, a source familiar with the situation told Fortune recently. The technical challenges that must still be overcome to achieve AGI are immense. But as OpenAI pushes ahead on its mission, the role of government regulation will become increasingly important. And on that front, Sacks and Musk have each made nuanced comments that make it difficult to predict what kind of policies they might push for in the Trump administration. Sacks, for example, in which he said that while he was in favor of accelerating technological progress he found “something unsettling” about OpenAI’s declared mission to create AGI. “I doubt OpenAI would be subject to so many attacks from the safety movement if it wasn’t constantly declaring its outright intention to create AGI. To the extent the mission produces extra motivation for the team to ship good products, it’s a positive. To the extent it might actually succeed, it’s a reason for concern," Sacks . Musk, for his part, has frequently voiced concerns about AGI falling into the wrong hands and, earlier this year, predicted that AI could surpass human intelligence by the end of 2025. In March 2023, he signed an on developing AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, warning of "profound risks to society and humanity." Scientist Max Tegmark, who authored the letter for his nonprofit Future of Life Institute, recently praised Musk’s potential influence on Trump, suggesting it might lead to stronger AI safety standards. These positions could bolster the argument that Musk might take steps to slow OpenAI’s path to AGI, particularly since Musk also supported the , which was meant to regulate the development and use of the largest and most powerful AI models. That said, Altman might yet benefit from Sacks’ views on accelerating AI development and loosening restrictions. Many have predicted, for example, that Trump will do away with . And if Sacks’ own X posts are any indication, the EO's days could be numbered. When the executive order was announced, Sacks tweeted that “the U.S. political and fiscal situation is hopelessly broken, but we have one unparalleled asset as a country: cutting-edge innovation in AI driven by a completely free and unregulated market for software development." With the Biden AI order, , "that just ended." This story was originally featured on
