Friday, September 23, 2016

Fortune’s 40 Under 40 List Just Came Out—And Here are the Top 10 - Fortune

Posted: 22 Sep 2016 10:07 AM PDT

Fortune, a Time Inc. publication, released on Thursday its latest 40 Under 40 list: an annual ranking of the 40 most influential business people less than 40 years old.
The list includes a mix of entrepreneurs, CEOs, creatives and politicos. Fortune said it ranks people based on power, influence and success, and the list cannot contain repeats from the year before.
Brendan Bechtel tops the list as the CEO of the Bechtel Group, a construction and engineering company, while Chairman and Executive Director of CEFC China Energy Ye Jianming and Hillary Clinton senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan follow in the second and third spots, respectively.

The list has 16 women this year (up from 14 last year), including Bozoma St. John, head of consumer marketing for Apple Music and iTunes, and Payal Kadakia, CEO and co-founer of Classpass. Big names on the list include James Corden, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Jake Sullivan and Marie Kondo..
Here are the top 10 under 40:
  1. Brendan Bechtel, 35 CEO of Bechtel Group
  2. Ye Jianming, 39 Chairman and Executive Director of CEFC China Energy
  3. Jake Sullivan, 39 Senior Policy Advisor at Hillary for America
  4. Emmanuel Macron, 38 Former French Economy Minister 
  5. Thomas Saueressig, 31 CIO of SAP
  6. Jeff Lawson, 39 Cofounder and CEO of Twilio
  7. Daniel Kan and Kyle Vogt, 29 and 31 Cofounders of Cruise Automation
  8. Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, 36 and 36 Cofounders and Co-CEOs of Atlassian
  9. Rachel Holt, 33 Regional General Manager for U.S. and Canada of Uber
  10. Bill Ready, 36 SVP, Global Head of Product and Engineering of PayPal
And you can see the full list at Fortune

Wells Fargo CEO Apologizes for Fake Accounts and ‘Unethical Sales Practices’ - TIME


Posted: 20 Sep 2016 08:08 AM PDT

(WASHINGTON) — Wells Fargo & Co’s chief executive officer told a Senate panel on Tuesday that customers who had bogus accounts opened in their name will be made whole and compensated for any damage to their credit rating, but some Democratic senators called for his resignation.
Under fire, CEO John Stumpf told the Senate Banking Committee he has told his managers to do “whatever it takes” to make customers whole, refunding fees or compensating them for damage to their credit ratings.
Asked if he would set aside mandatory arbitration agreements that prohibit clients from suing Wells Fargo, he declined to commit to that. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has proposed a ban on mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit class-action lawsuits.

Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called for Stumpf to resign, with Warren saying Stumpf should give back his salary and be criminally investigated.
The bank’s board of directors is examining what action it should take against company executives, Stumpf told the committee.
“I accept full responsibility for all unethical sales practices,” Stumpf said, adding later, “I apologize to all of the American people and our customers, and I will make it right.”
Earlier this month, the lender agreed to pay $190 million in penalties and customer payouts to settle a case in which bank employees created credit, savings and other accounts without customer knowledge.
The revelations are a severe hit to Wells Fargo’s reputation. During the financial crisis, the bank trumpeted being a conservative bank in contrast with its rivals.
Of the $190 million in the settlement, only $5 million will directly compensate customers, many of whom might have only paid a small fee on unwanted accounts.
But lawmakers said phony bank accounts might have hurt customer credit ratings, potentially increasing the cost of a mortgage or car loan. New credit card applications and consumer borrowing trends can weight on an individual’s credit report.
“STUNNED”
Thomas Curry, the Comptroller of the Currency, said in prepared testimony for the committee that his agency is considering action against individual Wells Fargo executives who may have violated laws or regulations or engaged in “unsafe or unsound practices, or breach(ed) fiduciary duty.”
Brown, the senior Democrat on the Senate panel, criticized the bank for exploiting customers and for its slow response in controlling the abuse.
“I was stunned when I learned about the breadth and duration of this fraud,” he said in his opening remarks.
Wells Fargo has acknowledged bank employees “inappropriately opened” the customer accounts over five years, and that about 5,300 employees were fired in that time.
Former bank employees have said they were under intense pressure to add accounts for each bank customer.
Abuses were found as early as 2011, Stumpf said, but bank executives only realized the scale of the problem early last year.
At that time, Stumpf said, bank executives came to recognize how a pattern of creating phony accounts could be used to boost unwarranted fees.
“It never dawned on us that there could be a cycle,” the CEO said.
“It just sort of begs the issue of where was management,” Brown said.
Brown said employees were caught “forging signatures, and stealing identities, Social Security numbers, and customers’ hard-earned cash, so as to hang on to their low-paying jobs and make money for the high-paying executives at Wells Fargo.”
Wells Fargo shares rose 1 percent in early-afternoon trading at $46.49.
Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether Wells Fargo violated internal controls required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for financial disclosures and corporate accounting.
The U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Manhattan and in San Francisco are investigating Wells Fargo, a person familiar with the matter said last week.
“TOO BIG TO MANAGE?”
While Democratic lawmakers like Warren were the most outspoken in their attacks, Republicans also grilled Stumpf.
Louisiana Senator David Vitter pressed the CEO on how customer fraud could persist for years and thousands of employees could be fired before the head of the bank got involved.
“Why isn’t this crystal clear proof that an entity as big as Wells is not only too big to fail but it’s too big to manage and too big to regulate?” Vitter asked.
Stumpf said he had considered the question, adding that the widespread abuse was “a problem of focus and not of size.”
Stumpf appeared before the congressional panel with a bandaged right hand. He suffered an injury playing with his grandchildren, according to the bank.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in a letter to bank customers released on Tuesday, said Stumpf “owes all of you a clear explanation as to how this happened under his watch.” (Reporting by Patrick Rucker in Washington and Dan Freed in New York; Writing by Nick Zieminski; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Bill Gates highly praised the Zuckerburgs for donation to disease research - USA Today

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his pediatrician wife, Priscilla Chan, are launching an ambitious effort to spend $3 billion over the next decade to cure disease.
The goal is to "work together to cure, prevent or manage all disease within our children's lifetime," Dr. Chan said during an event in San Francisco for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the couple's philanthropic group.
Dr. Chan spoke through tears as she recalled telling parents their child had an incurable disease or could not be revived, experiences she said made her even more determined to work with scientists and engineers to build new tools that can save lives by the end of the century.
Zuckerberg, who took the stage after his wife's remarks, said he and Chan want to "make a better future for our children."
As part of the investment, the couple is funding a $600 million research center in San Francisco called the Biohub that is a partnership with UC San Francisco, Stanford University and UC Berkeley. Neurobiologist Cori Bargmann is signing on as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's president of science.
Last December, the couple celebrated the birth of a baby girl with the stunning announcement they plan to give away most of their fortune through a new initiative to "advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation." The Facebook founder and his physician wife pledged to give away 99% of their Facebook shares in their lifetime. So far the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has made investments in an African coding start-up called Andela and Indian education start-up Byju.
Zuckerberg and Chan have drawn parallels to Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates and wife Melinda, known for their philanthropic efforts.
Gates on Wednesday praised the couple, who have already made substantial investments in education, for "taking on another bold challenge."
"This idea of curing and preventing all diseases by the end of the century, that's very bold, very ambitious," Gates said during remarks at the event. "I can't think of a better partnership to take it on," Gates said, noting Zuckerberg's risk-taking entrepreneurial chops and Chan's medical bonafides.
"They both love science and they are both very committed to where it can take us," Gates said.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

How to Double Your Nest Egg for Retirement - TIME Business

Posted: 13 Sep 2016 09:42 AM PDT

Most savers take an on-again, off-again approach to putting money away. They contribute what they can, when they can, and hope for the best. But consistent saving gets the best results, new research shows. This points up the value of strategies like automatic contributions and paying yourself first.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute examined 24.9 million 401(k) plan accounts at the end of 2014. Of those accounts, 8.8 million had a balance for four consecutive years and 3.5 million had a continuous balance seven years running. These consistent accounts held vastly higher balances than the typical account.
Looking at accounts with a four-year history, EBRI found that 19.5% had a balance of more than $200,000. That compares to just 10.7% of all accounts. Another 16.1% had a balance between $100,000 and $200,000, compared to 9.5% of all accounts.
The trend is even more visible in the seven-year period, which ran from 2007 to 2014 and included the financial crisis. At the end of that period, 26.9% of the consistent accounts had more than $200,000 and 19.3% had between $100,000 and $200,000. That compares to 10.7% and 9.5%, respectively, among all accounts.
Read next: How Planning to Work in Retirement Can Backfire
The consistent accounts also had higher median and average balances, EBRI found. For accounts in the four-year group, the average balance in 2014 was $138,553—nearly double the average of all accounts. The median balance among consistent accounts was $56,653—more than three times the median balance of all accounts.
The survey looked at year-end balances over the periods and eliminated any accounts that did not have a balance at each snapshot. Participants may or may not have contributed continuously. But they all maintained a balance and benefited from asset growth over the period. Individual accumulations vary greatly, depending on how much workers and their employers contribute and how much workers borrow or withdraw from their plan.
The study also points up the futility of jumping in and out of the market, trying to time highs and lows, which no one does effectively for long. The 2011-2014 period produced some outsized stock gains, returning 2%, 16%, 32%, and 13%. In that span, the average 401(k) balance among consistent accounts grew an average 17.3% a year and the median balance grew 19.7%.
Average annual returns were lower in the seven-year period including the financial crisis—but not as low as you might imagine, given the market’s 37% collapse in 2008. Over the entire period, the average balance of consistent accounts grew an average 11.2% a year and the median balance grew 15% a year.
Had you avoided the financial collapse, of course, you would have done better. But even having taken the market’s full fury over that tumultuous period, consistent accounts fared well. By staying invested, and sticking to a contribution regimen, consistent accounts bounced back quickly.
These results have little to do with investment selection. Consistent accounts have about two-thirds of assets in stocks, about the same as all accounts, EBRI found. The main differences were steady saving and fewer loans and withdrawals.
Saving through thick and thin over a long period works. Most 401(k) plans make it easy through automatic enrollment, automatic pre-tax contributions and automatic escalation of contributions each year. Don’t opt out. If these features are not available in your plan you can approximate the strategy with automatic contributions to an IRA. In this long-term game, consistency makes the difference.

Americans Are Making More Money, Except for the Ones That Aren’t - TIME Business

Posted: 13 Sep 2016 10:21 AM PDT

Americans finally got a raise last year. The U.S. Census announced that the median American income rose more than 5% to $56,516. It’s the first significant raise in eight years and the biggest median income jump in 17 years.
The rising income tide lifted many boats. All ages saw an uptick in median income, which is the wage directly in the middle of what Americans make: 50% make more, and 50% make less. It was up among both genders, all four regions of the country and all races, except Asian, whose median income was the highest anyway, at more than $77,000. The reason for the hike, says Trudi J. Renwick, one of the assistant division chiefs at the Census Bureau, was largely the rise in employment.

Moreover, fewer people were living in poverty, with a drop from 14.7% to 13.5% in 2015, making this, says the bureau “the largest decline in poverty rates over the past 16 years.” And the decline in poverty also applied nearly across the board: all ages, all races except Asians and all regions except the Northeast.
But before we start popping the corks and proclaiming that the good times are here again, there were some depressingly stubborn figures emerging from the new report as well. For example, 10% of U.S. households live on less than $13,300 a year. Almost 20% of American children under the age of 18 live in poverty. More than 20% of Hispanics live in poverty and almost a quarter of African Americans. Women are still much more likely to be living in poverty than men.
A family is defined as living in poverty if they make less than what the policy wonks think they need to make to live. So a family of two adults and two kids would be living in poverty if their income was less than $24,036. For a family of three kids and one adult the number is a little less: $24,120. (Of course, that family’s chances of making that much are far less as well.)
In practice, this means that even as America recovers from the economic shocks of 2008, it has not solved some fundamental problems for its poorest citizens. In 2015, more than 43 million Americans, or the equivalent of the population of Argentina, did not have what they needed to get by. Worse, slightly more than 6% of Americans had even more meager means, less than 50% of the poverty level. That figure only went down half a percentage point in the past year.
To put that in real numbers: something like 20 million Americans live in homes that do not have even half of what they need to keep themselves housed and fed. The improving economy simply isn’t reaching far enough.

Brain cannot actually multi-task - CNN

You've got a smartwatch on your wrist, Siri in your palm, and emails notifications popping up on your computer screen all day long. Nope, you're not the only one who's been trying to master multi-tasking all these years.
Yet, the truth is our brains can't actually multi-task. Why? 
    Our minds are programmed to think about just one thing at a time. So what we're really doing is switching from one chore to the next and back again ... and it's not helping our productivity. Worse yet: We're not being mindful of why or how we're doing each task, because we're so rushed to move on to the next one.
    In fact, we finish about 50 percent less when attempting to tackle a few duties at once, instead of focusing on each one individually, says James Rouse, naturopathic doctor, author of Think Eat Move Thrive and co-founder of Healthy Skoop.
    While experts used to give tips on how to improve multi-tasking skills, that approach to plowing through a to-do list is no longer in vogue. What they advocate works better: Being present in the moment so you can concentrate on one activity -- and one activity only. In other words, single-tasking. (Translation: Putting your phone away, way more often.)
    To help you get more done in less time, de-stress and actually enjoy life a little more, we had Dr. Rouse share his tips on becoming a better single-tasker. So stash away your smartphone, turn off your email notifications and read on for the need-to-know. Your challenge: Do not do 101 other things while reading this article.

    7 Productivity Tips for Living in the Moment

    1. Start with one change.
    Eating lunch while catching up on email; G-chatting while writing a work proposal; scouring social media during a corporate meeting. Are you guilty of these multi-tasking crimes? Don't worry, so is everyone else. What you should do instead is pick one activity and focus on it, knowing that you'll see better results from your efforts. "People think of single tasking as underachieving," says Dr. Rouse. "We have to dispel the myth that if you're only doing one thing you're not doing as much." Putting more energy into one thing really means you'll get more out of it.
    Approach your day-to-day differently by choosing one activity that you'll solely concentrate on this week. That could mean eating breakfast mindfully, putting your phone in a drawer while checking emails in the afternoon or simply commuting to work without your normal podcast or book. The more you learn to let go of distractions (even during small tasks), the more you'll be able to expand that streamlined focus into other projects.
    2. Encourage single-tasking with others.
    "Multi-tasking is contagious," says Dr. Rouse. "We're social creatures who see people doing three or four things at one time and we want to emulate what we see. So it's hard not to multi-task when you're surrounded by it." To counteract that, eliminate disruptions when you're around other people. If you're out for drinks with a friend or having dinner with your family, put your phones away and turn off the TV so everyone is present for that time. (Seems simple, but do you ever actually do it?)
    Having your phone in your pocket or face down on the table doesn't count, either. As soon as you feel the vibration of a text or see your device light up, your mind will instantly go elsewhere. "No matter how much willpower you think you have, you won't be able to resist all the other things going on around you," says Dr. Rouse. "So don't even allow yourself that temptation."
    3. Begin your day the right way.
    Lots of people sleep with their phone by their bed, but we challenge you to put it across the room. That way, you won't feel obligated to check it before you even put your feet on the ground in the morning. Bringing technology into your sleep space has a way of triggering distractions and stress, Rouse says. Not to mention, it can keep you from getting enough zzz's. Start your day with a light stretch or a deep breath, so you're present right from the start.
    4. Take a walk outside.
    One of the best, most mood-boosting ways to learn to single-task is to get outside more often, says Dr. Rouse. It's not just the endorphins that will instantly make you feel happier. Walk without your phone and you won't be tempted to check emails or respond to texts. Then you'll be able to tune into the sights, smells and noises around you. Don't have time for a mid-day hike? If you've been running around doing what felt like 100 things at once, take a 10-minute stroll outside when you get home from the office. We promise it'll have some pretty great payoffs, and even if you have more work to do, you'll feel much more focused afterward.
    5. Schedule time for your toughest task.
    Whether you often put off a to-do like writing, drawing or creating lesson plans, set aside the same time every day to tackle it, even if the creative juices aren't flowing. "The greatest way to avoid distraction is to avoid procrastination," says Dr. Rouse. If at noon every day, you sit down and just start typing, your brain will adjust to it. Then, the work will flow better -- without you feeling like you need to check Facebook for hours until a great idea pops in your head.
    6. Give someone a squeeze.
    Think about the last time you gave someone a really big bear hug. Time seemed to stop in that moment, right? Whenever you need just a few seconds to get grounded and have a moment of Zen, Dr. Rouse suggests snuggling up to someone to bring you back to the present. In fact, hugs release the hormone, oxytocin (aka the "love" or "bonding" hormone), which can help reduce stress.
    7. Never stop trying
    Join the conversation
    See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.
    We get it, focusing on just one activity at a time can seem impossible. Life often pulls us in different directions, so it's hard to stay straight. But as long as you keep working at single-tasking -- try it with different duties throughout the day or week -- the better you'll get, the more you'll accomplish and you'll feel relaxed and productive. Dr. Rouse's favorite way to look at it: "To the expert's mind, nothing is possible. But to the beginner's mind, everything is." Being a student at single-tasking will make it more enjoyable and easier.

    Tuesday, September 20, 2016

    Google is Facing a $400 Million Tax Bill and a Criminal Case in Indonesia - TIME Business


    Posted: 19 Sep 2016 11:39 PM PDT

    (JAKARTA) — Indonesia plans to pursue Alphabet Inc’s Google for five years of back taxes, and the search giant could face a bill of more than $400 million for 2015 alone if it is found to have avoided payments, a senior tax official said.
    Muhammad Haniv, head of the tax office’s special cases branch, told Reuters its investigators went to Google’s local office in Indonesia on Monday.
    The tax office alleges PT Google Indonesia paid less than 0.1 percent of the total income and value-added taxes it owed last year.
    Asked to respond to Haniv’s comments, Google Indonesia reiterated a statement made last week in which it said it continues to cooperate with local authorities and has paid all applicable taxes.
    The move comes at a time when Indonesia is eager to ramp up tax collection to narrow its budget deficit and fund an ambitious infrastructure program. Other governments around the world are also seeking to clamp down on what they see as egregious corporate tax avoidance.
    Haniv added that the tax office planned to pursue other internet firms for back taxes.
    If found guilty, Google may have to pay fines of up to four times the amount it owed, bringing the maximum tax bill to 5.5 trillion rupiah ($418 million) for 2015, Haniv said. He declined to provide an estimate for the five-year period.
    Most of its revenue generated in the country is booked at Google’s Asia Pacific headquarters in Singapore. Google Asia Pacific declined to be audited in June, prompting the tax office to escalate the case into a criminal one, he said.
    “Google’s argument is that they just did tax planning,” Haniv said. “Tax planning is legal, but aggressive tax planning – to the extent that the country where the revenue is made does not get anything – is not legal.”
    The tax office will summon directors from Google Indonesia who also hold positions at Google Asia Pacific, Haniv said, adding that it is working with the Indonesian police.
    Globally, it is rare for a state investigation of corporate tax structures to be escalated into a criminal case.
    Governments hitting back
    Indonesia‘s move to pursue Google shows that the international tax tide might be turning, said Crawford Spence, a professor of accounting at Warwick Business School in Britain.
    “In recent decades multinationals have scoured the globe looking for low tax jurisdictions, effectively engaging in rate-shopping as part of tax minimisation strategies,” Spence wrote in an email.
    “Now, with initiatives at the transnational level…countries are starting to develop the confidence to hit back.”
    In January, Google agreed to pay 130 million pounds ($185 million) in back taxes to settle a probe by Britain’s tax authority, which had challenged the company’s low tax returns for the years since 2005.
    The Indonesia case is unlikely to be resolved soon as it normally takes at least three years for a court to make a decision on a tax-related criminal case, said Yustinus Prastowo, executive director of the Center for Indonesia Taxation Analysis.
    Haniv said the tax office is planning to chase back taxes from other companies that deliver content through the internet (over-the-top service providers) in Indonesia.
    The Indonesian communication and information ministry is working on a new regulation for OTT providers, and the tax office has proposed that a company with a “network presence” in Indonesia should also be subject to taxation.
    Total advertising revenue for the industry is estimated at $830 million a year, with Google and Facebook Inc accounting for around 70 percent of that, according to Haniv.
    A joint study by Google and Singapore state investor Temasek released earlier this year, however, estimated the size of Indonesia‘s digital advertising market at $300 million for 2015. 
    Reporting by Gayatri Suroyo and Eveline Danubrata; Additional reporting by Miyoung Kim; Editing by Edwina Gibbs and Alexander Smith

    George H.W. Bush is voting for Hillary Clinton to snub Trump - Telegraph





    George H W Bush will reportedly vote for Hillary Clinton CREDIT: REX



    FFormer  US president George H W Bush plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in an unprecedented snub of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, according to a member of the Kennedy family.
    Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, the daughter of the late Robert F Kennedy, posted a picture on her Facebook page in which she is shaking hands with Mr Bush, with the caption: "The President told me he’s voting for Hillary!!”
    She confirmed to Politico that the Republican grandee, who served as president from 1989 to 1993 and vice president from 1981 to 1989, would be voting for the Democrat candidate for the White House.
    “That’s what he said,” she told the news website.
    Mr Bush's spokesman, Jim McGrath, said: "The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim."
    The fact that Mr Bush Sr has now, apparently, stated that he will vote for Mrs Clinton, raises questions over whether both his sons - the former president and this year's defeated Republican presidential candidate, Jeb Bush - will follow suit.
    If Mr Bush Sr's defection is confirmed, it would be a devastating blow to Mr Trump, who has failed to unite the Republican establishment behind him as a result of his divisive rhetoric and regular insults on the campaign trail.
    Mr Bush Sr has strongly endorsed every Republican nominee for the last five election cycles. 
    He backed his long-time political rival Bob Dole in 1996. “I’ll do anything Senator Dole wants me to do — I’ll campaign for him,” Bush said. “My heart lies at this level, the Dole level,” he said at the time.
    Both former Bush presidents have campaigned enthusiastically for both Republican candidate since - John McCain and Mitt Romney.
    In an apparent reference to the billionaire, Mr Bush Jr said: "There seems to be a lot of name calling but, as our dad once told us, labels are for soup cans.
    "I understand these are tough times and people are angry and frustrated. But we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors our anger and frustration. Strength is not bluster and theatrics. The strongest person isn't the loudest one in the room."

    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.