Minggu, 21 Juli 2019

Chevy redefines an American icon with the $60,000 2020 C8 Corvette Stingray - CNBC

Mark Reuss, president of General Motors Co. (GM), speaks during an unveiling event for the GM 2020 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray sports car in Tustin, California, U.S., on Thursday, July 18, 2019.

Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

DETROIT — General Motors unveiled Chevrolet's white whale for Corvette enthusiasts on Thursday, a new mid-engine version of the famed American sports car that many have been waiting decades for the automaker to produce.

But the biggest surprise for industry officials wasn't the car's 495 horsepower or 0-60 time in under 3 seconds, it was the price. GM President Mark Reuss said the "supercar" will start at under $60,000 — in line with entry-level models of the current, seventh-generation Corvette with the engine mounted up front.

"I was hoping for a starting price of under $80,000, and maybe even under $70,000," Karl Brauer, executive publisher of Autotrader and Kelley Blue Book said in an email. "For GM to offer the new Corvette for under $60,000 is incredibly impressive given the advanced nature of the new car."

Chevrolet unveils its new 2020 C8 Corvette Stingray in red, white and blue in Tustin, California, on Thursday July 18, 2019.

Meghan Reeder | CNBC

While some high-performance models are expected to easily top $100,000 — the current track-ready 2019 Corvette ZR1 starts at $123,000 — officials say the entry-level price ensures Corvette will retain its reputation as "obtainable performance" and an "everyman's sports car." Executives are hoping the competitive price and high-performance will be enough to lure drivers away from European rivals and boost Corvette's lagging sales.  

"Mid-engine has always been a part of Corvette's destiny and it's something we've been looking at for a very, very long time," Reuss said during the unveiling in Tustin, California. "All along, it has been absolutely paramount that we keep Corvette true to its roots of attainable performance. Mid-engine has historically posed a challenge to this mission. Not so anymore."

Can it compete?

Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at auto research site Edmunds, described the pricing as "staying true" to the Corvette's DNA, however she cautioned that doesn't guarantee the car will be successful in attracting buyers from already-established competitors in the segment.

"Even though the Corvette may compete on paper with mid-engine European sports cars, people buy Porsches and BMWs for reasons beyond price and performance. So I don't see a lot of Boxster shoppers suddenly deciding to get a Corvette instead, " she said.

Brauer agrees: "As with past Corvettes, this one will hold its own against exotic cars costing multiple times its price. But, as has also been true with past Corvettes, comparable performance doesn't guarantee conversion of Ferrari or Porsche buyers into the Chevy camp."

Corvette enthusiasts line up to see the new 2020 Chevrolet C8 Corvette Stingray unveiled in Tustin, California, on Thursday July 18, 2019.

Meghan Reeder | CNBC

Powering the car will be Chevrolet's LT2 small-block 6.2-liter V-8 engine rated at 495 horsepower and 470 lb.-ft. of torque. That's 40 more horsepower and additional pound-feet of torque than the 2019 model.

Despite similar engine performance, there's also concern about the mid-engine design alienating traditional Corvette buyer — specifically baby Boomers and older generations that may not come back to purchase the new car.

"I think some of these vehicles from the Detroit 3, the muscles cars and such, their time is running out," said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst with Cox Automotive. "I look at Harley-Davidson as an example. The buyer base for those vehicles is aging out. "

Edmunds reports 30% of Corvette buyers were age 65 or older in 2018, up from about 28% in 2013. Nearly 60% of buyers were 55 or older through the first four months of this year, according to Edmunds.

Redefining Corvette

GM needed to do something new to make a business case for the car. Whether or not the mid-engine Corvette can redefine the supercar segment and compete against pricier competitors will be determined when it arrives in showrooms early next year.

Corvette sales in the U.S. have steadily declined every year since more than doubling with the introduction of the current-generation car in 2014. Through the first six months of this year, Corvette sales were down 5%. That puts GM on pace to sell less than 20,000 units for a second-consecutive year and marks five-straight years of declining sales.

The car's performance and ability to compete with the competition has never been the problem. The company has continued to spend capital on variants of the car that achieved new levels of performance in recent years.

"I am not clear on the business case," Krebs said. "They're ramping up production pretty significantly and I don't know how many sales will result; the jury's still out on that."

GM, which has been significantly cutting production of low-selling passenger cars, in April announced it would add a second shift and more than 400 hourly jobs at its Bowling Green, Ky., assembly plant to support production of the next-generation, mid-engine Corvette.

To assist sales of the mid-engine Corvette, GM launched an online reservation program. It's a first for the company but a practice recently used by Ford, Tesla and others to drum-up anticipation and sales.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/chevy-redefines-an-american-icon-with-the-60000-2020-corvette-stingray.html

2019-07-21 13:40:27Z
52780336304769

Berkshire Hathaway Stock Is Lagging, and a Giant Pension Just Slashed Its Stake. - Barron's

Warren Buffett Photograph by Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images

Warren Buffett isn’t close to beating the market this year, and a giant pension fund has cut its investment in Berkshire Hathaway , the investment juggernaut that Buffett helms.

Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock (ticker: BRKb ) have only managed a 0.9% gain so far in 2019 through Friday’s close, in sharp contrast to the S&P 500’s 18.7% rise.

We’ve noted that Buffett suffered “a reputational and financial black eye” earlier this year as Berkshire took a $1 billion paper loss when Kraft Heinz stock (KHZ)—one of its larger investments—tumbled. Years ago, Buffett backed the combination of H.J. Heinz and Kraft Foods Group that created the company.

Oregon’s Public Employees’ Retirement Fund slashed two-fifths of its Berkshire stock investment by selling 141,822 Class B shares in the second quarter. OPERF, as the pension is known, made the disclosure in a form it filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. OPERF, which recently was counted as the 42nd largest public pension in the world by assets, now owns 222,763 Class B Berkshire shares.

Selling Berkshire stock in the second quarter seems to have been an astute move as the shares have slipped 3.3% so far in the third quarter. We’ve noted that Buffett himself has been trimming his position in Berkshire through his gifting of stock.

Read More: The Man Who Left Warren Buffett in the Dust

The pension also disclosed other big changes in some of its largest stock investments. OPERF slashed positions in General Electric (GE) and Verizon Communications stock (VZ), and more than doubled investments in Broadcom (AVGO) and Oracle (ORCL). OPERF declined to comment on its second-quarter stock trades.

The pension noted in a recent newsletter that it outperformed most peers in 2018, ending the calendar year with a gain of a half a percentage point while others reported losses. But every rose has its thorn, it is said. At the end of calendar 2017, the latest actuarial valuation date, Oregon’s pension system was only 73% funded against liabilities, but at least that was up from 69% at the end of 2016.

At June 30, OPERF owned $7.4 billion in U.S.-traded securities, about 10% of the total assets of $74.6 billion under management at the end of May, the latest monthly allocation data available.

OPERF cut nearly two thirds of its GE stock investment by selling 1.4 million shares in the second quarter, ending June with 924,965 shares. GE stock has had a surprisingly strong 2019, rising 38.0% year to date. Since the end of the second quarter, however, the shares have slipped about 4.4%. Nonetheless, we noted that at least one analyst expects the conglomerate’s shares to continue to climb to $16 or more in the next year. GE stock closed at $10.04 on Friday.

Editor's Choice

Verizon stock has slipped 1.0% since the end of June and has managed a gain of only 0.7% for the year so far. OPERF chopped its investment in the telecom giant in half to 439,398 Verizon shares. Earlier this month, we noted that an analyst downgraded Verizon to Neutral from Buy. Citigroup’s Michael Rollins noted that “opportunities for further multiple expansion have narrowed.”

OPERF more than doubled its investment in chip giant Broadcom to 103,325 shares by buying 61,511 additional shares in the second quarter. Broadcom stock sports a 14.0% year-to-date gain, but it has edged up 0.7% since the end of the second quarter. We had suggested a Broadcom stock-options strategy earlier this month that could pay off if the U.S. and China can reach a trade pact.

Strong earnings have lifted Oracle stock this year. The software firm’s stock is up 27.4% so far in 2019, including a 1.0% gain since the end of June. OPERF doubled its investment in Oracle stock in the second quarter, ending June with 544,253 shares.

Inside Scoop is a regular Barron’s feature covering stock transactions by corporate executives and board members—so-called insiders—as well as large shareholders, politicians, and other prominent figures. Due to their insider status, these investors are required to disclose stock trades with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulatory groups.

Write to Ed Lin at edward.lin@barrons.com and follow @BarronsEdLin.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-stock-is-lagging-and-a-giant-pension-just-slashed-its-stake-51563707754

2019-07-21 11:15:00Z
CBMie2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJhcnJvbnMuY29tL2FydGljbGVzL2JlcmtzaGlyZS1oYXRoYXdheS1zdG9jay1pcy1sYWdnaW5nLWFuZC1hLWdpYW50LXBlbnNpb24tanVzdC1zbGFzaGVkLWl0cy1zdGFrZS01MTU2MzcwNzc1NNIBf2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJhcnJvbnMuY29tL2FtcC9hcnRpY2xlcy9iZXJrc2hpcmUtaGF0aGF3YXktc3RvY2staXMtbGFnZ2luZy1hbmQtYS1naWFudC1wZW5zaW9uLWp1c3Qtc2xhc2hlZC1pdHMtc3Rha2UtNTE1NjM3MDc3NTQ

1 in 4 Americans Are Taking This Big Gamble With Their Retirement Plan - The Motley Fool

It's no secret that many Americans are struggling to save enough for retirement. When increasing savings rates is not an option, many plan to extend their time in the workforce, and some people are taking this to the extreme. 

About 23% of Americans say they're never going to retire, according to a recent AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey. An additional 23% said they intended to continue working past 65 but did not specify when they expected to retire.

Senior businesswoman talking on phone

Image source: Getty Images.

For those with small retirement nest eggs, this is certainly a better plan than running out of money, but it's not realistic for everyone. You still need a backup plan in case life forces you to retire early.

The problem with planning to never retire

The benefits of delaying retirement are obvious: You give yourself more time to save for retirement while simultaneously reducing the amount of savings you need to cover your living expenses. In theory, skipping retirement altogether enables you to live comfortably into your old age while reducing the savings burden on you while you're young. The trouble is, it takes only one bad break to bring down the whole house of cards.

A job loss, serious illness or injury, or caring for an ailing family member could all force you to enter retirement whether you want to or not -- and whether you're ready for it or not. If you'd let your retirement savings slide when you were younger or you didn't bother saving at all because you thought you'd be able to keep working, you could struggle to get by and may have to rely on family members to support you. Some people do work happily into their 70s or 80s, but you can't know if that will be an option for you, so you have to plan as if it's not.

Create a retirement plan anyway

For the best chance at retirement security, you need to think worst-case scenario. How much savings would you need to live on if you were forced into retirement due to health, family, or career reasons?

Estimate your life expectancy. This varies based on genetic and lifestyle factors, but it's not unreasonable to think you could live past 90 or even 95 if you're reasonably healthy. Subtract from this your retirement age. It's up to you to decide what to use here, but don't figure too high. Stay within the 65 to 70 range. If you're able to keep working past this point, great. But if not, you'll be glad you had the extra savings.

Next, estimate your annual retirement living expenses, including food, housing, insurance, healthcare, and travel. Multiply this number by the estimated years of your retirement, adding 3% annually for inflation. Use a retirement calculator for this. It should ask for an estimated investment rate of return. Go with 5% to 6% if you want to be conservative. Once you've entered all this in, it should give you an estimate of the amount you need to save overall and per month to hit your goal. Subtract from this any money you expect to receive from other sources like a pension, Social Security, or a 401(k) match. The remainder is what you must save independently.

Try to save at least as much as the calculator recommends each month. If you can't, save as much as you can right now and try to free up more cash by cutting back your discretionary spending or increasing your income by pursuing promotions, switching employers, or starting a side hustle. 


Related Articles

You can plan on working late in your life, and if you're able to do so, you can leave a greater legacy for your heirs. But you still need a retirement plan in case things go sideways. If you do end up forced out of your job in retirement without enough savings, you don't have to give up working altogether. Look for a part-time job if you have the time for it. It may not cover all your expenses, but it'll help you stretch your existing savings further and may make the transition into retirement a little easier.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/21/1-in-4-americans-are-taking-this-big-gamble-with-t.aspx

2019-07-21 11:01:00Z
CAIiECj9imNROA2gudpUN4BC6AYqFQgEKgwIACoFCAowgHkwoBEw2vCeBg

This Is the Single Best Age to Take Social Security Benefits - The Motley Fool

As you're probably aware, Social Security holds a spot near and dear to many retired workers' wallets. It's responsible for providing at least half of all monthly income to 62% of current retirees and is singlehandedly lifting more than 15 million seniors out of poverty each and every month.

But one factor about the program that remains a great mystery is when to begin taking Social Security benefits. Retired-worker benefits can begin at age 62 or any point thereafter, but there are a wide range of variables that can impact when people claim benefits and what they'll be paid each month once they do.

A person filling out a Social Security benefits application form.

Image source: Getty Images.

Four factors that affect your Social Security payout

Generally speaking, there are four big factors that impact what you'll be paid from Social Security. The first two are linked at the hip: work history and earnings history. When determining your payout, the Social Security Administration takes your 35 highest-earning, inflation-adjusted years into account. Put simply, this means you'll want to earn as much as you can each year (up to the payroll tax cap in a given year) and work a minimum of 35 years if you don't want zeros averaged into your benefit calculation.

The third factor that impacts your payout is your full retirement age, which is the age when you become eligible to receive 100% of your monthly payout as determined by your birth year. Every baby boomer has a full retirement age of 66, 67, or somewhere in between, with anyone born in or after 1960 having to wait until age 67 to receive 100% of their retired worker benefit. Claim before your full retirement age and you'll be accepting a permanent reduction to your monthly payout. Conversely, claiming later than your full retirement age can lift your payout above and beyond 100%.

The fourth and final aspect that impacts your Social Security benefit is when you decide to take it. You see, your payout grows by approximately 8% for each year you hold off on taking it, beginning at age 62 and ending at age 70. Claiming as early as possible (age 62) could lead to a reduction in payouts of 25% to 30% a month, depending on your birth year.

Meanwhile, claiming as late as age 70 could increase your payout 24% to 32% above what you would have received at full retirement age (again, depending on your birth year). All things being equal, an individual claiming at age 70 could earn as much as 76% more per month than someone claiming at age 62.

But as we've examined before, picking out the ideal claiming age isn't an easy task.

A smiling senior woman holding out a neat stack of cash bills with her hands.

Image source: Getty Images.

This is the best age to take Social Security, study finds

However, a new study from United Income entitled "The Retirement Solution Hiding in Plain Sight" used data from the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study to run countless wealth and income simulations on roughly 2,000 households to determine the best possible age to claim Social Security benefits.

According to United Income, approximately $3.4 trillion in income is lost to retirees because they've made a sub-optimal claiming decision. On average, if all retiree households were to have selected the optimal claiming age, they'd have had 9% more in income during retirement (about $110,546 per household), or an average of $3,400 a year in extra income.

So what's the magic claiming age that United Income's study speaks of? Would you have guessed age 70?

After running multiple simulations and analyzing existing data, researchers found that 57% of all retirees would have collected more from the program over their lifetimes if they'd have claimed benefits at age 70. Comparatively, just 8% of retired workers would have made the optimal choice to maximize their benefits if claiming between ages 62 and 64. Interestingly enough, though, a whopping 79% of persons observed in the study claimed benefits between ages 62 and 64, with current SSA statistics finding that about 4% of all retired workers wait until age 70 to take their monthly payouts. 

In other words, the optimal claiming strategy and what retirees are actually doing are completely reversed.

Of course, things aren't as cut and dried as "wait until age 70."

A senior man sitting on a couch and closely reading material on his laptop.

Image source: Getty Images.

Here's why picking the optimal claiming strategy is so difficult

Although United Income's study found that a majority of retirees would benefit from waiting to take their payouts at age 70 or at the very least until after age 66 or 67, the results still suggest that there's no perfect claiming age or concrete path to deciding when to take benefits. After all, even though 57% of retirees would get the most out of the program by claiming their payouts at age 70, 43% would still be better off taking their benefit sooner. The problem is, it's very difficult to know which group you'd fall into until after the fact.

Arguably, the biggest hindrance to getting the most out of Social Security is that we don't know our expiration date. Don't get me wrong... I think it's a good thing that we don't, but it makes deciding when to take benefits more of a guess than we'd like it to be. For what it's worth, United Income found that just as many healthy people made sub-optimal claiming decisions as those in poor health in its study.

Perhaps the only consistency between the study's findings and existing claiming strategies is that it usually doesn't make sense for a lower-earning spouse to wait until age 70 to claim benefits. The data found that a lower-earning spouse benefits from waiting as long as possible just 35% of the time -- albeit taking benefits before age 65 only optimized the lifetime benefits of 12% of lower-earning spouses.

The point here is that everyone's "variables" differ. Whether it's your nest egg, health, marital status, need for money in the near term or long term, cost of living, or any number of factors, there still isn't a perfect guide to ensure you'll make an optimal claiming decision. But there's definitely more reason for future retirees to give the idea of waiting serious consideration following the release of this study.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/21/this-is-the-single-best-age-to-take-social-securit.aspx

2019-07-21 10:06:00Z
52780335933231

2 Southwest planes backed into each other at the Nashville airport, airline says - CNN

On Saturday, two Southwest planes were pushing back from the gate at Nashville International Airport, one headed to St. Louis and the other to Atlanta, according to a statement from Southwest Airlines.
They backed into each other, with one clipping the winglet of the other, the statement said.
A photo from the incident shows the "S" ripped from the top of a winglet.
No injuries were reported, and the planes were able to return to the gates on their own, according to the release. The aircraft were taken out of service to be evaluated, and passengers were put on other planes to continue to their destinations, the airline said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/us/southwest-collision-wing-clipped/index.html

2019-07-21 05:39:00Z
CAIiEJdL5FlBm6jE-J7DkAhVb7UqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMIrUpgU

Sabtu, 20 Juli 2019

Was the Fed's December interest rate hike a mistake? - Fox Business

President Trump has repeated the claim again and again: The Federal Reserve made a mistake by raising interest rates in December, the fourth time that policymakers at the U.S. central bank did so last year.

Continue Reading Below

The Fed’s dovish pivot over the past few months seemed to lend credence to that argument; for a usually slow-moving regulatory body, Chairman Jerome Powell’s signaling during his testimony on Capitol Hill last week that the central bank will lower the benchmark federal funds rate at the end of July seemed to represent a fairly dynamic shift.

Plus, during a speech in Paris on Tuesday, Powell continued to pave the way for a rate cut in a few weeks, laying out the case for easier monetary policy as uncertainties continue to weigh on the global economy.

MORE FROM FOXBUSINESS.COM...

Economic analysts, however, say that while the Fed’s shift does mark a sudden turn of events, it’s not the first time the central bank has reversed monetary policy so quickly. (Historical data shows that policymakers have cut rates with the S&P 500 at an all-time high seven times – the last time in 1996).

“I don’t know if I would characterize it as a mistake,” said Ken Moraif, CFP and senior adviser at the Retirement Planners of America. “I would say that the Federal Reserve is more often than not a follower, not a leader.”

Basically, Moraif said, the Fed listens to the bond market. And right now, the bond market is flashing a dire signal that monetary policy is too tight at the current interbank lending rate between 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent. That’s because the yield curve has been inverted for almost eight weeks and historically, every time the yield curve inverts, a recession follows.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APP

The bond markets’ sudden warning to the Fed though – that interest rates are too high – doesn’t necessarily mean that policymakers acted too quickly in raising rates at the end of 2018. In fact, the 10-year Treasury peaked in December, an indication that a rate hike was needed.

“The bond market, which leads the Fed, in my opinion, told the Fed to raise interest rates, so they did,” he said. “And now, interest rates are down around 2 percent and that’s a significant drop, the bond market is basically telling the Fed to lower interest rates, and the Fed will likely acquiesce.”

Plus, despite relatively strong economic data, there are a number of “unusual uncertainties” on the horizon that are weighing on the outlook, said Josh Wright, the chief economist at iCIMS and a former Fed staffer. Those potential risks include: the year-long U.S.-China trade war (negotiations seem poised to hit a rut with the addition of a hardline member to Beijing’s negotiation team this week), a looming budget crisis on Capitol Hill and concerns about softening global growth.

“You string those together and suddenly the whole case on the economic data side has really eroded,” he said.

Of course, while some of those issues were present during the Fed’s December policy-setting meeting, Wright noted that there was a “lot more optimism” at the end of the year, particularly regarding hopes for a trade deal between the world’s two largest economies.

Still, Trump has continued to hammer away at the Fed, and its chairman – which is rare for a sitting president – blaming it for swings in the stock market. On multiple occasions, the president has expressed his desire to terminate Powell over raising interest rates

At the end of the year, on the heels of the Fed’s rate hike (and its guidance that it expected to raise interest rates twice more in 2019) all three major indexes posted their worst December since 1931.

“It’s more than just Jay Powell – we have people on the Fed that really weren’t – they’re not my people,” the president told CNBC in June. “But they certainly didn’t listen to me because they made a big mistake: They raised interest rates far too fast.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/was-the-feds-december-interest-rate-hike-a-mistake

2019-07-20 15:09:30Z
52780335075090

Start of NFL season looms over DirecTV’s negotiations with networks - NBCSports.com

Getty Images

DirecTV customers in several major markets woke up this morning to find out that they can no longer watch CBS, a development that could have a major impact on the NFL when the season starts in seven weeks.

The CBS affiliates in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, Atlanta, Tampa, Seattle, Detroit, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Sacramento, Pittsburgh and Baltimore are all currently dark for DirecTV customers. An on-screen message from DirecTV reads, “CBS has removed this channel from your lineup despite our request to keep it available to you. We share your frustration and regret any inconvenience.”

But while that message puts the blame squarely on CBS, many football fans will respond by canceling DirecTV if they think they’ll miss out on NFL and SEC games in the fall. As noted by MultichannelNews.com, the start of the football season will put added pressure on both sides to come to a deal. Six years ago a similar fight between CBS and Time Warner Cable stoked fears that CBS would stay dark during football season, but a deal was reached at the last minute.

DirecTV viewers have also lost access to ABC, NBC and FOX in some markets, although those are mostly smaller markets than the markets that have lost their CBS affiliates. With DirecTV still having a monopoly over NFL Sunday Ticket, many of the country’s biggest football fans are DirecTV subscribers. But those fans may find that they can’t watch their local teams if nothing changes before the season starts.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/20/start-of-nfl-season-looms-over-directvs-negotiations-with-networks/

2019-07-20 14:18:00Z
52780335869663