US business hiring falls to a 7-year low - Fox Business

Fox News Contributor Deroy Murdock responds to minority hiring surpassing white hiring in August.

Later this week the government will release the monthly jobs report for October at a time when a new survey says business hiring is slowing.

Continue Reading Below

Hiring by U.S. companies has fallen to a seven-year low and fewer employers are raising pay, a business survey has found.

Just one-fifth of the economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics said their companies have hired additional workers in the past three months.

That is down from one-third in July. Job totals were unchanged at 69 percent of companies, up from 57 percent in July. A broad measure of job gains in the survey fell to its lowest level since October 2012.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The hiring slowdown comes as more businesses are reporting slower growth of sales and profits.

Business economists also expect the economy's growth to slow in the coming year, partly because tariffs have raised prices and cut into sales for many firms.

Perhaps because of concerns over a weakening economy, businesses are less likely to offer higher pay, even with unemployment at a 50-year low. Just one-third of economists said their firms had lifted pay in the past three months, down from more than half a year ago.

Companies are also cutting back on their investments in machinery, computers, and other equipment. The proportion of firms increasing their spending on such goods is at its lowest level in five years, the survey found.

WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS? THESE SECTORS HIRED THE MOST IN SEPTEMBER

Sales are also growing more slowly. Just 39 percent of economists said they rose in the past three months, down from 61 percent a year earlier. And only 38 percent said they expect sales to rise in the next three months, also down from 61 percent a year ago.

Many business economists blamed President Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on most imports from China for worsening business conditions. Thirty-five percent said the duties have hurt their companies, while just 7 percent said they had a positive effect.

Of those who said tariffs had impacted their companies, 19 percent said they had lowered their sales and 30 percent said the duties pushed up costs.

The U.S. economy likely added 90 thousand new nonfarm jobs this month according to economists surveyed by Refinitiv, down 46 thousand from September’s tally of 136 thousand jobs. It would mark the slowest growth since the addition of 62 thousand payrolls in May, and would be well below the average monthly gain of 161 thousand this year.

Two-thirds of the economists surveyed now forecast that the economy will grow just 1.1 percent to 2 percent from the third quarter of 2019 through the third quarter of 2020.

A year ago, they were more bullish: Nearly three-quarters forecast growth of 2.1 percent to 3 percent from the third quarter of 2018 through the third quarter of 2019.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The NABE surveyed 101 economists at companies and trade associations from Sept. 26 through Oct. 14.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-business-hiring-falls-to-a-7-year-low

2019-10-28 06:43:48Z
CBMiTGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveGJ1c2luZXNzLmNvbS9tYXJrZXRzL3VzLWJ1c2luZXNzLWhpcmluZy1mYWxscy10by1hLTcteWVhci1sb3fSAVBodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3hidXNpbmVzcy5jb20vbWFya2V0cy91cy1idXNpbmVzcy1oaXJpbmctZmFsbHMtdG8tYS03LXllYXItbG93LmFtcA

A scam targeting Americans over the phone has resulted in millions of dollars lost to hackers. Don't be the next victim. - CNN

The woman was a scammer, and Gunst was just the latest target in a growing trend that's left thousands of Americans frustrated, broke, and without a clue how to get their money back.

The over-the-phone scheme is a type of phishing scam.

And in the last year, a whopping 26,379 people reported being a victim of some sort of phishing scam. Together they reported nearly $50 million in losses, according to the FBI's 2018 Internet Crime Report.

While the number of reported scams increased slightly from the 25,344 phishing scams reported to the FBI in 2017, the losses skyrocketed by nearly $20 million.

They are not going away anytime soon, as scammers are getting more clever and devious in their phishing attempts. Here's how you can avoid being the next person to fall for one.

How it works

Gunst ignored the first call from the scammer -- he didn't recognize the number. But the same number called him again, and as a business owner accustomed to unknown numbers, he decided to pick up.

Gunst says the woman on the other end claimed she worked with the bank, and someone had attempted to use his card in Miami. Gunst, who lives in San Francisco, told the caller it wasn't him.

Still, having received legitimate calls from his bank regarding attempted fraud in the past, Gunst still did not suspect anything unusual.

Then it got weird.

After confirming that he did not use his card in Miami, Gunst says the caller told him that the transaction had been blocked, and then asked him for his member number.

Gunst then received a legitimate verification pin from the bank's regular number via text, which he promptly read back to the caller -- not realizing that it was a password reset code.

The person on the line -- a scammer -- was in. She could access his account and began to read off recent transactions that Gunst had actually made, lending a bit more credibility to the call.

Then came the next question, which immediately set off a red flag: "We now want to block the pin on your account, so you get a fraud alert when it is used again. What is your pin?"

Gunst hung up. That's a number no bank would ever ask for. He quickly called the fraud department at his bank, and began to rethink how the call went awry.

"The problem is the text should say what its purpose is," Gunst later explained to CNN of the verification pin, which he tweeted about in a widely-read thread. "'Someone is trying to reset your password. Don't give this number to everyone.' But it didn't. It was just a generic pin."

He said that was a lesson for the bank to learn from.

The 'hack' used social engineering

Hackers may use what's known as social engineering to try and obtain or compromise information about you, which could then be used to gain access to something such as your bank account.

What that means is simple: they tricked you, or someone who knows you, to compromise your account.

CNN reporter Donie O'Sullivan recently agreed to allow Rachel Tobac, a cybersecurity executive and hacker who specializes in social engineering, to hack him as a means to show how a scam can work. She was able to get his home address, phone number, have his hotel points transferred over to her and even change his seat on an upcoming flight.

And she was able to do this largely by using information that he posted online on social media: an Instagram check-in at a hotel and a tweet about a piece of furniture.

How? Both the hotel and the furniture company handed his personal details to the hacker over the phone.

It's not always your fault

Companies that don't have the proper security procedures in place can often leave themselves and their customers vulnerable to a social engineering attack.

A small company could easily be tricked into giving up personal customer information over the phone if a clever hacker has just enough information to seem credible.

Small banks and companies have been known to put out member newsletters or even hold member appreciation events where it's posted on social media and people are invited to accept or decline the invitation, according to Ron Schlecht, managing partner of security firm BTB Security.

A savvy hacker could've used that information to find members of that bank and use social engineering to find information such as their home addresses and phone numbers in order to phish them.

"It's unclear at this point where this happened, but there's no doubt in my mind that they knew that I was a customer of that bank and they thoroughly understood the security procedures of that bank," Gunst says. "It was rather targeted."

While it's possible that Gunst's bank was compromised, Schlecht says that "it's more likely that they disclosed information without really knowing it was bad to do so."

Spotting the scam

There are a number of clues out there that should raise your suspicions.

"If you've been randomly selected for a big prize, vacation, or to enjoy great savings or if all of a sudden the IRS, Medicare, or Social Security Administration needs to get a hold of you for a warrant or penalty, take a deep breath and consider the legitimacy of the call," Schlecht said.

He offered a simple rule: "Very broadly, if something seems too good to be true or too bad to be true, it probably is. Chances are that you haven't entered into a drawing, specifically sought out services, or even have an idea that you've done some misdeed."

Phishing scams are common, but particularly clever phishing attempts can deceive even those who are aware of them.

In the moment, with the scammer on the other end putting pressure on you to verify or give up information, it's easy to make a mistake or overlook a detail or clue that may hint at a scam.

Knowing the procedures your bank or institution takes with fraud attempts can be helpful in spotting a scam, but it's not foolproof. Gunst has received multiple calls from his bank for real fraud attempts in the past, and he says that the scammer stuck to the pattern very closely. He said it was a "very clever trick."

"When I read that thread now, that's one red flag after another," Gunst says. "But it's hard to express the social engineering component of it. My guard wasn't up in the way it should've been."

The FBI warned of scammers spoofing legitimate FBI phone numbers in August, so it's clear that you truly can't trust any inbound call no matter what the caller ID says. Your best bet at staying safe would be to hang up and to call the phone number your bank or institution has listed.

"Zero trust always wins," Schlecht said. "You can't verify that they are who they say they are, so call them after the notification instead of interacting with an inbound call."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/business/phishing-bank-scam-trnd/index.html

2019-10-27 09:22:00Z
CAIiEB9Pel4uoS4c5GxIE5Uf5tMqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU

A scam targeting Americans over the phone has resulted in millions of dollars lost to hackers. Don't be the next victim. - CNN

The woman was a scammer, and Gunst was just the latest target in a growing trend that's left thousands of Americans frustrated, broke, and without a clue how to get their money back.

The over-the-phone scheme is a type of phishing scam.

And in the last year, a whopping 26,379 people reported being a victim of some sort of phishing scam. Together they reported nearly $50 million in losses, according to the FBI's 2018 Internet Crime Report.

While the number of reported scams increased slightly from the 25,344 phishing scams reported to the FBI in 2017, the losses skyrocketed by nearly $20 million.

They are not going away anytime soon, as scammers are getting more clever and devious in their phishing attempts. Here's how you can avoid being the next person to fall for one.

How it works

Gunst ignored the first call from the scammer -- he didn't recognize the number. But the same number called him again, and as a business owner accustomed to unknown numbers, he decided to pick up.

Gunst says the woman on the other end claimed she worked with the bank, and someone had attempted to use his card in Miami. Gunst, who lives in San Francisco, told the caller it wasn't him.

Still, having received legitimate calls from his bank regarding attempted fraud in the past, Gunst still did not suspect anything unusual.

Then it got weird.

After confirming that he did not use his card in Miami, Gunst says the caller told him that the transaction had been blocked, and then asked him for his member number.

Gunst then received a legitimate verification pin from the bank's regular number via text, which he promptly read back to the caller -- not realizing that it was a password reset code.

The person on the line -- a scammer -- was in. She could access his account and began to read off recent transactions that Gunst had actually made, lending a bit more credibility to the call.

Then came the next question, which immediately set off a red flag: "We now want to block the pin on your account, so you get a fraud alert when it is used again. What is your pin?"

Gunst hung up. That's a number no bank would ever ask for. He quickly called the fraud department at his bank, and began to rethink how the call went awry.

"The problem is the text should say what its purpose is," Gunst later explained to CNN of the verification pin, which he tweeted about in a widely-read thread. "'Someone is trying to reset your password. Don't give this number to everyone.' But it didn't. It was just a generic pin."

He said that was a lesson for the bank to learn from.

The 'hack' used social engineering

Hackers may use what's known as social engineering to try and obtain or compromise information about you, which could then be used to gain access to something such as your bank account.

What that means is simple: they tricked you, or someone who knows you, to compromise your account.

CNN reporter Donie O'Sullivan recently agreed to allow Rachel Tobac, a cybersecurity executive and hacker who specializes in social engineering, to hack him as a means to show how a scam can work. She was able to get his home address, phone number, have his hotel points transferred over to her and even change his seat on an upcoming flight.

And she was able to do this largely by using information that he posted online on social media: an Instagram check-in at a hotel and a tweet about a piece of furniture.

How? Both the hotel and the furniture company handed his personal details to the hacker over the phone.

It's not always your fault

Companies that don't have the proper security procedures in place can often leave themselves and their customers vulnerable to a social engineering attack.

A small company could easily be tricked into giving up personal customer information over the phone if a clever hacker has just enough information to seem credible.

Small banks and companies have been known to put out member newsletters or even hold member appreciation events where it's posted on social media and people are invited to accept or decline the invitation, according to Ron Schlecht, managing partner of security firm BTB Security.

A savvy hacker could've used that information to find members of that bank and use social engineering to find information such as their home addresses and phone numbers in order to phish them.

"It's unclear at this point where this happened, but there's no doubt in my mind that they knew that I was a customer of that bank and they thoroughly understood the security procedures of that bank," Gunst says. "It was rather targeted."

While it's possible that Gunst's bank was compromised, Schlecht says that "it's more likely that they disclosed information without really knowing it was bad to do so."

Spotting the scam

There are a number of clues out there that should raise your suspicions.

"If you've been randomly selected for a big prize, vacation, or to enjoy great savings or if all of a sudden the IRS, Medicare, or Social Security Administration needs to get a hold of you for a warrant or penalty, take a deep breath and consider the legitimacy of the call," Schlecht said.

He offered a simple rule: "Very broadly, if something seems too good to be true or too bad to be true, it probably is. Chances are that you haven't entered into a drawing, specifically sought out services, or even have an idea that you've done some misdeed."

Phishing scams are common, but particularly clever phishing attempts can deceive even those who are aware of them.

In the moment, with the scammer on the other end putting pressure on you to verify or give up information, it's easy to make a mistake or overlook a detail or clue that may hint at a scam.

Knowing the procedures your bank or institution takes with fraud attempts can be helpful in spotting a scam, but it's not foolproof. Gunst has received multiple calls from his bank for real fraud attempts in the past, and he says that the scammer stuck to the pattern very closely. He said it was a "very clever trick."

"When I read that thread now, that's one red flag after another," Gunst says. "But it's hard to express the social engineering component of it. My guard wasn't up in the way it should've been."

The FBI warned of scammers spoofing legitimate FBI phone numbers in August, so it's clear that you truly can't trust any inbound call no matter what the caller ID says. Your best bet at staying safe would be to hang up and to call the phone number your bank or institution has listed.

"Zero trust always wins," Schlecht said. "You can't verify that they are who they say they are, so call them after the notification instead of interacting with an inbound call."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/business/phishing-bank-scam-trnd/index.html

2019-10-27 05:06:00Z
CAIiEB9Pel4uoS4c5GxIE5Uf5tMqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU

Microsoft's JEDI win called a gamechanger - Seeking Alpha

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

1. Microsoft's JEDI win called a gamechanger  Seeking Alpha
2. Microsoft Wins Pentagon’s $10 Billion JEDI Contract, Thwarting Amazon  The New York Times
3. Microsoft snags hotly contested $10 billion defense contract, beating out Amazon  CNBC
4. Pentagon Hands Microsoft $10B Cloud Computing Contract, Snubs Amazon  The Epoch Times
5. Microsoft beats Amazon for Pentagon's $10 billion cloud computing contract  Times of India
6. View full coverage on Google News

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3509869-microsofts-jedi-win-called-gamechanger

2019-10-26 13:13:00Z
52780418483639

Sustainable Finance Is Growing Rapidly, And So Is Investor Confusion - NPR

Enlarge this image

Investors are spending billions of dollars to align their portfolios with their personal values. But there's little agreement on what exactly qualifies — or disqualifies — an investment option from being marketed as sustainable. Above, pedestrians walk past the New York Stock Exchange on June 10. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

If you're an investor with ardent social beliefs — and you aspire to put your money where your mouth is — you're in luck. Today, on Wall Street and beyond, socially responsible investment options abound.

For those distressed by gun violence, new weapon-free funds divert dollars from firearms manufacturers and large gun retailers. If climate change is your biggest concern, there are funds that dodge investments in oil and gas giants. And for the staunchest animal advocates on the market, a Vegan Climate Index vows that investor dollars will not, under any circumstances, harm a living creature.

Increasingly, investors are taking pains to align their portfolios with their personal values, and activists are urging financial institutions to divest from companies implicated in everything from climate change and gun violence to worker exploitation. This year, 85% of individual investors surveyed indicated interest in ensuring that their money backs companies with sustainable practices, according to a Morgan Stanley poll. This is up 10 percentage points from just two years ago.

Driving this uptick has been interest among millennials: 95% signaled an interest in sustainable investment, according to the poll, with many citing their belief that their dollars have the power to alleviate poverty and slow climate change.

In response, some of the world's largest financial institutions have launched new "sustainable" investment options and adorned them with a sweeping — and according to some experts, problematic — modern label: environmental, social and governance, or ESG, investing.

Since 2015, the number of sustainable investment options has boomed, with the launch of 133 new ESG funds, according to research by Morningstar. By the end of 2018, more than 350 sustainable funds were available to investors, amounting to $161 billion worth of assets under management.

This surge comes despite a long-held view among many on Wall Street that fusing finance with ethical considerations might cost shareholders otherwise competitive returns. But now, some of the world's largest companies are not only acknowledging the importance of issues such as climate change, human rights and social inequality — but finding that doing so can help boost the bottom line.

"The world today faces unprecedented sustainability challenges, and that means that companies also face sustainability changes, ESG challenges," said Jon Hale, head of sustainability research at Morningstar. "Therefore, investors need to understand what role these issues play in a company's financial viability."

An "ambiguous field"

Still, despite the growing popularity of ESG investing, sustainable investment remains a largely "ambiguous field," according to Linda-Eling Lee, global head of the ESG research group at index giant MSCI.

That means no one can quite agree on what exactly qualifies — or disqualifies — an investment option from being marketed as sustainable. This has fueled skepticism among investors, activists and lawmakers alike regarding the legitimacy of ESG investing.

Lee said the ambiguity stems from several causes. For starters, there's a range of investment strategies underlying ESG funds, and these are often more nuanced than investors expect.

Lee said customers often assume ESG options are "purely values based" and therefore devoid of stocks tied to activities like deforestation or gun manufacturing.

This idea dates back to the divestment campaigns of the 1960s, '70s and '80s, when activists began calling on financial institutions to divest from companies with ties to activities such as apartheid in South Africa and tobacco production.

But funds that carry the ESG label don't always guarantee divestment, Lee said, because ESG isn't "necessarily aiming to be aligned with individual investors' values."

It comes back to strategy. Some funds, for example, allow customers to strictly focus their investments on a certain theme — such as climate change or diversity in corporate leadership. That can mean certain companies or industries are excluded from the fund entirely.

Other times, ethical factors may inform how the fund is created, but they don't explicitly dictate which stocks are included. In this case, Hale explained, the fund would be "tilted" toward sustainability leaders and away from sustainability "laggards" in a given industry. But that tilt doesn't automatically eliminate companies based on factors such as their carbon footprint or how well they pay workers.

Ben Cushing, a campaigner with the Sierra Club, said this means that many funds carry the sustainable label despite including stocks of companies that many investors would think "go against the spirit" of ESG investing.

For example, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, offers an array of sustainable investment options to U.S. customers. But according to a recent report by a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, 10 of those "green" products contain over $423 million in fossil fuel stocks and $29 million in holdings tied to deforestation in the Southern Hemisphere. The report says that in this way, some investment options that are marketed as sustainable in fact directly "funnel money into the very problem many of its customers wish to avoid."

Enlarge this image

Murals painted by climate activists are seen from an office building on Montgomery Street in San Francisco on Sept. 25. Jeff Chiu/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Jeff Chiu/AP

A spokesperson for BlackRock said, "There is not one single approach to applying ESG considerations to an investment portfolio" but that the company offers funds that target "the top ESG-rated companies across all sectors, including energy."

What results, according to Hale, is a lot of investors saying, "Look, I don't get what's the big deal. You kind of sold me on this whole ESG thing, and then you give me a portfolio that looks pretty conventional."

'No widely accepted standard'

This, Cushing said, represents a natural outgrowth of the fact that "there is no widely accepted standard of what ESG means in the marketplace."

"If you're just a person looking to invest your savings and you don't want that money to go to the destruction of the planet, it's really hard to figure out what is a truly sustainable investment or not because ESG is not well defined and well regulated," Cushing said.

It's a problem that is only becoming more urgent, experts say, given the growing demand for ESG products.

One proposal, introduced this summer by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., attempts to address one aspect of the issue by requiring all publicly traded companies to report their exposure to climate-related risks, as well as how they're planning to address them, to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plan has drawn rebukes from Republicans in Congress, who say that mandating such disclosure would stifle competition and burden companies with unnecessary regulation.

Regardless of what happens in Congress, some experts say the demand for ESG investing could make more transparency unavoidable. Lee, of MSCI, expects that firms will soon have to compete for millennials' business by marketing their sustainable investment options as clearly as possible.

"What we should do, as an industry, is to make sure that that labeling is actually very clear and easy to understand as opposed to being very much in the fine print or jargon," she said.

Lee said that investing is "not unlike buying food" — customers are responsible for their portfolios and have access to information that allows them to peek "under the hood" of any ESG product they might be interested in.

Cushing said the onus should be on companies, not consumers.

The "climate crisis is deepening by the day," he said, and firms have a responsibility when it comes to shifting trillions of dollars away from fossil fuel economies and into clean energy solutions, like wind and solar power.

"At the very least, they should not be marketing funds as ESG when they contain fossil fuel companies and pipeline companies."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/771323268/as-investors-try-to-be-more-ethical-some-find-no-escape-from-businesses-they-det

2019-10-26 10:00:00Z
CAIiENvkdKu2JtaXajt3vznyEdYqFggEKg4IACoGCAow9vBNMK3UCDCvpUk

Microsoft Beats out Amazon for Pentagon's $10 Billion Cloud Computing Contract - Gizmodo

Photo: Pool (Getty)

The Pentagon’s $10 billion deal to provide cloud computing services to the Department of Defense officially went to Microsoft Friday. The news came as an upset to Amazon, whose competing bid appeared to be the frontrunner for most of the contract’s deliberations. Throughout the yearlong process, President Donald Trump has repeatedly rebuked Amazon’s prospects, which seems in part an extenuation of his outspoken vendetta against the company and its CEO, Jeff Bezos.

According to a Washington Post report, Microsoft is now set to take over the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) project, a potentially decade-long federal cloud computing initiative that has attracted interest from some of the biggest names in tech. In addition to Microsoft and Amazon, Oracle and Google also went after the massive contract. The latter dropped out of the running last year after extensive protests made it very clear Google employees were not happy about the prospect of working for the U.S. military.

Advertisement

Though both Microsoft and Amazon were finalists for the contract, the choice seemed fairly obvious. Amazon Web Services both holds a larger market share when it comes to cloud computing—48 percent compared to Microsoft’s 15.5 percent according to the market-research firm Gartner—and has secured a higher data management certification from the military than Microsoft, the Post reported.

However, while the project remained unfinalized in July, a flowchart created by Oracle detailing an elaborate “conspiracy” at play to secure Amazon the contract somehow found its way to Trump’s desk, prompting the president to order an investigation into possible foul play. Internal inquiries found no evidence of the subterfuge Oracle described, CNN reported at the time.

But that didn’t stop Trump retweeting coverage from Fox News that nicknamed the contract the “Bezos bailout” along with other apparent displays of partiality. He frequently criticizes the Bezos-owned Washington Post as “fake news” for its less than flattering coverage of the White House as well as Bezos himself and Amazon by extension. Technically, federal acquisition laws should prevent politicians from putting their thumb on the scales in these matters. At least, they did back when Washington wasn’t constantly on fire. Who knows, these days.

All of these rebukes could be ammo for possible litigation should Amazon choose to push back against the Pentagon’s decision. An attorney with the law firm McCarter & English, Franklin Turner, told the Post:

“It’s crystal clear here that the President of the United States did not want this contract to be awarded to one of the competitors. As a result its fairly likely that we will see a number of challenges that the procurement was not conducted on a level playing field.”

Advertisement

In an announcement for the award, the Defense Department described it as a by-the-book decision, the Post reported. “The acquisition process was conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.” Furthermore, all parties “were treated fairly and evaluated consistently with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.”

Yeah, something tells me Amazon’s not going to see it that way.

[The Washington Post]

Advertisement

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-beats-out-amazon-for-pentagons-10-billion-cl-1839372258

2019-10-26 05:52:00Z
52780418483639

Tesla starts selling made-in-China Model 3 with Autopilot for ~$50,000 - Electrek

Tesla has updated the Model 3 online configurator in China to start selling the made-in-China Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot for ~$50,000.

There’s been a lot of talk about when Tesla is actually going to start Model 3 production at Gigafctory 3 in Shanghai.

On Wednesday, the automaker confirmed that trial production of Model 3 in Shanghai has begun, but they still need to meet some more “governmental requirements”:

“We have cleared initial milestones toward our manufacturing license and are working toward finalizing the license and meeting other governmental requirements before we begin ramping production and delivery of vehicles from Shanghai.”

On Friday, Tesla updated its Model 3 online configurator for the Chinese market and it now includes the Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot as the new base option, like in other markets, however, Tesla specifies that this model is made in China:

The automaker also still notes that availability is subject to regulatory approval and delivery is not expected before the first quarter of 2020.

However, Tesla has been taking reservations with a version of the car without Autopilot over the past 6 months – meaning that it likely has a backlog to work through between now and next year.

The Model 3 Standard Range Plus with Autopilot starts at ¥355,800, which is equivalent to about $50,000.

Tesla has been promoting the vehicle today on its Chinese social media accounts (via Weibo):

That’s only about 3% less expensive than what buyers were paying for the Model 3 imported to the US, but they could get access to different incentives.

Now Tesla offers the same lineup of Model 3 in China as it does in other markets with the only difference being that the base version is made at Gigafactory 3 and the more expensive all-wheel-drive versions of the car are still made in the US.

It’s unclear how many cars Tesla plans to deliver from Gigafactory 3 this year, but the automaker aims to ramp up production to 1,000 units per week by the end of the year and quickly ramp up to 3,000 units per week next year.

Electrek’s Take

Yes, it is not a big difference in price with the imported version, but that’s not what matters.

What matters is that it is about the same price as a BMW 3 Series in China before gas savings and EV incentives.

With advantages like easier access to license plates, the made-in-China Model 3 could make a good dent in the premium sedan segment and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles in what is already the biggest market for EVs.

We will keep a close eye over the next few weeks on how well the ‘made-in-China’ Model 3 is received in the country.

---

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://electrek.co/2019/10/25/tesla-starts-selling-made-in-china-model-3-with-autopilot/

2019-10-25 11:13:00Z
52780416991787