Monday, September 19, 2016

US election seen as highly negative and you can’t trust millennials: Analyst - CNBC

People's perception of the upcoming U.S. presidential election is highly negative, one researcher has told CNBC, warning that whoever wins will inherit an unhappy and divided nation.
"These candidates are not viewed positively at all," Carroll Doherty, director of political research at Pew Research Center told CNBC's Street Signs Monday. "Voters are less satisfied today with their electoral choice than at any point in the last 25 years," he pointed out.
The American voter's mind has been made up, according to Doherty. "Perceptions of these candidates, even among their own supporters, are pretty baked in at this point" he said. "I would not expect that to change." 
Regardless as to whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump clinches victory in November's election, the incoming president will inherit a "divided nation, and an unhappy one," Doherty said. He blamed "left and right … pulling further and further apart."
Doherty discussed the rise of "negative voting," symptomatic of dissatisfaction with both the present candidates and the political establishment as a whole. 
Doherty's research also highlighted the volatility of the millennial vote. According to Doherty, "very unpredictable" support from 18-35 year-olds was complicated by the unexpected popularity of third party candidate Gary Johnson. Doherty said that one in five millennial voters were in favor of Johnson, though he did acknowledge that this statistic might be inflated. 
Doherty asserted that the figures were "a bad sign for Hillary Clinton" as "60 percent plus of this age group has voted Democrat in the last two elections."
This claim of the Clinton campaign's waning support among millennials has been backed up by a number of recent polls.
CNBC recently spoke to musician and entrepreneur Will.I.Am, who said that: "The problem is that a lot of people feel like there's no one that talks to them and because of that … they're not going to go out and vote." 
He said that the situation was heightened as these were young first-time voters who "don't know the stakes." 
Doherty was ambivalent as to whether the upcoming presidential debate on September 26 would alter public opinion. But, he did suggest that "Trump will raise the level of interest in this debate, if nothing else." Doherty predicted that a lot of people would tune in. 
Doherty suggested that the election result itself might be controversial. "When it's over, it might not be over," he warned.

Exclusive: Lyft CEO Lays Out His Vision of the Driverless Future - TIME

Posted: 18 Sep 2016 05:45 AM PDT

Lyft, the nation’s second-largest ride-hailing service, expects autonomous vehicles to account for a majority of its rides within five years, CEO John Zimmer told TIME in an exclusive interview. Days after its chief rival Uber’s self-driving cars began ferrying passengers in Pittsburgh, Zimmer also said he expects car ownership will “all but end” in major U.S. cities in less than 10 years.
“There are already specific trips—whether it’s just on this street or just at this time in this perfect weather condition—that an autonomous vehicle could do today,” Zimmer tells TIME. And he believes that this is how the self-driving revolution will come to the masses: not by consumers swapping out their old cars for fully autonomous personal vehicles but by consumers paying for rides in self-driving cars they don’t own, with the type of trip restricted heavily at first and then growing more complicated as technology and regulations advance.

That is also the logic on which his five-year prediction is built. Because Lyft has data about where people’s trips tend to start and end, the company can estimate that a certain percentage of Lyft rides already lend themselves to self-driving cars. Such data also helps the company know where to focus their efforts for work like detailed street mapping, so that they can cover the biggest percentage of trips over the fewest miles. “We know in what order autonomous technology should be built, such that it covers more and more of those trip types,” Zimmer says. As of August 2016, Lyft was doing 14.6 million rides per month, triple their volume one year before.
This news comes as Uber is breaking a barrier in the self-driving race: Google may have been logging test miles longer than Uber and Volvo, their partner in Pittsburgh, but Uber just became the first company to bring self-driving cars to market (even if there are still backup humans in the drivers seats). Earlier this year, Lyft and GM formed a partnership and announced plans to develop autonomous vehicles together, with GM investing $500 million in Lyft. They have since been testing self-driving cars in Phoenix and have promised to deliver their first autonomous rides to customers next year.
In the interview and in a post set to publish on Medium, Zimmer details the ways he believes self-driving cars can potentially revolutionize our cities and our lives. In the not-so-distant future, Zimmer imagines people getting rid of the cars they own—or deciding not to own a car in the first place—and instead buying subscriptions for self-driving services from companies like Lyft and Uber. Think of it like a cell phone plan, with people signing up for monthly pay-per-mile plans in a certain class of car or a flat fee for unlimited miles in another.
“It’s our belief that these cars should run on a network,” he says, and in the extended smartphone metaphor, Lyft is the equivalent of the phone carrier running that network. Partners like GM and Cruise, a self-driving tech startup that GM acquired earlier this year, are responsible for the other two key components: the smartphone hardware (the car) and the operating system (the car’s autonomous brains).
The combined team working on autonomous vehicles from Lyft, GM and Cruise is in the hundreds. While GM and Cruise toil away on tangibles like sensors and algorithms that make sure the car can detect unexpected events in the road, Lyft’s team is working on problems like how to connect users with self-driving cars, how to convey to riders what the car is thinking and doing, and how to personalize the experience for riders (with, perhaps, known preferences for temperatures, music, lighting and routes). The latter is key, Zimmer believes. When customers are faced with the choice of pressing a button to get a self-driving car from different companies at roughly the same prices, they will choose Lyft like they’d choose a hotel chain or airline based on the “interior experience” or quality of service, Zimmer says.
Zimmer declined to comment on whether Lyft will exclusively work with GM in reaching this five-year milestone, nor would he say how many self-driving cars he believes will be required to cover the majority of Lyft trips at that point. “In the U.S. alone, two trillion dollars is being spent on car ownership, and cars are being used only four percent of the time. This makes no sense,” Zimmer says. “So what’s happening here is that there’s no bigger opportunity to create economic value in the country than changing that fact. And that means there are a lot of people that want to take part in that.”
Beyond the potentially massive economic payoff of self-driving cars, Zimmer says he is as taken with their potential to transform the way we live. By building our cities and lives around cars, he argues, space that could be devoted to housing or small businesses or public spaces is instead taken up by parking spaces, garages and wide roads to accommodate the congestion that is choking so many American cities. If networks of self-driving cars become robust enough for people to see them as a cheaper and simpler option than car ownership (which averages an individual about $9,000 per year), efficiencies that come with autonomous vehicles could allow cities to reclaim that space for better uses, he says.
With far less congestion, people could live further outside cities, with more space, less cost and a less taxing, self-driven commute. “If you optimize and eliminate traffic, all of a sudden, the circle around what is valuable near a city expands,” Zimmer says. He also sees Lyft playing a role in the policy debates about how to remake infrastructure that would inevitably define this version of the future. Arguing against parking garages, for instance, works for Lyft on two levels: “It’s both beneficial for us, because it makes it more likely that people will use these services but also we can make a strong argument that it’s beneficial to the cities,” Zimmer says.
The CEO wants to start selling the public and government officials on his vision long before it’s time to make those on-the-ground decisions. “You just have this blank canvas of real estate that was used for empty vehicles,” Zimmer says. “It’s not inevitable that we use that real estate correctly, because we didn’t. But now we have a technology opportunity to redo that.”

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Despite iPhone Nits, Apple Looks Stronger Than Ever Right Now - TIME Business


Posted: 16 Sep 2016 08:13 AM PDT

The iPhone seems to confound Apple’s investors as much as it delights its customers.
Four years ago, before Apple released the iPhone 5, the stock was up 73% for the year. But thanks to overheated expectations, once the phone was released the stock began a slide that erased more than 40% its value over the next nine months. Two years ago, the opposite happened: The iPhone 6 defied skepticism that Apple’s best years were behind it, propelling the stock to its record high of $134 a share in April 2015.
So far, the release of the iPhone 7 is shaping up to be a repeat of the iPhone 6. Apple unveiled the phone at an event that elicited shrugs from many observers. Then the company freaked out investors when it said wouldn’t release first-weekend sales figures for the iPhone 7. The company explained that it expected the new phones to sell out early, but the market took it as a sign that Apple may be concealing low sales figures. And Apple’s stock dropped 5% late last week.
This week brought an unexpected reversal. Since its opening price Monday, Apple’s stock has risen steadily, in what CNBC called the stock’s strongest short-term rally since 2009. Apple’s stock has rallied 12.4% in four straight trading sessions, a strong performance for any company, let alone one of Apple’s scale. That rally has added $71 billion to its market value.
But wait a minute. Apple said last week it expected the iPhone to sell out, and the headlines this week have only confirmed this. No, Apple didn’t release the actual sales figures for the weekend’s iPhone 7 sales, but Sprint and T-Mobile both said the new iPhones were selling three or four times stronger than earlier models. Later on, AT&T gave a less enthusiastic report, saying that volumes of the iPhone 7 were higher, while Verizon said its volumes were normal.
In other words, this is a decent first week for the iPhone 7, but not necessarily spectacular. Everyone knew they would sell out fast, if for no other reason than Apple warned us about it. So why is Apple’s stock having its strongest week in years? Here are a few reasons:
The tide of news is turning in Apple’s favor. Not long ago, Apple was facing a spate of bad news, notably the tax complications it’s facing in Ireland. Suddenly, good news is coming: Carriers may be pushing the iPhone7 with what one analyst called “free iPhone promotions that effectively include a phone subsidy.” That, and surveys suggesting strong consumer demand, bode well for strong sales for several months. Meanwhile, Samsung, a key rival, is facing its own problems with spontaneous exploding batteries.
No one wants to be left out of an Apple rally. As much as it hurts for an investor to buy a stock and see it decline, it still stings more to miss out when a stock rallies. And there are a lot of big investors who are missing out this week. According to Bloomberg, 295 institutional investors sold out of their Apple positions entirely last quarter, missing out on the 20% rise in Apple share prices since late June. Some of them may be scrambling back in.
And shorting Apple seems especially dangerous right now. Shorting – or selling borrowed shares in hopes of making a profit when a stock drops – is appealing if Apple’s best days are indeed behind it. But the memory of the post iPhone 6 rally looms large in the memories of Apple bears, and some may be rushing to buy back shares to avoid future losses.
Apple is cheap. At the beginning of this week, Apple was trading at 12 times earnings. Even after this week’s rally, it’s at 13.5 times earnings, compared to a ratio of 24.6 for the S&P 500 Index. And keep in mind, in fiscal 2015 – that is, the year after the release of the iPhone 6 – Apple’s revenue grew by 28%.
Apple is a safe haven. And the market is in short supply of safe havens right now. In fact, the overall stock market is looking rather creaky and uncertain, amid expectations that years of record-low interest rates around the world have done all they can do to generate growth. Those concerns have driven down many stocks, but not Apple. By some counts, Apple’s rally this week is pretty much the main thing holding up the S&P 500.
Apple still has its share of concerns around it. The Watch may not live up to what Apple hopes it will be, and there are signs that longer-term initiatives like an Apple car may be hitting speedbumps. But the main focus right now is the iPhone, which makes up nearly two thirds of the company’s revenue. Sales aren’t as bad as they looked a week ago, and, over the past 15 years at least, it has rarely paid for long to bet against Apple.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Turkey political purge compared to Medievil witch hunt - New York Times

Istanbul - Candan Badem teaches history at a university in southern Turkey, is a socialist and does not believe in God. But he lost his job and was hauled in by the police and accused of being a loyalist to a shadowy Islamic cleric who lives in exile in Pennsylvania.
The evidence against him: A book written by the cleric, Fethullah Gulen, was found in his office.
“It was like a bad joke,” said Mr. Badem, who says he believes the real reason he was targeted was that he signed a petition opposing the government’s war with Kurdish militants in the southeast. “What kind of reason can this be, for an academic to have a book? It is like the darkness of the medieval ages.”
Two months after a failed military coup, for which officials have blamed the disciples of Mr. Gulen, a wide-scale purge led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has reached witch-hunt proportions, according to a growing chorus of critics. More than 100,000 people — teachers, military officers, judges, functionaries, airline employees, even baklava salesmen — have been arrested or fired from their jobs, all on accusations of connections to Mr. Gulen, who steadfastly denies any involvement.
Mr. Gulen, 75, a moderate Islamist theologian who runs a network of schools and charities around the world, including in the United States, was once an ally of Mr. Erdogan’s before a bitter rift a few years ago. Now Mr. Erdogan calls him a terrorist.
In its early stages, the purge was supported by many of Mr. Erdogan's opponents, who long chafed under what they called the president’s growing authoritarianism but who said that Mr. Gulen’s influence within society needed to be wiped out.
Now, though, many have turned against the president, saying that he is using the failed coup as a pretext for enhancing his own power and that he is wielding a state of emergency to target critics of all stripes, beyond the rule of law.
“After the coup, there was a moment of national unity, as Erdogan reached out to his secular opponents for reconciliation,” said Mustafa Akyol, a leading Turkish columnist who contributes opinion pieces to The New York Times and who initially supported the purges. “That was the hope. But now that spirit is increasingly fading, and there is justified worry that the purges may ultimately serve to cleanse the state of all critics, not just Gulenists who really seem to have masterminded the coup attempt.”
s group of people who intended a coup d’état, we will never accept their excuses if we have enough evidence,” the deputy prime minister, Numan Kurtulmus, said in an interview with the New York Times editorial board on Sept. 7. Asked how thousands could be summarily dismissed before investigations had even begun, he said: “We obey the rule of law. The rule of law is still clear. After investigations, the courts will decide individual cases.”
In Turkey these days, there are many ways to lose your job or land in jail: holding a mortgage from the bank affiliated with Mr. Gulen; current or past enrollment in one of the cleric’s many schools; or simply owning a book or subscribing to a newspaper published by the Gulenists.
License plates with the letters FG, which might suggest an allegiance to Mr. Gulen, draw scrutiny from officials. The president has called on Turks to inform on their fellow citizens, and so the whispered word of a neighbor with a grudge could be enough to land someone in jail. So could a post on Twitter.
And if the police cannot find you, they may look for a family member. That happened in the case of Hakan Sukur, a former top soccer player who had fled to the United States, whose father was arrested. In another example, the wife of a journalist targeted by the government had her passport canceled.
Rather than focusing on people directly accused of participating in the coup plot, the purges have swept through the entire community of people who may have once been sympathetic to the ideas of Mr. Gulen.
That is no small number. A cleric who rose to prominence starting in the 1960s, Mr. Gulen has been embraced in the past by the West for espousing a vision of moderate Islam and interfaith dialogue. Gulenists have also long filled the ranks of the state — the police, judiciary and military — with the blessing of Mr. Erdogan.
While many of those who have lost their jobs, such as Mr. Badem, say they have never been sympathetic to the cleric, others readily acknowledge that they once considered themselves disciples of Mr. Gulen but say they had no role in the coup attempt.
schoolteacher, said she became acquainted with the Gulen movement in the same way many Turks did: by attending a private tutoring school, run by Gulenists, to prepare for her university entrance exams.
“That’s where I met the brothers and sisters of the movement,” she said in an interview. “It all started very innocently. They approached me and invited me to a picnic.”
She said that she had been persuaded in recent years to leave the movement by her husband and father, but that she still lost her job.
“I will never forget the day I was fired,” she said. “It was like someone poured boiling hot water over my head. The principal’s assistant told me by phone and made me pack up all my belongings in 20 minutes. I didn’t even get to say goodbye to the children.”
Ms. Ozyurek said that Mr. Erdogan’s Islamist government was being hypocritical, given the long alliance between his Justice and Development Party and the Gulenists.
“I am no guiltier than the government,” she said. “They were also sympathetic with the movement for many years.”
Searching for historical parallels, analysts have made comparisons with Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch hunt in 1950s America, the Stalinist purges of the 1930s and the Cultural Revolution in China in the 1960s and ’70s. Mr. Erdogan’s own spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, has likened the purges to what a unified Germany did after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 in removing civil servants and military officers who had served communist East Germany.
In 1926, the discovery of a plot to assassinate Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, prompted a wide crackdown that may be the closest historical similarity to what is happening now.
“That was a real plot,” said Mr. Akyol, the columnist. “But it was also utilized to get rid of a broader circle of opposition and establish Ataturk as the unchallenged leader for the next two decades.”
In purging the Gulenists, Turkey has also seized businesses, transferring about $4 billion of wealth from the private sector to the state, evoking comparisons with the infamous wealth tax in 1942, when Turkey targeted its non-Muslim citizens, including Christians and Jews.
Sitting at a cafe in Istanbul recently, Hakka Azad Akkus, 33, a recently fired teacher, pulled out his iPhone and scrolled through his photographs — evidence, he said, that he could not possibly be involved with an Islamic group.
“I drink alcohol,” he said, showing a picture of him drinking beer at a beachside cafe.
“I smoke,” he said, nodding to the cigarette in his hand.
“I sit with girls,” he continued, showing another picture. “This is my social environment. It doesn’t look Islamic, right?”
But few were holding out much hope that their dismissals would be reversed, at least not overnight.
“I believe my innocence will be proven,” Mr. Akkus said. “But how long is it going to take? Two years? Three years? What happens in between?”
Correction: September 16, 2016 
An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the university professor who was dismissed and questioned over a book found in his office. He is Candan Badem, not Candem Bademci.
Continue reading the main story
Alarmingly, to his critics, Mr. Erdogan has recently expanded the purge beyond even the pretense of going after Gulenists, removing Kurdish mayors and thousands of teachers in the southeast.
“He is openly purging the democratic society,” said Baskin Oran, a retired professor and prominent writer. “Anyone who opposes him. This is as clear as day.”
Mr. Oran said he lost his job in 1980, after a military coup and subsequent purge of leftists, but was eventually reinstated. “Even under martial law, I was able to go to court and get my job back,” he said. This time, under Mr. Erdogan, he said, the government wants its critics to “get out of the way for the rest of their lives.”
Turkish officials have lately acknowledged that they may have gone too far, and Prime Minister Binali Yildirim has said that crisis centers will be set up in every Turkish province to handle claims from those who feel they have been unfairly accused.
“If a mistake is made, if there is anything contrary to justice and the law, it will be reviewed after operations are completed and mistakes will be corrected,” he said in a televised speech.
But Mr. Erdogan and his subordinates have also been unapologetic about the severity of the purges, and they contend that most, if not all, of the people under suspicion for connections with the plot have been treated fairly.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Sheryl Sandberg Apologizes for Facebook’s ‘Napalm Girl’ Incident - Fortune

Posted: 13 Sep 2016 07:39 AM PDT

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has admitted that Facebook erred in removing the historic photo of a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack in Vietnam in 1972 —a decision that sparked controversy about the company’s photo standards and heightened the tension between Facebook’s role as a social platform and what it owes users as a news publisher.
Last week, Facebook deleted multiple copies of the iconic image by Nick Ut and suspended user accounts after a Norwegian newspaper editor posted the picture as part of a series on war photography. The editor-in-chief of the paper, Aftenposten, decried the move by Facebook in an open letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply with your requirement to remove this picture,” he wrote.

Facebook, which bans nudity in most cases, later reinstated the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo and said in a statement that, in the case of the napalm girl photo, the image’s “status as an iconic image of historical importance” and the “value” of permitting users to share it “outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal.”
In its scramble to censor the photo, Facebook ended up removing it from the account of Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, which prompted Solberg to accuse Facebook of editing history. Norway owns 0.52% of Facebook—a stake worth some $1.54 billion—through an investment by its sovereign wealth fund.
Sandberg wrote a letter to Solberg about the incident, and in doing so, hinted at how Facebook views its on-going efforts to police potentially offensive content. In the letter obtained by Reuters on Monday under Norway’s freedom of information rules, Sandberg said, “These are difficult decisions and we don’t always get it right.”
“Even with clear standards, screening millions of posts on a case-by-case basis every week is challenging,” Sandberg wrote. “Nonetheless, we intend to do better. We are committed to listening to our community and evolving. Thank you for helping us get this right.”
Solberg had welcomed Facebook’s decision to reinstate the photo last week when she told a public broadcaster that the move “shows that it helps to use your voice to say ‘we want change.’”
Sandberg said her letter signified “how seriously we take this matter and how we are handling it,” and she suggested that the prime minister’s staff could meet two Facebook officials who will be in Norway on Friday.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

The Collapse of a Major Shipping Firm is Causing a Trailer Shortage in California - TIME Business


Posted: 14 Sep 2016 09:21 PM PDT

The bankruptcy of Korea’s Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd is causing ripple effects for importers bringing goods from Asian factories to U.S. malls by creating a shortage of trailers to move ocean-shipping containers on U.S. roads.
The world’s seventh-largest container carrier has more than 500,000 containers, and many already are clogging up ports and truck yards, tying up trailers that cannot be used to handle other cargo. That is beginning to worry freight handlers at U.S. West Coast ports and is the first sign of knock-on effects from the failure of Hanjin.
The problem stems from Hanjin’s shortage of cash, which has stranded $14 billion of cargo owned by companies such as HP Inc , Home Shopping Network and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. Much of the cargo is on more than 100 ships at sea because cargo handlers, tug operators and ports are refusing to work with Hanjin unless they get paid up front.
A lawyer for the shipper did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Terminal operators in the California ports of Long Beach and Oakland are not taking back empty containers. Many in the industry doubt Hanjin will pay storage costs, and a growing number of empty containers and the trailers they sit on are stranded.
“If it’s not fixed in the next couple of weeks, I think you’ll see a huge ripple effect across the industry,” said Weston LaBar, executive director for the Harbor Trucking Association in Long Beach, California.
LaBar said there are thousands of Hanjin containers on trailers out of circulation, and the uncertainty surrounding Hanjin appears to be pushing truckers to lock in trailers from his organization’s pool.
“We doubled in bookings this morning,” LaBar said. “We have availability, but we’re getting to the point where we may be leased out for our chassis.”
Shipping executives said there is ample supply of shipping containers, but trailers are limited. The West Coast ports previously have experienced brief shortages even when the stream of trade is functioning normally.
The Hanjin collapse has exacerbated the problem.
At GSC Logistics Inc, Chief Executive Officer Scott Taylor said he is stuck with nearly 80 empty Hanjin containers on trailers, racking up charges for cargo owners, that his company processed recently and could not return to a terminal operator at the Port of Oakland.
“If it says Hanjin on the side, there’s no place for it to go right now,” said Taylor.
Grocery chain Kroger Co told Reuters it has 880 shipping containers tied up on Hanjin ships. The company’s lawyer, Ron Leibman, on Friday told a U.S. judge who is overseeing Hanjin’s U.S. bankruptcy case that Kroger does not expect to be able to return the containers once it receives its products, creating a headache and added costs for the company.
Empty containers were sitting on trailers, said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy for the National Retail Federation. “This is causing problems with the terminal operators and truckers who need the equipment” to haul full containers, he said.
Karen Vellutini, a vice president at Devine Intermodal, a trucking company in West Sacramento that services the Port of Oakland, said she expects the availability of trailer chassis to become a problem as the holiday season nears and as more Hanjin ships arrive in ports and unload containers.
“We’re not seeing it yet, but it’s inevitable,” Vellutini said. “This problem is going to compound.”
In Southern California, shipping industry executives are discussing setting aside a staging area where truckers could drop off empty containers to free up trailers, said Mario Cordero, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, which regulates carriers, terminal operators and ports.
“They are trying to address what could be even a greater crisis as these numbers mount,” Cordero said.
“If those chassis get all occupied, or a good percentage of them, where the containers are just sitting on them with nowhere to deliver, that disrupts the supply chain,” Cordero said. “We are certainly reaching the level we are concerned.”
The commission is monitoring prices to make sure fees for leasing trailers do not become excessive amid the Hanjin problems, Cordero said.
Vellutini of Devine Intermodal said cargo owners could resort to buying the containers they are holding to clear up any legal uncertainty around them and to return chassis.
“People are waiting for the dust to settle to decide if they’ll buy and get into the used container business.” 
(Writing by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware, additional reporting by Tom Hals, Nandita Bose, and Jessica Resnick-Ault; editing by Peter Henderson and Cynthia Osterman)

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Samsung will replace all Galaxy 7 note books - CNN

Samsung issued replacement guidance statement on Galaxy Note 7 users on Saturday: Turn off the phone and bring it in for a replacement phone.

The message comes a week after Samsung announced it would immediately stop selling the phone and replace the 2.5 million it had already sold. 
Samsung (SSNLF) is not calling what it is doing a recall and instead labels it a "global replacement program." But, let's face it, it's a recall. Both Verizon (VZTech30) and AT&T (TTech30) are calling it a recall on their websites
Samsung didn't respond to CNNMoney's request for comment. So we reached out to the U.S. call center and a representative said Note 7 users should power off the phone and bring it back to the retail location where it was purchased. Customers must bring the phones with them to receive a refund or a different model. 
Here's what you should know:
What's the problem?
There's a risk that the Note 7 can catch fire while charging due to problems with the battery. The issue is only believed to affect 0.1% of all devices. 
Samsung said last week that it had found only 24 phones to be defective. 
In the U.S., the Consumer Product Safety Commission urged users to power down their phones and said it would be providing guidance about an official recall "as soon as possible." 
The "exchange program" comes as rival Apple unveiled its new iPhone 7 on Wednesday. Samsung is the world's biggest selling smartphone maker. 
The Note 7 went on sale in August
What countries are affected?
Sales of the Note 7 were halted last week in 10 countries: the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, the UAE and Korea. 
However, notices of the return program were posted on Samsung's global website as well as those of several countries not listed in initial statements about the battery problem. 
Phones in China don't appear to be affected because they have a different battery. 
What should you do?
Samsung "strongly" advised customers to power down their phones and participate in the program in a statement posted on their global website. 
Customers are advised to contact their local call centers or visit the retail location where the phone was purchased. In the U.S., customers can call 1-800-SAMSUNG or 1-800-726-7864. 
Customers have the option to replace their phone with the Galaxy S7, the Galaxy S7 Edge or a different device and receive reimbursement for the difference. 
For Note 7 holders who would prefer to wait for a new model, they will receive a Samsung J Series loaner phone until the new model is released. New Note 7 phones will need CPSC approval before they can be released in the U.S. 
Note 7 accessories can also be returned for a refund and Samsung is issuing a $25 gift card, in-store credit or bill credit to users for the inconvenience. 
Can I take it on a plane?
Note 7 users can take their phones on board airplanes but the phones must be powered off and cannot be connected to a charging device. 
The phones should be carried onto the plane and not stowed in checked luggage, according to guidance from airlines around the world.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Chevy’s New Electric Car Will Outrange Tesla’s Model 3 - TIME

Posted: 13 Sep 2016 06:36 AM PDT

DETROIT, Sept 13 (Reuters) – General Motors Co said on Tuesday its electric subcompact Chevrolet Bolt EV will have an average range of 238 miles on a full charge, farther than rival Tesla Motors Inc expects for its upcoming Model 3.
The Bolt EV will be launched in a few months, nearly a year before the Tesla Model 3, with a starting price for U.S. consumers of $37,500 that is similar to the announced starting price for the Model 3.
The sale price is before ancillary charges and a federal tax credit available to U.S. buyers that could be $7,500.

The Bolt is on track to be the first fully electric car with at least 200 miles of driving range per charge and a starting price below $40,000. Tesla’s Model S and Model X offer driving ranges of more than 200 miles, but at prices that start at roughly double the Bolt‘s.
The Bolt is also seen as the first affordable fully electric car.
The average selling price for a new vehicle in the United States is about $31,000, and GM reported that in August, its vehicles were sold to U.S. consumers at an average of $36,730. These prices reflect discount incentives to spur sales, which are not normally generous or even available for the newest of models.
GM’s share price was little changed following the expected announcement. In premarket trading on Tuesday, shares were at $31.17, a cent lower than Monday’s close.
GM has said that the Bolt, along with the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt, will be made available to drivers of the ride-hailing service Lyft Inc, in which GM has invested half a billion dollars. (Reporting by Bernie Woodall; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

Wells Fargo Exec at Center of Scandal Gets Huge Payday - Fortune


Posted: 12 Sep 2016 07:40 AM PDT

Wells Fargo & Co’s “sandbagger”-in-chief is leaving the giant bank with an enormous pay day—$124.6 million.
In fact, despite beefed-up “clawback” provisions instituted by the bank shortly after the financial crisis, and the recent revelations of massive misconduct, it does not appear that Wells Fargo is requiring Carrie Tolstedt, the Wells Fargo executive who was in charge of the unit where employees opened more than 2 million largely unauthorized customer accounts—a seemingly routine practice that employees internally referred to as “sandbagging”—to give back any of her nine-figure pay.
On Thursday, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million, including the largest penalty ever imposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to settle claims that that it defrauded its customers. The bank’s shareholders will ultimately have to swallow the cost of that settlement. The bank also said it had fired 5,300 employees over five years related to the bad behavior.

Tolstedt, however, is walking away from Wells Fargo with a very full bank account—and praise. In the July announcement of her exit, which made no mention of the soon-to-be-settled case, Wells Fargo’s CEO John Stumpf said Tolstedt had been one of the bank’s most important leaders and “a standard-bearer of our culture” and “a champion for our customers.”
On Thursday, Richard Cordray, the head of the CFPB, said, “It is quite clear that [the actions of Tolstedt’s unit] are unfair and abusive practices under federal law. They are a violation of trust and an abuse of trust.”
A spokesperson for Wells Fargo said that the timing of Tolstedt’s exit was the result of a “personal decision to retire after 27 years” with the bank. The spokesperson declined to comment on whether the bank was considering clawing back Tolstedt’s back pay.
In a statement following the settlement, Wells Fargo said, “Wells Fargo reached these agreements consistent with our commitment to customers and in the interest of putting this matter behind us. Wells Fargo is committed to putting our customers’ interests first 100% of the time, and we regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.”
Shortly after the financial crisis, big banks in the nation, including Wells Fargo, promised that their top bankers would not be able to keep large paydays if it was found that those rewards were gained through harmful conduct. It was supposed to be the stick to the carrot of Wall Street bonuses. But the latest example of fraud at Wells Fargo shows that the big banks are unwilling to wield those sticks, especially when it comes to their top executives.
It is not clear how closely, or at all, Tolstedt was responsible for or even aware of the widespread abusive tactics at the bank. Neither the CFPB nor the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office, which sued the bank, named Tolstedt directly. Wells Fargo said the 5,300 firings happened over five years, and included managers as well as employees. It’s likely that Tolstedt managed as least part of that purge. But in bringing the charges, an official from the CFPB said Wells Fargo was aware of the behavior for longer than it should have, without putting a stop to it.
What’s more, Tolstedt ran the community banking division of the bank, which included its retail banking and credit card divisions, during the entire period in which the customer abuse was alleged, which goes back to 2011. The CFPB said about three quarters of the unauthorized accounts opened by employees of Wells Fargo were bank deposit accounts. Another 565,000 were unauthorized credit card applications. Tolstedt took over the division in 2008, after Wells Fargo merged with Wachovia during the financial crisis.
Tolstedt was a regular on Fortune‘s Most Powerful Women list. She was replaced on this year’s list by Mary Mack, who is taking over her job at the bank.
Tolstedt was regularly praised for her unit’s ability to get customers to open numerous accounts. For a number of years, Wells Fargo’s proxy statement, which details executive pay, cited high “cross-selling ratios” as a reason that Tolstedt had earned her roughly $9 million in annual pay. For instance, in Wells Fargo’s 2015 proxy statement, the company said that its compensation committee had authorized Tolstedt’s $7.3 million stock and cash bonus that year, because “under her leadership, Community Banking achieved a number of strategic objectives, including continued strong cross-sell ratios, record deposit levels, and continued success of mobile banking initiatives.”
Later that year, the L.A. City Attorney’s office sued the bank because of its sales tactics, saying that many of the abusive practices came from intense pressure on Wells Fargo’s employees to get customers to open up numerous accounts. A separate class action of former employees alleges they were fired for not meeting cross-selling goals, or going along with the aggressive sales tactics.
Earlier this year when Wells Fargo released its annual proxy statement, it once again said that in order to justify her multimillion dollar bonus, Tolstedt’s division had “achieved a number of strategic objectives.” But this time, for the first time in years, cross-selling wasn’t listed as one of them.
When Tolstedt leaves Wells Fargo later this year, on top of the $1.7 million in salary she has received over the past few years, she will be walking away with $124.6 million in stock, options, and restricted Wells Fargo shares. Some of that hasn’t vested yet. But Tolstedt gets to keep all of it because she technically retired. Had she been fired, Tolstedt would have had to forfeit at least $45 million of that exit payday, and possibly more.
Wells Fargo’s proxy statement says that the bank has “strong recoupment and clawback policies,” and that the bank will revoke bonus pay if it is found that the conduct of an executive resulted in representational harm to the bank, or that the executive was not able to “identify or manage” risks in his or her division. But there is no sign that Wells Fargo is going to ask Tolstedt to return even a sliver of her stock jackpot.
On Wall Street, the carrots are still widely handed out. The sticks, however, remain out of sight.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Here are the Ten Most Powerful Women in Business This Year - Fortune

Posted: 08 Sep 2016 08:35 AM PDT
There are 22 female CEOs — down from 27 last year — on the 19th Most Powerful Women list that Time, Inc. publication Fortune released Thursday morning.
Mary Barra, the CEO and Chairman of GM, topped the ranking, with Pepsi Co. CEO and Chairman Indra Nooyi following in second place. Fortune releases the list of the most powerful business women every year.
There are nine newcomers to the list in total (read about them here). Ten women, including seven CEOs (such as Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer), dropped off the 2016 list for either stepping down from their posts or losing relative prominence.
The list of 51 women also includes Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, and “bonus pick” Beyoncé. Check out the top ten below:
  1. Mary Barra, CEO and Chairman of GM 
  2. Indra Nooyi, CEO and Chairman of PepsiCo 
  3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO, Chairman and President of Lockheed Martin 
  4. Ginni Rometty, CEO, Chairman, and President of IBM 
  5. Abigail Johnson, CEO and President of Fidelity Investments 
  6. Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook 
  7. Meg Whitman, CEO and President of Hewlett Packard Enterprise 
  8. Phebe Novakovic, CEO and Chairman of General Dynamics 
  9. Irene Rosenfeld, CEO and Chairman of Mondelez International 
  10. Safra Catz, Co-CEO of Oracle 
[Fortune]

How For-Profit Colleges Could Spark the Next Financial Crisis - TIME

Posted: 08 Sep 2016 07:06 AM PDT

With the closing of for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institutes, as well as the pay-to-play suspicions hanging over Donald Trump with allegations that he violated Florida bribery laws in order to try and protect Trump University against class action lawsuits, and even revelations that the Clintons have made millions of dollars in the scandal-plagued for-profit education sector, I’m thinking that education, and for-profit education in particular, is ground zero for the next financial crisis.
This isn’t a crisis like Lehman Brothers. Student lending is a far smaller part of the credit market than housing, after all. But it has many aspects of the subprime scandal, including an asset bubble, huge amounts of debt ($1.2 trillion, to be exact), vulnerable borrowers, fraud, conflict of interest, and money politics.
For-profits make up only 12% of enrollment in the higher education sector, but they take 25% of all federal aid and represent half of all student defaults. This is the student debt problem, right here. And like so many troubled areas of our economy, education, (and for-profit education in particular) has been financialized. Over the last two decades, for-profit colleges have become darlings of Wall Street, with companies like University of Phoenix owner Apollo going public and many others cutting deals with private equity firms. These schools often act more like rapacious businesses than educators, taking huge, double digit profit margins and spending more on marketing than instruction. (Apollo recently spent more on its marketing budget than Apple, one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies.)
They spend this money to bring in more students, who become stable, annuity-like investments, paying off a clear return year after year. No wonder the Street has favored these companies. Between 2000 and 2003, for-profit stocks were on a major run, outperforming every other sector of the market. Since then, of course, they’ve crashed and burned. But most still get 80% of their revenues from federal subsidies, thanks to major lobbying efforts to roll back regulation and lawsuits that rival those that the big banks waged post-2008. It’s a huge irony, especially given the neoliberal “market knows best” arguments so often used to support for-profit schools, that most of them wouldn’t even exist if not for federal funds.
Their destructive effects also go far beyond the for-profit sector itself. For-profits have risen as state subsidies for non-profit state colleges have fallen (thank you Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers). The result is that the price of college as a percentage of household income for the lowest 25% of the socioeconomic spectrum has doubled over the last several years, while outcomes have fallen. Meanwhile, new research from the Roosevelt Institute shows that many big universities are involved in bad swaps deals à la Detroit, raising huge questions about how their balance sheets are being managed, and who, exactly, their leadership answers to — students or Wall Street.
This is really the next big financial scandal. My idea about how to fix all this — the next president should get rid of for-profits, and use the billions of dollars in subsidies they receive to pay off poor students who’ve gone into debt for useless degrees, and fund free, high-quality community college for everyone — would go a long way towards rebooting the system and starting to train up the 21st century, better-educated labor force this country so desperately needs.