When Uber Technologies ended years of speculation by holding its hotly anticipated initial public offering on May 11, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi tried to appease nervous investors by claiming that the rather low asking price of $45-a-pop was a fair reflection of a lackluster IPO environment. Well, apparently, he underestimated just how treacherous and unreceptive the market has become to newbies deemed as being all flash and little substance.
Uber shares have tanked 12 percent in its short public life, dropping nearly $10 billion from its valuation in less than three weeks in what is shaping up to be yet another disastrous listing. Driving the massacre are hordes of short-sellers, with shares sold short surging 160 percent to 36 million from 13.6 million at the time of its IPO.
Uber is facing a fate even worse than that by its close peer Lyft, Inc.(NYSE:LYFT), with the value of short positions surpassing Lyft’s for the first time.
Wrong timing
Maybe the ride-hailing company was being a little naïve for expecting the red carpet treatment at a time when the market had clearly soured on unprofitable startups.
Just a few months earlier, shareholders had raked Lyft shares over the coals for its lack of profits. Yet, Uber is the real champion in that department, with the company having lost $4 billion last year alone and nearly $7 billion cumulatively in its 10-year lifespan. Lyft’s $900 million loss last year certainly pales in comparison with that.
There’s a clear trend developing here with the market going out on a limb to punish startups with nothing to show at the bottom line. After a Cinderella run that saw its shares climb 75 percent post-IPO, Jumia Technologies(NYSE:JMIA), Africa’s first unicorn to list on NYSE, has tanked nearly 50 percent in May after famous Wall Street short-seller Citron Research, took to Twitter and laid in on the company accusing it of fudging its numbers to give the impression of a far more stable business. Citron alleges these are material discrepancies and labeled the shares “worthless”. Citron’s Andrew Left has evenreleased a video to back-up claims of the said fraud.
Jumia had accumulated losses of close to a billion dollars by the end of 2018.
(Click to enlarge)
The shorts are clearly having a field day here.
Yet, Uber, Lyft and Jumia should have known better. Stock markets can be incredibly capricious, with investor sentiment in a state of constant flux. Just last year, shares of unprofitable companies that IPO’d performed much better than those by their profitable peers.
However, experts were already warning earlier in the year that the mood had started to sour and the market was less likely to tolerate companies printing red ink.
(Click to enlarge)
Source: Vox
Mark Cuban, the billionaire investor and an early-stage Lyft investor to the tune of $1 million, told CNBC he thinks that both companies would have fared much better had they listed at the peak of their growth. Notably, Uber’s top line growth has slowed considerably, with 25 percent growth during the final quarter of 2018 being only a fraction what it used to be a few years ago.
Mark has even lambasted Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists, questioning their ability to accurately price pre-IPO companies.
Earnings on deck
Yet, Uber’s fate could get a lot worse when the company presents its first ever earnings scorecard to hostile shareholders after the close tonight.
“While investors have been expecting take rate compression as competition pushes irrationality and rider incentives in the near-term, we expect a focus on a path to improvement and accelerating revenue growth over the remainder of 2019 and into 2020, particularly as Lyft noted on its 1Q call that it believes the domestic rideshare market is becoming increasingly rational.’’
Uber has provided guidance for Q1 revenue of $3.0B-$3.1B and a net loss of $1.0B $1.1B. It’s going to be interesting to see whether investors will be willing to take Ives’ cue and play the long game. Just, don’t bet on it.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2MjZDSl Tyler Durden
The group takes issue with three of the university’s policies: its restrictions on political leaflets, its bias reporting system, and the no-contact orders it issues to students accused of bias.
The first of these is the most obviously suspect from a First Amendment perspective. Students who wish to post leaflets or materials about candidates “for non-campus elections” must first receive permission from the administration.
“The University has no compelling interest in imposing a prior restraint on this category of political speech nor would this prohibition be narrowly tailored to any such interest,” the lawsuit says. “This rule chills protected speech and expression and forces students who do not wish to submit to this prior restraint to engage in self-censorship.”
The lawsuit also argues that because the university defines “bias incidents” very broadly—as any action orexpression motivated by hostility toward a protected group—its bias reporting system has the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech. The no-contact directive empowers administrators to place limits on the rights of students involved in behavioral disputes; Speech First says this permits the university to punish students for mere expression. The lawsuit cites an example:
In November 2017, a graduate assistant, Tariq Khan, got in a shouting match with two students at an “anti-Trump” rally and subsequently broke one student’s phone. Two days later, another student, Andrew Minik—who was not at the event—wrote an article about the incident for the online publication Campus Reform. The article shared a video of the incident and described what had occurred at the rally.
Shortly after the article was published, Khan sought a No Contact Directive against Minik. The University issued the directive—even though Minik was not present when the dispute occurred and merely wrote an article about the dispute for Campus Reform. The No Contact Directive against Minik stated: “The Office for Student Conflict Resolution has become aware of a problem involving you and another student….Therefore, I am directing you to have NO CONTACT with Tariq Kahn (oral or written, directly or through any third party) until further notice.” The order warned that “[a]ny violation of this directive may result in charges before the appropriate Subcommittee on Student Conduct. Violations of no contact directives are taken very seriously and can have very significant consequences, including dismissal from the university.”
Speech First previously sued the University of Michigan, which prompted administrators to revise the wording of an overly broad harassment policy that had stated “the most important indication of bias is your own feelings.”
The University of Illinois did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VX7GnD
via IFTTT
The group takes issue with three of the university’s policies: its restrictions on political leaflets, its bias reporting system, and the no-contact orders it issues to students accused of bias.
The first of these is the most obviously suspect from a First Amendment perspective. Students who wish to post leaflets or materials about candidates “for non-campus elections” must first receive permission from the administration.
“The University has no compelling interest in imposing a prior restraint on this category of political speech nor would this prohibition be narrowly tailored to any such interest,” the lawsuit says. “This rule chills protected speech and expression and forces students who do not wish to submit to this prior restraint to engage in self-censorship.”
The lawsuit also argues that because the university defines “bias incidents” very broadly—as any action orexpression motivated by hostility toward a protected group—its bias reporting system has the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech. The no-contact directive empowers administrators to place limits on the rights of students involved in behavioral disputes; Speech First says this permits the university to punish students for mere expression. The lawsuit cites an example:
In November 2017, a graduate assistant, Tariq Khan, got in a shouting match with two students at an “anti-Trump” rally and subsequently broke one student’s phone. Two days later, another student, Andrew Minik—who was not at the event—wrote an article about the incident for the online publication Campus Reform. The article shared a video of the incident and described what had occurred at the rally.
Shortly after the article was published, Khan sought a No Contact Directive against Minik. The University issued the directive—even though Minik was not present when the dispute occurred and merely wrote an article about the dispute for Campus Reform. The No Contact Directive against Minik stated: “The Office for Student Conflict Resolution has become aware of a problem involving you and another student….Therefore, I am directing you to have NO CONTACT with Tariq Kahn (oral or written, directly or through any third party) until further notice.” The order warned that “[a]ny violation of this directive may result in charges before the appropriate Subcommittee on Student Conduct. Violations of no contact directives are taken very seriously and can have very significant consequences, including dismissal from the university.”
Speech First previously sued the University of Michigan, which prompted administrators to revise the wording of an overly broad harassment policy that had stated “the most important indication of bias is your own feelings.”
The University of Illinois did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2VX7GnD
via IFTTT
It seems the warnings from PIMCO’s Scott Mather that: “We have probably the riskiest credit market that we have ever had” in terms of size, duration, quality and lack of liquidity, Mather said, adding that the current situation compares risk to mid-2000s, just before the global financial crisis,”are being reflected in pricing and flows.
“We see it in the build up in corporate leverage, the decline in credit quality, and declining underwriting standards – all this late-cycle credit behavior we began to see in 2005 and 2006.” One way of visualizing what Mather was referring to is the following chart of corporate debt to GDP which has never been higher. As for the lack of creditor protections, well, just wait until the screams of fury begin after the next wave of bankruptcies.
While stocks have slowly woken up to the realities of the ‘recovery’, credit-markets have started to flash warnings that all is not well…
With some concerned that summer 2019 is echoing the risk-off deluge from Q4 2018…
And, as Bloomberg reports,traders yanked almost $429 million from State Street Corp.’s SPDR Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Bond ETF on Tuesday, the biggest withdrawal since December.
Mather’s rather ominous conclusion:
“I think that’s what you’re seeing now in markets. People are starting to come to a more realistic outlook about the forward-looking growth prospects, as well as the power of central banks to pump up asset prices.“
Considering that the S&P is about a few hundred percent higher than where it would be without central banks “pumping up prices”, the market is about to go through a lot of pain in the near future if the world’s largest bond manager is correct.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2QCmU0f Tyler Durden
Google is very interested in your shopping habits – so much that the tech giant is collecting and saving your purchase history.
The company has been quietly keeping track of your online (and sometimes, offline) purchases for years, according to a recent report from CNBC.
In that report, writer Todd Haselton explains that he was looking around in his Google account and found something alarming:
A page called “Purchases ” shows an accurate list of many — though not all — of the things I’ve bought dating back to at least 2012. I made these purchases using online services or apps such as Amazon, DoorDash or Seamless, or in stores such as Macy’s, but never directly through Google.
But because the digital receipts went to my Gmail account, Google has a list of info about my buying habits.
Google even knows about things I long forgot I’d purchased, like dress shoes I bought inside a Macy’s store on Sept. 14, 2015. It also knows:
I ordered a Philly cheesesteak on a hoagie roll with Cheez Whiz and banana peppers on Jan. 14, 2016.
I reloaded my Starbucks card in November 2014.
I bought a new Kindle on Dec. 18, 2013, from Amazon.
I bought “Solo: A Star Wars Story” from iTunes on Sept. 14, 2018.
I decided to check my own Purchases page to see what kind of data Google has been collecting there and found this:
My purchase history goes back to October 2014 (!) but I decided not to share it all here in the interest of saving space (and sparing myself some embarrassment). I blacked out three personal items for, well, privacy reasons – as if privacy is even a thing these days.
I don’t shop online very often, I rarely opt-in to receiving email receipts, and I usually pay with cash when I shop or go out to eat, so I suspect that is why there isn’t much in my purchase history. Nonetheless, I find this disturbing, as someone who is becoming increasingly annoyed by the growing barrage of privacy invasions we all face.
For some, however, Google’s collection of purchase data could be quite embarrassing, as Bryan Clark explains in an article for TNW:
My girlfriend’s purchase history is a lot more interesting — our Amazon account is linked to her Gmail address. It’s there that Google could potentially find some intimate details, if it so chose. Not in our case, of course, as we’re both supremely boring individuals. But generally speaking this purchase data could reveal a lot about a person. It could point to an affair, for example (hotel receipts, clothing or gifts never given to a spouse), or let the cat out of the bag on an unannounced pregnancy. Google’s ledger, and the data within it, could track everything from mental illness to a woman’s menstrual cycle, all based on purchase data. (source)
Google won’t say why it is collecting purchase data or how long it has been doing so.
Google claims to care a great deal about privacy (ironically, at the top of the Purchases page, there is a note that says “Only you can see your purchases. Google protects your privacy and security. Find out more“), but the company sure is collecting an awful lot of data on folks, and is being pretty damn secretive about it.
CNBC reached out to Google to ask about purchase tracking. Here’s what a spokesperson told them:
“To help you easily view and keep track of your purchases, bookings and subscriptions in one place, we’ve created a private destination that can only be seen by you. You can delete this information at any time. We don’t use any information from your Gmail messages to serve you ads, and that includes the email receipts and confirmations shown on the Purchase page.” (source)
How long has Google been collecting purchase data? I can’t find an exact answer to that question, but it appears to be at least 9 years. In an article for The Verge, Nick Statt wrote:
Because I made my Gmail account nearly a decade ago, my purchase history stretches back as far as 2010, including purchases I made while I was a college student and those through Apple’s App Store, which has been linked to my Gmail account since its inception. It also includes some real-world transactions made using my credit card, thanks to point-of-sale software providers like Square and others that link your credit card number and name to an associated email account to deliver receipts, offer rewards programs, and, in some cases, collect valuable purchase data. (source)
Clark makes some additional (and disturbing) points:
Google has also proven unwilling to tell us how long this feature has existed, or why it’s logging offline purchases using certain point-of-sale terminals, like Square — meaning, it’s not just tracking purchases made online — but not others.
Before we jump to conclusions, however, it’s important to note that Google said back in 2017 that it would stop using collected Gmail data to serve personalized advertisements to its users. What’s troubling though, is that it might no longer need to. A 2018 Bloomberg report revealed that Google and Mastercard had reached a deal that would pay the latter millions for coughing up purchase data on its card holders. Google itself claims to have access to the purchase data of “approximately 70 percent” of US credit or debit card holders.
Regardless of how Google is using the data, if it’s using the data, the idea that this kind of ledger exists should be enough to give shoppers pause. (source)
Google says it doesn’t use your Gmail to show you ads and promises it “does not sell your personal information, which includes your Gmail and Google Account information,” and does “not share your personal information with advertisers, unless you have asked us to.”
Why, then, is the company collecting all this data?
Google wants us to believe this purchase tracking feature is for our benefit if we are to believe the explanation the company spokesperson provided to CNBC.
I am not buying it. Are you? If the company is providing this feature as a benefit to Google users, why not notify us that it exists?
We have plenty of reasons to distrust Google with our private data.
Google doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being upfront about data mining, as Statt points out:
This particular tool is not outright nefarious in an obvious way, but it does highlight Google’s struggle to transparently communicate its privacy policies and ad-tracking methods as Silicon Valley at large grapples with a more sensitive atmosphere around data privacy and security. The idea that this tool, and the technology to collect and present the data it provides, has existed quietly without a majority of Gmail users aware it exists echoes similar issues Google has faced over the last few years.
Those include a controversy over third-party app developers pulling data from the contents of Gmail messages, an auto-login feature for Chrome that would sync web browsing with your Gmail account, and reports that Google supplemented its ad-targeting tools with Mastercard purchase history data to provide advertisers a link between online ad impressions and real-world purchases. All of these situations contribute to a common theme: Google offers users a compromise that involves trading products and web services in exchange for data that the company will collect through a variety of means you may not know about and have little to no control over. That data is then used to help Google target ads, a division of its business that’s largely responsible for it becoming one of the most valuable corporations on Earth. (source)
Earlier this year, it was revealed that Google’s Nest Secure home security and alarm system has an embedded microphone system that the company conveniently failed to disclose to users. And, late last year, it was revealed that the Google app tracks users and sells their information.
Cybersecurity experts are expressing concern over the data collection.
David Shipley, CEO of Beauceron Security, told CBC he has three worries when it comes to Google tracking purchases: consent, the potential for abuse, and the amount of power that tech companies continue to collect:
“When people signed up for GMail years ago, Google never said that someday they’re going to do a super-creepy project where they’re going to collect all your receipts,” Shipley said.
Shipley said people should have been able to choose whether they wanted Google to collect their purchasing information in the first place.
“That’s the core of privacy and maintaining our digital rights online.”
He said the feature threatens people’s right to privacy online and offers an easy way for people to take advantage of others online.
“From an attackers standpoint, if they can hack into your GMail account, they now know where you buy from, and so they can now send scams and targeted attacks specifically to products and services you bought in the past,” Shipley said to CBC’s Shift.
“It is, from an information, privacy and control standpoint, absolutely staggering to realize just how far into everyone’s life Google reaches … If you’re using the web, you’re touching Google at some point in your day.” (source)
It is very difficult to delete your purchase history.
Haselton tried to delete his purchase history and had no luck:
But there isn’t an easy way to remove all of this. You can delete all the receipts in your Gmail inbox and archived messages. But, if you’re like me, you might save receipts in Gmail in case you need them later for returns. There is no way to delete them from Purchases without also deleting them from Gmail — when you click on the “Delete” option in Purchases, it simply guides you back to the Gmail message.
Google’s privacy page says that only you can view your purchases. But it says “Information aboutyour orders may also be saved with your activity in other Google services ” and that you can see and delete this information on a separate “My Activity” page.
Except you can’t. Google’s activity controls page doesn’t give you any ability to manage the data it stores on Purchases.
Google told CNBC you can turn off the tracking entirely, but you have to go to another page for search setting preferences. However, when CNBC tried this, it didn’t work — there was no such option to fully turn off the tracking. It’s weird this isn’t front and center on Google’s new privacy pages or even in Google’s privacy checkup feature. (source)
According to CNET, here is how to delete your purchase data:
To delete something, you can click on a purchase, which will bring up an itemized list of everything you bought in that transaction. You can then click the “i” button for information, and then on “where’s this from?”
Google will tell you if the purchase was found in your Gmail, after which you can either click “got it” or “view email.” You’ll then be taken to your Gmail account, the email will load, and you can delete it entirely.
Only then will the transaction disappear from your purchase history. (source)
Will you check to see if your data is being collected on a Google Purchases page?
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2EIFb7w Tyler Durden
Presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) reaffirmed his tepid support for public charter schools at a campaign stop on Friday, breaking with a long roster of primary rivals who have condemned school choice in favor of the traditional public school system.
“I’ve seen charter school models that are outrageous and unacceptable,” Booker told the Washington Examiner. “I’ve seen charter laws propagated by Republicans that just outright dangerous. And so I understand those people, I’m one of them, that wants to stop those kind of movements.
“But I’ve also seen in places like Newark, N.J., and other places where local leaders are making decisions that elevate the best educational possibilities of their children, and local leadership should be allowed to do that,” he continued.
Booker’s comment was in response to the education plan released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination—who would issue a moratorium on public funding for charter schools until a national audit can measure the impact of their growth in every state. The plan would also require that charters—which can be privately run and often use innovative educational models—adhere to the same oversight requirements as traditional public schools.
“65 years after Brown v. Board of Education, many U.S. schools remain unacceptably segregated,” says Sanders’ plan. He’s correct—but charter schools are not the problem. The initial data actually suggests that they might be part of the solution, as they exhibit a slight desegregating effect in classrooms. It’s true that some charters are heavily populated with minority students, a fact not lost on critics of school choice. But such objections fail to consider the contextual factors that influence the makeup of any given student body. Like location.
“It’s like saying that urban public schools are more racially isolated than public schools nationwide,” Michael Petrilli, president of the pro-charter Thomas B. Fordham Institute, toldGoverning last year. “Of course they are—urban neighborhoods are the most segregated in the country. And in most states, most charters are urban.”
Further probes into classroom outcomes reveal that students in public schools perform at a disadvantage when compared to their peers at charters. In Florida, for instance, students at charter schools were 6 percent more likely to pass state reading tests than those in public schools. Such benefits are particularly prevalent in the underprivileged and minority communities: Pass rates were 10 percent higher for low-income children and 12 percent higher among the Hispanic population.
Evidence shows that African Americans have much to gain from school choice as well, with black students in urban charters amassing an additional 36 days of learning in math and 26 days in reading. Students who are both black and low-income make even larger strides, gaining 59 days in math and 44 days in reading.
It should come as no surprise that 68 percent of charter school students are from minority communities. People of color are more likely to grow up in impoverished neighborhoods with lesseffective schools, motivating some to seek opportunities outside of their zip codes. It should also fail to shock, then, that the majority of black Democrats (58 percent) and Hispanic Democrats (52 percent) support school choice.
But within the Democratic party as a whole, whites overwhelmingly tilt the scales against charter schools, with only 26 percent of whites polling favorably. Many such detractors likely side with Sanders, whose plan says that school vouchers have “drained funding from the public school system.” That messaging has become commonplace, particularly as the Democratic party tilts toward a more socialist brand.
But while Sanders’ explanation is a popular political talking point, it’s also a misleading one. Education spending is at an all-time high, with states shelling out an average of $13,474 per student to attend public schools each year. Yet academic progress has remained stagnant.
Meanwhile, charter schools receive 27 percent less in per pupil funding—but they’re savvier with what they do get. A recent study that examined charter schools across 8 U.S. cities found that they are 40 percent more cost effective.
Sanders’ plan would also eliminate for-profit charters, which is a position that Booker likely shares. Booker tells the Washington Examiner that his commitment to Newark, N.J., where he was mayor from 2006–2013, “was not to for-profit charter schools.”
But for-profit charters make up a mere 12 percent of total charters, and the individual schools in that category are nearly always structured as nonprofits. Sanders’ attempt to scapegoat a small number of profitable charter management firms for the problems of American public schooling is a clever political move, but not an accurate picture of their influence in American education.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/30QejMl
via IFTTT
Despite disappointing weakness in new- and existing-home sales in April, pending home sales were expected to maintain their gains, rising 0.5% MoM (after a 3.8% MoM rise in March).
However, the analysts were way off, as pending homes sales slipped 1.5% MoM
Only the Midwest managed a rise in sales…
Northeast fell 1.8%; March fell 1.7%
Midwest up 1.3%; March rose 2.6%
South fell 2.5%; March rose 4.4%
West fell 1.8%; March rose 8.8%
“We are seeing migration to more affordable regions, particularly in the South, where there has been recent job growth and homes are more affordable,” Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist said.
This is the 16th month in a row of YoY declines in pending home sales…(this is the longest streak of losses since the financial crisis)
Also notable from the chart above is that each of the rebounds from home sales declines has been weaker and weaker.
Yun said the sales dip has yet to account for some of the more favorable trends toward homeownership, such as lower mortgage rates.
“Though the latest monthly figure shows a mild decline in contract signings, mortgage applications and consumer confidence have been steadily rising,” he said. “It’s inevitable for sales to turn higher in a few months.”
“Home price appreciation has been the strongest on the lower-end as inventory conditions have been consistently tight on homes priced under $250,000. Price conditions are soft on the upper-end, especially in high tax states like Connecticut, New York and Illinois.“
The supply of inventory for homes priced under $250,000 stood at 3.3 months in April, and homes priced $1 million and above recorded an inventory of 8.9 months in April.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30WDo8c Tyler Durden
Presidential hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) reaffirmed his tepid support for public charter schools at a campaign stop on Friday, breaking with a long roster of primary rivals who have condemned school choice in favor of the traditional public school system.
“I’ve seen charter school models that are outrageous and unacceptable,” Booker told the Washington Examiner. “I’ve seen charter laws propagated by Republicans that just outright dangerous. And so I understand those people, I’m one of them, that wants to stop those kind of movements.
“But I’ve also seen in places like Newark, N.J., and other places where local leaders are making decisions that elevate the best educational possibilities of their children, and local leadership should be allowed to do that,” he continued.
Booker’s comment was in response to the education plan released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination—who would issue a moratorium on public funding for charter schools until a national audit can measure the impact of their growth in every state. The plan would also require that charters—which can be privately run and often use innovative educational models—adhere to the same oversight requirements as traditional public schools.
“65 years after Brown v. Board of Education, many U.S. schools remain unacceptably segregated,” says Sanders’ plan. He’s correct—but charter schools are not the problem. The initial data actually suggests that they might be part of the solution, as they exhibit a slight desegregating effect in classrooms. It’s true that some charters are heavily populated with minority students, a fact not lost on critics of school choice. But such objections fail to consider the contextual factors that influence the makeup of any given student body. Like location.
“It’s like saying that urban public schools are more racially isolated than public schools nationwide,” Michael Petrilli, president of the pro-charter Thomas B. Fordham Institute, toldGoverning last year. “Of course they are—urban neighborhoods are the most segregated in the country. And in most states, most charters are urban.”
Further probes into classroom outcomes reveal that students in public schools perform at a disadvantage when compared to their peers at charters. In Florida, for instance, students at charter schools were 6 percent more likely to pass state reading tests than those in public schools. Such benefits are particularly prevalent in the underprivileged and minority communities: Pass rates were 10 percent higher for low-income children and 12 percent higher among the Hispanic population.
Evidence shows that African Americans have much to gain from school choice as well, with black students in urban charters amassing an additional 36 days of learning in math and 26 days in reading. Students who are both black and low-income make even larger strides, gaining 59 days in math and 44 days in reading.
It should come as no surprise that 68 percent of charter school students are from minority communities. People of color are more likely to grow up in impoverished neighborhoods with lesseffective schools, motivating some to seek opportunities outside of their zip codes. It should also fail to shock, then, that the majority of black Democrats (58 percent) and Hispanic Democrats (52 percent) support school choice.
But within the Democratic party as a whole, whites overwhelmingly tilt the scales against charter schools, with only 26 percent of whites polling favorably. Many such detractors likely side with Sanders, whose plan says that school vouchers have “drained funding from the public school system.” That messaging has become commonplace, particularly as the Democratic party tilts toward a more socialist brand.
But while Sanders’ explanation is a popular political talking point, it’s also a misleading one. Education spending is at an all-time high, with states shelling out an average of $13,474 per student to attend public schools each year. Yet academic progress has remained stagnant.
Meanwhile, charter schools receive 27 percent less in per pupil funding—but they’re savvier with what they do get. A recent study that examined charter schools across 8 U.S. cities found that they are 40 percent more cost effective.
Sanders’ plan would also eliminate for-profit charters, which is a position that Booker likely shares. Booker tells the Washington Examiner that his commitment to Newark, N.J., where he was mayor from 2006–2013, “was not to for-profit charter schools.”
But for-profit charters make up a mere 12 percent of total charters, and the individual schools in that category are nearly always structured as nonprofits. Sanders’ attempt to scapegoat a small number of profitable charter management firms for the problems of American public schooling is a clever political move, but not an accurate picture of their influence in American education.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/30QejMl
via IFTTT
According to Business Insider, America’s iconic deep-fried meat company, KFC, is meeting with major plant-based “meat” makers to discuss what a vegan version of fried chicken could look like. The revolutionary shift in company strategy comes as vegan, plant-based “meats” join the menu at chains like Del Taco and Burger King. And now, in a future that Kevin Hochman, the president of KFC’s US business, once thought unthinkable, chicken chains might be next to jump on the meat-substitute bandwagon.
“If you would have asked me six months ago, I would have said no, to be completely honest with you,” Hochman told Business Insider. “Because, we’re about fried chicken.”
However, if the current buzz around companies like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat translates into long-term customer demand, then KFC will certainly test a plant-based meat substitute in the US, Hochman said. The chain has already been testing vegetarian “fried chicken” in the UK.
“In the last two weeks I’ve made several appointments with some of the big guys, just to figure out — what does alternative protein look like in chicken?” Hochman said.
KFC may not be the first chicken company to use “chicken substitutes” – previously Amanda Norris, the executive director of Chick-fil-A’s menu, told Business Insider that the chain is also in the early stages of exploring adding vegan options to the menu.
“We’re certainly wanting to broaden our thinking and really start big in that funnel and come down,” Norris said. “We think it is certainly beyond just no meat on salads or no meat in a wrap. It might be some kind of alternative protein on a sandwich.”
To be sure, an anti-meat wave has been sweeping across the US fast-food establishment, and chains including TGI Fridays, Carl’s Jr., and Red Robin now serve either the Impossible Burger or the Beyond Burger. Del Taco’s vegan Beyond Taco is on track to become one of the chain’s best-ever new-product launches. Burger King teamed up with Impossible Foods to roll out Impossible Whoppers nationally by the end of 2019
“We think this is a new category that we can build on for the long haul,” Restaurant Brands International CEO José Cil told Business Insider.”We think that plant-based burgers and other products will continue to be part of our business for the long term.”
The biggest winners of this new wave are, of course, the producers of meat-substitutes: two weeks ago, Impossible Foods announced a $300 million series E funding round led by Temasek and Horizon Ventures. The news also followed Beyond Meat’s explosive public debut earlier in May, when shares soared 163% on its first day of trading.
And, in the latest nightmare for Beyond Meat shorts who have been piling on the bearish side of BYND ever since its $25/share IPO, the KFC news sent BYND stock sharply higher this morning, pushing the stock price above $100 for the first time as margined-out shorts are forced to cover at any price.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2HMx7EQ Tyler Durden
Following a request from congressional Democrats, the U.S. Department of Justice is now subpoenaing records related to the Floridian entrepreneur and small-time Republican donor Li “Cindy” Yang.
The Miami Herald reports that federal prosecutors have sent subpoenas to the Mar-a-Lago Club and to Trump Victory (a fundraising team for Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, the Republican National Committee, and GOP committees from 11 states), seeking information on contributions and event attendance by Yang, her husband and parents, several former members of her staff, her colleague on the National Committee of Asian American Republicans, and several other Chinese Americans.
Right now, federal investigators don’t know or aren’t letting on much. But the Herald says the case is aimed squarely at “Yang and possibly others close to her,” not the Trump family business or Republican fundraisers.
Yang—who built up and then sold a spa and massage chain in South Florida—had in recent years launched G.Y. U.S. Investments, an endeavor that helped Chinese business owners navigate U.S. regulations and make contacts, investments, and operational inroads here.
As part of this consulting business, Yang sometimes offered clients access to events at Trump’s private club in Palm Beach and to other Republican parties. Prosecutors say some of these events were ticketed fundraisers, meaning someone had to pay for the access—a payment that counts as a political contribution. And non-citizens are prevented from donating to U.S. political campaigns.
Yang herself has been a citizen here for years. But if she brought Chinese nationals who paid her to a paid-ticket party for Trump, she may have run afoul of campaign finance laws. Yang has denied any wrongdoing. She is also suing the Herald for defamation.
Nonetheless, people are already spinning wild tales about what we supposedly know about Yang—that she funneled money from China to Trump, and that she earned her money from human trafficking. The trafficking rumor stems from recent (and rapidly unraveling) prostitution cases against Patriots owner Robert Kraft and others, involving activity at a massage place that isn’t affiliated with Yang. (Yang simply owned a business in the same location years ago.)
And while we may yet find some funny business with her books, all the FBI seems to have right now is receipts on some legal and relatively small donations ($70,000 from Yang and her family to Trump fundraisers since the 2016 election, the Herald reports) and records of contributions from several other Chinese Republicans or massage business owners. It’s not even clear that some of those have any association with Yang.
The new subpoenas demand any documents and communications related to Yang and 11 others, dating back through January 2017. They also seeks information related to “one charity and seven companies affiliated with” Yang, an unnamed “person familiar with the investigation” tells the Herald. The paper adds that the
investigation is being handled by the FBI and the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section in Washington. While special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election has ended, the new probe examining Chinese money may add to growing concerns over foreign influence heading into the 2020 election.
It seems unlikely to be just coincidence that this story and others hinting about Chinese influence starting sparking so much attention right around the time Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling and collusion was dying down.
FREE MINDS
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) can no longer let Huawei scientists serve as editors or peer reviewers for its journals, or else it risks running afoul of the Trump administration’s sanctions on the Chinese company.
Unbelievable, IEEE is forced to ban Huawei employees from peer-reviewing papers or handling papers as editors. pic.twitter.com/pkvQeOUI07
The IEEE ban has sparked outrage among Chinese scientists on social media. “I joined IEEE as a Ph.D. student because it is recognized as an International academic platform in electronics engineering,” wrote Haixia (Alice) Zhang of Peking University in Beijing in a letter to IEEE leadership. “But this message is challenging my professional integrity. I have decided to quit the editorial boards [of two IEEE journals] until it restores our common professional integrity.”
FREE MARKETS
Humanitarians offering material assistance to migrants crossing the Sonoran Desert are being prosecuted on federal charges. Arizona geographer Scott Warren is one of them, charged with a felony for offering water, food, and other basic necessities to those passing through.
“In the Sonoran Desert, the temperature can reach 120 degrees during the day and plummet at night,” writes Warren:
Water is scarce. Tighter border policies have forced migrants into harsher and more remote territory, and many who attempt to traverse this landscape don’t survive. Along what’s become known as the Ajo corridor, dozens of bodies are found each year; many more are assumed to be undiscovered.
Local residents and volunteers organize hikes into this desert to offer humanitarian aid. We haul jugs of water and buckets filled with canned food, socks, electrolytes and basic first-aid supplies to a few sites along the mountain and canyon paths. Other times, we get a report that someone has gone missing, and our mission becomes search and rescue—or, more often, to recover the bodies and bones of those who have died.
Over the years, humanitarian groups and local residents navigated a coexistence with the Border Patrol. We would meet with agents and inform them of how and where we worked. At times, the Border Patrol sought to cultivate a closer relationship. “Glad you’re out here today,” I remember an agent telling me once. “People really need water.” In a town as small as Ajo, we’re all neighbors, and everybody’s kids go to the same school. Whether it was in the grocery store or out in the field, it was commonplace for residents and volunteers to run into Border Patrol agents and talk.
Those kinds of encounters are rare these days. Government authorities have cracked down on humanitarian aid: denying permits to enter the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and kicking over and slashing water jugs. They are also aggressively prosecuting volunteers. Several No More Deaths volunteers have faced possible imprisonment and fines of up to $10,000 on federal misdemeanor charges from 2017 including entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and “abandonment of property”—leaving water and cans of beans for migrants. (I face similar misdemeanor charges of “abandonment of property.”)
A book's dedication page is a great place to give credit where credit is due. Here's the dedication from How To Become a Federal Criminal, which comes out Tuesday and is available at https://t.co/97E1Bcc4TFpic.twitter.com/7yWz6FXlKl
This is a really well done and fascinating deep dive into Instagram and and it’s attack on sex workers.
“Infantilism and secrecy, coupled with tech-bro culture, makes Silicon Valley the second element of this Perfect Storm against sex workers”https://t.co/ZnVvldcol2 via @xbiz
— Mistress Matisse (@mistressmatisse) May 30, 2019
Rep. Nancy Pelosi intensifies her crusade against Facebook, declaring yesterday in response to a doctored video it didn’t take down: “I think they have proven—by not taking down something they know is false—that they were willing enablers of Russian interference in our election.” (As Cato’s Julian Sanchez comments, “that is just a bizarre non sequitur.”)
An Illinois Newsroom investigation into prison library book removals finds “a majority of the books removed from the program’s library are about race.”
