NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / December 5, 2020 / Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE:WFC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California and docketed under 20-cv-07997, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against Wells Fargo and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period, you have until December 29, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

Wells Fargo is a global financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Company provides banking, investment and mortgage products and services, as well as other consumer and commercial financial services. It is one of the largest banks in the world as measured by both market capitalization and total assets.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo had systematically failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards and due diligence guidelines in issuing billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans, including by inflating the net income and future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (ii) a materially higher proportion of Wells Fargo's commercial loan customers were of poor credit quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than disclosed to investors; (iii) Wells Fargo had failed to timely write down commercial loans, collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") and commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") on its books that had suffered impairments; (iv) Wells Fargo had materially understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its commercial portfolios; (v) Wells Fargo had systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS, including by artificially inflating the net income and expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and securitization documentation; (vi) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors; (vii) as a result of (i)-(vi) above, Wells Fargo's Class Period statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans, its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading; and (viii) as a result of all the foregoing, Wells Fargo was exposed to severe undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the commercial credit markets.

Story continues

On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a press release providing its results for the first quarter of 2020. The release revealed a stunning deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio, particularly with respect to its commercial loans.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell 14% over the following three trading sessions, closing at $26.89 per share on April 16, 2020.

Then, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report for the first quarter with the SEC, which stated that the fair value of the Company's CLO investments held-for-sale had fallen to $26.9 billion by the quarter's end, a 9% decline from the end of the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019 ("FY19"), and that Wells Fargo had suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO investments during the quarter.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 6% over two trading days to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020.

Then, on June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer John Shrewsberry ("Shrewsberry") presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US Financials Conference. During the conference, Shrewsberry revealed that Wells Fargo's second quarter reserve build would be even "bigger than the first quarter" as a result of continued deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell 18% over two trading days to close at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release providing its results for the second quarter of 2020. The release stated that Wells Fargo had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or ($0.66) per share, largely as a result of deterioration in its commercial credit portfolio.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 5% to close at $24.25 per share on July 14, 2020.

Finally, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release providing its results for the third quarter of 2020. The release stated that Wells Fargo had recognized another provision expense of $769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased $2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter.

On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell another 6% to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.

SOURCE: Pomerantz LLP

View source version on accesswire.com: https://www.accesswire.com/619634/SHAREHOLDER-ALERT-Pomerantz-Law-Firm-Reminds-Shareholders-with-Losses-on-their-Investment-in-Wells-Fargo-Company-of-Class-Action-Lawsuit-and-Upcoming-Deadline--WFC

Go here to see the original:
SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Shareholders with Losses on their Investment in Wells Fargo & Company of Class Action Lawsuit and...

General Motors released this teaser image of an illuminated Cadillac crest on the front of the Lyriq ahead of the crossover's debut.

GM

DETROIT About 150 General Motors dealers have accepted buyouts and will stop selling Cadillacs as the Detroit automaker pivots the luxury brand to lead its all-electric vehicle efforts, a person familiar with the details confirmed to CNBC.

GM recently told its 880 U.S. Cadillac dealers that in order to sell its upcoming EVs it would cost at least $200,000 to upgrade dealerships. The cost includes EV chargers, tooling and training. Such capital expenditures are typically viewed as part of business for larger dealers, but could be challenging for smaller dealers, which Cadillac has more of throughout the country compared with other luxury brands.

The buyouts mark the most recent indication of GM accelerating its EV efforts, which include investing $27 billion in all-electric and autonomous vehicles by 2025. That investment, an increase from $20 billion announced earlier this year, is expected to produce 30 new EVs globally by 2025, including more than 20 just for North America.

"This forward product offering needs to be combined with exceptional customer experience," GM said in an emailed statement. "The future dealer requirements are a logical and necessary next step on our path towards electrification to ensure our dealers are prepared to provide customers an exceptional experience."

GM expects a majority, if not all, of its Cadillac cars and SUVs sold globally to be all-electric vehicles by 2030.

David Butler, chairman of Cadillac's national dealer council, said the leadership board suggested the buyouts as a way for dealers who may not want to participate in the EV investment a way out of their agreements with GM.

"We suggested the offer be something worthwhile for the dealers," he told CNBC, citing a previous buyout from 2016 that failed to attract many Cadillac dealers.

The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the number of dealers taking the buyouts Friday, said GM's buyout offers ranged from around $300,000 to more than $1 million. Buyouts were based largely on sales and varied depending on the size of the dealership, according to the company.

The roughly 150 dealers accepting the buyouts represent about 17% of Cadillac's U.S. dealerships. Dealers had until Nov. 30 to decide on a buyout, according to Automotive News, which first reported the offers last week.

Read the original here:
About 150 Cadillac dealers take GM buyouts rather than invest in EVs - CNBC

Credit: Pixaby/CC0 Public Domain

With a lot happening in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems worthwhile to review the current status. Vaccines are a hot topic and rollout is imminent. There is investment interest, especially in relation to BioNTech (NASDAQ:BNTX) and Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA). Progress with treatments is less encouraging and the outlook for Gileads (NASDAQ:GILD) remdesivir is less promising. An emerging story is an increasingly tough winter for the COVID-19 pandemic in the northern hemisphere; vaccine developments are going to have little impact on this evolving crisis. Later next year things might improve, but beware of market correction if the pandemic isnt seriously addressed through government support.

The soap opera continues with a very recent announcement that the UK government has authorized the Pfizer (NYSE:PFE)/BioNTech COVID vaccine for emergency use on the recommendation of the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Thus, the UK is the first country to authorise the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. No doubt this caused concern in the US with a meeting between the President and FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn to address why the FDA has not yet approved the Pfizer vaccine. It is important to understand that moving at this speed has risks attached to it. Vaccines normally have a much deeper risk profile established before general release. Dr. Fauci has recently indicated that his view is that the UK rushed approval and this could put at risk public acceptance of vaccination, which is crucial. He has now apologised if his comment suggested that the UK was being sloppy.

There has been further clarification about the speed of approval from the UK in comparison with the US. Brexit has given the UK flexibility to make its own decisions outside of EU approvals. The FDA uses a more rigorous review of data as it goes back to the raw figures. This normally takes months, but in this case, FDA approval is expected very soon, with a meeting on 10 December scheduled; the EU will probably review its attitude on 29 December. The UK expects to receive very soon 10 million doses (enough for 5 million vaccinations) of its 40 million dose order. The early recipients will be healthcare workers, aged care residents, the elderly and clinically vulnerable.

Away from the politics, there is a still a lot to be sorted out with the vaccine candidates.

While the AstraZeneca (NYSE:AZN)/Oxford University vaccine has been a front runner, this situation changed when there was some controversy about its effectiveness and the best dosing for the first injection. This caused some indignation about how AstraZeneca has dealt with the vaccine, including a mistake in dosing that has given insight into what could become a more effective vaccine. This is just a pretty normal part of the discovery phase of a vaccine development. People make mistakes and sometimes these mistakes are revealing. This is why it takes a long time.

The AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine is attractive because it is cheaper to produce than the new generation mRNA-based vaccines, and the vaccine can be stored and shipped at refrigeration temperatures, as opposed to mRNA vaccines requiring freezing at -20C (Moderna) or -78C (Pfizer/BioNTech). Messenger RNA is unstable and easily degraded, which is why freezing temperatures are needed. The Moderna vaccine has the mRNA stabilised in fatty nanoparticles and this is the reason it just requires a normal freezer and not to be shipped on dry ice (-78C) as is needed for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

There is some evidence that the AstraZeneca vaccine might be particularly effective in the elderly.

Notwithstanding some controversy surrounding exactly what is going on with the AstraZeneca/Oxford Uni vaccine, there is evidence that an early requirement for an effective and safe vaccine has been met with the mRNA vaccines, which are now the most advanced in the path to release.

As mentioned above, the UK government is out of the blocks with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The UK government is feeling the pressure with a recent surge in cases and the death toll now above 60,000 deaths (and daily death toll of ~500). UK PM Boris Johnson is acknowledging a hard winter ahead before there will be a noticeable effect even of a highly successful vaccine release. The US will surely follow quickly with conditional approval for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. Europe seems to be indicating that it will not rush the decision, but no doubt approval will not be delayed for long. Australia has signalled its acceptance of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, which is expected to become available in Australia at the end of Q1 2021.

The pressure must be immense. It was interesting to read a report from Dr. Moncef Slaoui, President Trumps leader of Operation Warp Speed. Dr. Slaoui indicates that 10-15% of volunteers receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine experience significantly noticeable side effects which can last up to 1.5 days. The side effects include fever, chills, muscle aches and headaches. There are some concerns that even these mild effects might be enough to dissuade people from returning for the second (essential) dose of the vaccine. These physicians indicate that patients should be aware that they might experience symptoms like a mild case of COVID-19.

So far, more important adverse events (e.g. autoimmune symptoms) are not significantly more common in treated versus control patients.

But this isnt the end of it. Dr. Slaoui made clear that long-term safety is not understood at all because by definition there hasnt been time to evaluate this aspect.

At this stage, BioNTech seems to be the best opportunity for investors to benefit from the vaccine developments, although Moderna might come into the picture soon. BioNTech as the inventor of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and with a major partner to manufacture and distribute, is positioned to benefit in the short term, notwithstanding its share price already up 39% in the past month (and 454% year on year). Pfizer is up 12.6% in the past month, but its share price appears to be flattening. Sarel Oberholster has recently given the bullish case for BioNTech and this analysis preceded the UK approval.

The case for the Moderna vaccine seems similar to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and Modernas share performance is even more bullish than that of BioNTech. Moderna is up 113% in the past month and 624% year on year. If it gets approval soon, expect a further share price increase. Moderna has recently sought emergency approval from the FDA and its case will be considered by the EU on 12 January.

Perhaps the biggest issue for the competitive position of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is the need for -78C (dry ice) storage. While the AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine has some short-term hassles necessitating a further trial, its easier storage could make it more competitive in the longer term (assuming little difference in effectiveness and safety, although it is early days to have views on this). The Moderna vaccine is in the middle because it requires frozen storage, but at normal freezer temperature.

The bottom line for the vaccine developments is to understand that the huge number of shortcuts and absence of review before proceeding to the next step means that the COVID-19 vaccine developments maximise risk of something going wrong. It is too early for any of the vaccines to have a long-term safety profile. Nor is there information about the length of protection (beyond 90 days) for any of the vaccines.

And the big concern for the vaccine producers is public confidence and acceptance, because without this, no vaccine can be successful. We still dont know how this is going to play out.

It has not been clear for some time that Remdesivir has sufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has released the results of a large trial that fails to provide evidence of clinical effectiveness. This has led the WHO to conditionally recommend against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients, regardless of disease severity.

This week the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a summary of the basis for emergency approval by the FDA. Basically, this report concludes that while remdesivir doesnt affect mortality, there is some evidence of effect.

Whether measures to simplify treatment through nasal inhalation technology from TFF Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:TFFP) or increased permeability and reduced volume (Starpharma (OTCQX:SPHRY) (OTCQX:SPHRF)) will provide a new life for remdesivir remain to be seen. The question is whether remdesivir can be made more effective.

Regeneron (NASDAQ:REGN) and Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY) are leading the rush to develop monoclonal antibodies as early stage treatments for COVID-19. In effect, the goal is to provide the body with a boost by mimicking what the immune system does with monoclonal antibodies that are known to be effective.

There are some caveats about this approach. Firstly, it isnt clear that giving this late in the infection process will be harmless.

Eli Lilly has succeeded in gaining Emergency Use Authorization for its monoclonal bamlanivimab, prior to hospitalisation, although its effectiveness seems less than overwhelming.

Regeneron has also succeeded in gaining FDA Emergency Use Authorization for its monoclonal antibody combination casirivimab and imdevimab for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who are at risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. Regeneron is working with University of Pennsylvania researchers to see if their monoclonal antibody cocktail can be delivered through the nose via Adenovirus vectors.

So far, the monoclonal antibody treatments have limited evidence of success in treating early stage infection, and they are expensive drugs. One would expect that they need to be effective to obtain approval.

Ive written recently about Starpharmas Viraleze nasal spray as a preventative/early phase treatment.

The rate of infection and death from COVID-19 is very different in different countries. Currently, Europe and the US are in a critical phase of a second wave of infections, with accelerating cases and threats to the integrity of the health systems.

The question is how to avoid runaway infections, increasing deaths and healthcare systems in danger of being overrun (again).

Im sure Ive missed a number of countries in highlighting here just 3 examples where a second wave has been successfully curtailed, so apologies to a number of other successful cases. The three I mention here are China, Singapore and Victoria in Australia. China and Singapore are special because China is a country where the government can and does have absolute discretion and therefore is able to enforce a hard lockdown. Singapores outbreak was primarily amongst foreign workers and thus a very focused intervention was possible. Australia is relevant because it is like Europe and the US, any action to control the pandemic requires a mixture of bringing the community with you along with tough measures that are not going to be popular (until the pandemic has been suppressed). A recent article from Australia gives insight into the kind of expert needed to succeed and how complicated the role of the expert is when interacting with politicians who have all kinds of pressure on them.

Australia managed the first wave well and so case numbers were very small when Victoria had an outbreak associated with a breakdown in hotel quarantine for Australians returning home. In early June, new case numbers were less than 10 daily, but this rapidly grew to 100s of new cases daily in July and the number peaked at 700 new daily cases in early August.

The rate of increase in Victoria was worse than that being experienced by the UK, but Victoria introduced a hard lockdown to aggressively address the problem. The UK delayed. To show how critical a delay in response becomes, the UK currently has around 15,000 new cases daily and around 500 daily deaths. The Victorian lockdown has controlled the outbreak and currently the new case load in the whole of Australia is around 10 new cases daily with negligible deaths.

The takeaway from Australias recent trauma is that to get the economy moving back towards normality requires the pandemic to be controlled, because if it isnt, one gets runaway infections (as the US is seeing now, with more than 200,000 new cases daily and more than 2,500 daily deaths) and threat to the stability of the entire health system.

Investors need to think about this in deciding about where countries sit in terms of economic recovery.

It is a surreal time in the US as the control of the country switches from President Trump who has overseen one of the worst outcomes of any country, with a fatalistic it happens approach. This means that the death toll is likely to approach 400,000 by January 20th, 2021 when President Biden assumes control. President-elect Biden has made clear that the COVID pandemic is his most urgent and immediate crisis; and he will address it as a crisis. What isnt clear is to what extent President Biden will be able to implement key issues (masks, lockdowns) given that these issues are now highly politicised. The rollout of a vaccine will help, but if the pandemic is still out of control at the end of January (which seems likely), it is hard to foresee how economic recovery will be possible in the short term, even if President Biden gets tax increases, stimulus and a major climate package through the Senate (unlikely unless the Democrats win the two senate seats in Georgia in January).

The above assessment of the situation in the US makes me pessimistic that at least a temporary market correction will be difficult to avoid.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been extraordinary at all levels and the progress nothing short of amazing in 2020. However, the pandemic isnt over and major challenges remain before the global economy can reset. And the reset will be different from the time before COVID. Markets are not accustomed to these kinds of highly technical challenges, and so after the initial sharp decline, the response has been patchy. No doubt some have made money investing with the ebbs and the flows of COVID news, along with news of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19. The bottom line is that there are still a lot of unknowns and enough is known about the highly infectious nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to expect a dramatic effect on the economies of different countries, depending on how they are managing the pandemic

We live in a global village so the travails of some reflect on the travails of others. However, there are some green shoots and glimmers of return to some form of normality. Three countries (China, Singapore and Australia) in particular have had success in controlling a second outbreak, while at the same time much of Europe, the Americas (both North and South) and Japan (from a low base) are experiencing harrowing times, which threaten economic recovery. The point is that while cases are accelerating, it is only a matter of time before action must be taken or the health system gets overrun. With the very large number of cases in Europe and the US in particular, the means to get the pandemic under control is through testing. Isolation and contact tracing are pretty ineffective when there is a significant number of new cases. President-elect Biden is considering seeking a 100-day mandatory mask wearing mandate to begin to address the US COVID-19 challenges. Dr. Fauci says, This is not a hoax.

Regarding the US economy, which has a major influence on global markets, for the reasons given above, uncertainty and possible economic setbacks seem likely to have a negative impact on the market. My suggestion is to be ready for a correction, which might prove to be an interesting buy opportunity. And if you are looking for a shorting opportunity, cruise ships (e.g. Carnival (NYSE:CCL), up 56% in the past month) have to be on the radar.

As regards to COVID-related investments, the treatment landscape remains uncertain, so I dont see clear opportunities yet. Ive indicated here that vaccine companies BioNTech and Moderna do seem to have some potential for short-term upside, although there is still a way to go to see exactly how the vaccine programs will play out.

I am not a financial advisor, but I have followed the COVID-19 pandemic closely, based on my scientific background and involvement in the biotech industry. If my commentary helps you and your financial advisor to think about investment in this space, please consider following me.

Disclosure: I am/we are long SPHRY. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Go here to read the rest:
COVID-19 Update: Vaccines, Treatments And Lockdowns, Investment Implications - Seeking Alpha

Turkey will see a larger volume of investment flow in the next five years, the head of Turkey's presidential investment office said Friday.

Turkey's investment office met with Turkish investors and startups during Web Summit 2020, which is among the most prominent technology conferences in the world, according to a statement by the office.

During the summit, a session named "Turkey: Reshaping Venture Capital in Emerging Markets," was held with the attendance of Turkish entrepreneurs.

Burak Daliolu, head of the office, whose views were included in the statement said: "As the Presidency Investment Office, venture capital and technology enterprises are among our priority agenda items. Istanbul also needs to reach its deserved place all over the world, as an entrepreneurship center."

Stressing that Turkey has a highly developed and supportive entrepreneurial ecosystem, Daliolu said international funds have invested in the country to gain higher returns.

Enis Hulli, partner of investment firm 500 Startups Istanbul also said the total amount invested in startups is around $100 million annually in Turkey.

"Turkey was one of the leading countries in this field with a total output volume of $3.5 billion since 2018. Considering the increasing interest of foreign investors and acquisitions, Turkey is one of the most profitable markets in the world for early-stage investors," he added.

View post:
'Turkey to see more investment flow over next 5 years' | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah

What goes up must come down and then usually goes back up again, at least in the case of the U.S. stock market.

The market has been on a roller-coaster ride this year amid the coronavirus pandemic. The S&P 500 started the year strong, breaking the record for the longest-ever bull market. Then, in March, when the pandemic slammed the U.S. with sweeping lockdowns that brought most economic activity to a halt, the index tanked, falling 30% in 22 trading days and officially entering bear territory.

Stocks have since rebounded with surprising strength, climbing to multiple all-time highs even as Covid-19 cases continue to soar. Through Thursday's close, the S&P 500 has gained more than 13% year to date, and nearly 64% from its March 23 low.

"We have had tremendous support both on the fiscal and the monetary side that have supported markets in the downturn," said Charlie Ripley, vice president of capital markets at Allianz Investment Management. "It's sort of supported to perfection."

For those investing long-term, such as for retirement, staying in the market is often the best strategy, according to financial advisors.

Investors who panicked in March and sold assets may now be kicking themselves after the tremendous recovery the market has seen since. Even though it's tempting to retreat from the risks of the stock market when things go haywire, it's important to remember that investing means trading some volatility for the reward of growing wealth.

"Volatility is part of the equation, and that's kind of what the reward is for," said certified financial planner Kaya Ladejobi, founder of Earn Into Wealth in New York. "If your capital isn't at risk, you can't get those returns."

Research has shown that missing out on the best trading days has a huge impact on long-term returns, as they often follow the worst days. Using market data going back to 1930, Bank of America found that an investor who missed the S&P 500 index's best 10 days each decade would have a return of 91% compared to a 14,962% return for those who stayed invested.

"You can weather out the storms as long as you're not drawing on the portfolio," said Anjali Jariwala, CFP, CPA and founder of FIT Advisors in Torrance, California. She added that if you withdraw from the market and realize it was a mistake, it can be difficult to find a place to re-enter.

A market dip can be nerve-wracking, but it does not signal that it's time to get out of risk assets. In fact, it can be an opportunity to set yourself up for the next market rally.

"History tells us that markets do recover over time," said Jason Field, CFP, a financial advisor at Van Leeuwen & Company in Princeton, New Jersey. "When markets do go down, it does provide an opportunity to buy good-quality investments at lower prices."

Luckily, some investors were able to pick up on this amid the coronavirus pandemic market rout, according to Phuong Luong, CFP and founder of Just Wealth, a San Francisco-based fee-only financial planning firm.

While some of Luong's clients who are mostly in their 20s and 30s reached out in March to see if it was safe to be in the stock market, others asked her if they should be investing more.

"People are understanding better about the value of long-term investing and staying the course and that the risk of being in the market over time decreases," said Luong.

Of course, market swings may cause enough anxiety that it becomes clear that an investor has overestimated their risk tolerance and needs to reassess.

If that's the case, it's a good time to tweak asset allocations so that the next time there's a market dip, investors won't see as much volatility, said Jariwala, adding that on the other hand, they might not see the same returns as an aggressively invested portfolio.

In addition to having an appropriately balanced portfolio for your risk level, having a comprehensive financial plan for unplanned events like the coronavirus pandemic can help ease some anxiety, according to Ladejobi. This includes making sure you have a solid emergency fund as well as a road map for what to do if markets tank.

"When you have a financial plan in place and a strategy you can handle turbulent times better than when you don't have a plan," said Ladejobi.

SIGN UP: Money 101 is an 8-week learning course to financial freedom, delivered weekly to your inbox.

CHECK OUT: I have 9 side hustles and bring in up to $4,000 each month: Here's my best advice viaGrow with Acorns+CNBC.

Disclosure: NBCUniversal and Comcast Ventures are investors in Acorns.

The rest is here:
The stock markets roller-coaster year exemplifies why staying invested pays off - CNBC

Didi Taihuttu, his wife, and three kids bet all they have on bitcoin.

In 2017, CNBC spoke to the Dutch family of five when they were in the process of liquidating their assets from a profitable business and 2,500-square-foot house, to their shoes and trading it all in for the popular cryptocurrency and a life on the road.

Nearly four years and 40 countries later, Taihuttu and his family still don't have bank accounts, a house, or all that much by way of personal possessions. All of the family's savings remain tied up in highly volatile cryptocurrencies.

"We stepped into bitcoin, because we wanted to change our lives," said the 42-year-old father of three.

When the price of bitcoin collapsed in 2018, Taihuttu added more to his investment portfolio. He says he was always a firm believer that the cryptocurrency was poised for a major rebound. "I think in this bull cycle, we are going to see a minimal peak of $100,000. I won't be surprised if it hits $200,000 by 2022."

I won't be surprised if [bitcoin] hits $200,000 by 2022.

The price of bitcoin reached an all-time high on Monday, as it closed in on $20,000. And some analysts say the cryptocurrency still has a lot of room to run higher.

Mike Novogratz, CEO of investment firm Galaxy Digital, thinks this comeback rally is only just getting started. He sees bitcoin rising to $60,000 by next year.

And Tom Fitzpatrick, global head of CitiFXTechnicals, said the charts signaled that bitcoin could reach $318,000 by December 2021, in a report meant for Citibank's institutional clients and obtained by CNBC.

Taihuttu bought the bulk of his bitcoin holdings when it was was trading at around $900 in early 2017, just months before it reached nearly $20,000 a coin.

Even as bitcoin peaked, the family stayed invested in the cryptocurrency. Once the bubble burst, and the price tumbled down to about $3,000 in early 2018, Taihuttu and his family weren't deterred. "When bitcoin dipped, we started to buy more."

When I asked Taihuttu on our Skype call whether he was worried that we could be in the midst of another bitcoin bubble, he doubled down on his investment. "I don't see demand going down," he added. "I think we're headed for a supply crisis."

Part of what's different about bitcoin's rally in 2020 versus 2017 is that institutional investors are now adopting bitcoin, lending it newfound legitimacy and helping to erase the reputational risk of investing in the cryptocurrency.

"The 2017 rally was largely driven by retail investors, whereas this year we're seeing a massive influx from corporate entities and institutional money managers," said Mati Greenspan, portfolio manager and founder of Quantum Economics.

Old-school, billionaire hedge fund managers Stanley Druckenmiller and Paul Tudor Jones now own bitcoin and big fintech players like Square and PayPal are also adding crypto products.

This kind of mainstream adoption is hugely important, because cryptocurrencies like bitcoin aren't backed by an asset, nor do they have the full faith and backing of the government. They're valuable because people believe they're valuable. So it goes a long way when bitcoin gets buy-in from some of the biggest names on Wall Street.

The surge in interest from mainstream financial players hasn't just reformed bitcoin's image, it's also fomented a supply shortage.

"The basic reason for the two rallies are the same," Greenspan said. "It's a matter of digital scarcity. There is a strictly limited supply of bitcoin available in the market, so when everyone is buying and nobody is selling, it can cause tremendous upward pressure on the price. What's different this time are the players involved."

The 2017 rally was driven by retail speculation, and in 2020, it's the billionaires and corporations that are buying bitcoin en masse.

"When PayPal starts to sell bitcoin to its 350 million users, they also need to buy the bitcoin somewhere," said Taihuttu. "There will be a huge supply crisis, because there won't be enough new bitcoins mined everyday to fulfill the need by huge companies."

And that interest from institutional investors doesn't appear to be slowing down. Six out of 10 investors surveyed by Fidelity in June believe digital assets have a place in investment portfolios.

Mike Bucella, general partner at BlockTower Capital, told CNBC in a recent interview on "Power Lunch" that retail investors are actually the ones missing out on the bitcoin rally this year.

"If you dig a layer deeper in the derivatives market, you notice that most of that derivatives flow has transitioned from the crypto native exchanges of 2017 to institutional products, like the CME," said Bucella. "I think this really firmly indicates that retail actually missed out on this rally this year. It's been primarily and firmly an institutional bid."

But not all retail investors are missing out.

Taihuttu put a couple hundred thousand dollars into cryptocurrency in 2017, while the price of bitcoin was still trading lower, and he has mostly stayed all in on his investment.

Despite 2020's massive returns and all the recent bullish calls around bitcoin price targets, the fact remains, a speculative asset like bitcoin is prone to seismic price moves in a very short space of time.

In 2018, the massive sell-off in cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, was swift, brutal and worse than the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000.

2020 may look different than 2017's rally, but as an asset, bitcoin behaves in a cyclical manner. Each successive high is higher, and the lows are not quite as low, but bitcoin is certainly not immune to another major correction.

Though for Taihuttu, the bitcoin play isn't all about making a profit. He's already given half of his money away to charity, and his family of five has spent the last four years traveling the world, in order to spread the gospel of decentralized digital currencies.

Originally posted here:
This family bet everything on bitcoin when it was $900 and bought more when it crashed in 2018 - CNBC

When it comes to saving for retirement, you have several choices as to where to park your cash. Two of the most popular choices are the 401(k) and the individual retirement account (IRA).

If you work for a company that offers a 401(k), you may already be enrolled in this type of retirement account. IRAs, on the other hand, aren't tied to your employer, so to open this account you'll just need to find a brokerage. Although each type of retirement account has its perks, there are a few reasons why you might choose a Roth IRA over a 401(k).

Image source: Getty Images.

When you invest in a 401(k) or traditional IRA, your savings are tax-deferred. That means your initial contributions won't be taxed, but you will need to pay income taxes on your withdrawals in retirement.

A Roth IRA is the opposite: You'll pay taxes when you make the initial contributions, but then your distributions are tax-free. This can be an advantage in retirement because you won't need to worry about taxes affecting your disposable income. And when you don't need to account for taxes in your spending plan, it can be easier to determine how long your savings will last.

Not only can a Roth IRA save you money on income taxes during retirement, but it can also reduce the amount you pay in Social Security taxes.

Approximately half of seniors pay taxes on their benefits in retirement, according to a report from the Senior Citizens League. How much you pay in taxes, however, will depend on your "provisional income." This is half your annual benefit amount plus your adjusted gross income.

If your provisional income is higher than $25,000 per year (or $32,000 per year for married couples filing jointly), you'll owe taxes on up to 85% of your benefit amount.

However, withdrawals from your Roth IRA do not count toward your provisional income. That means you can spend more in retirement without exceeding Social Security's income limit, which will reduce the amount you pay in taxes on your benefits.

With a 401(k), your investment options are limited. You typically only have access to a selection of mutual funds chosen by the plan administrator, some of which may charge higher-than-average fees. But because your 401(k) is controlled through your employer, your only options are to invest in the options available or forego contributing to a 401(k).

IRAs offer a wide variety of investments to choose from. Between stocks, bonds, ETFs, index funds, and mutual funds, you can select the type of investment that best fits your needs. Investing in a Roth IRA can be a smart move for those who want to take a more hands-on approach to investing, because you can create a more personalized portfolio than you could with a 401(k).

All this isn't to say that 401(k)s never have their place in your investment strategy. While Roth IRAs do boast several key benefits, the 401(k) does have its merits as well.

For one, many 401(k)s offer matching contributions from your employer. Matching contributions are basically free cash that you can collect just by saving in your 401(k), and they're a perk you won't find with an IRA. If you have access to employer matching contributions, it may be wise to invest enough in your 401(k) to earn the full match. Then you can invest the rest of your savings in a Roth IRA.

In addition, you're allowed to save more per year in a 401(k) than in a Roth IRA. For 2021, you can contribute up to $19,500 per year in a 401(k) and $6,000 per year in an IRA. For those over age 50, you can contribute $6,500 per year in your 401(k) and $1,000 per year in your IRA. If you're a super saver, you might choose to max out your Roth IRA first and then stash the rest of your savings in a 401(k).

While each retirement account has its advantages and disadvantages, the Roth IRA outshines the 401(k) in a few areas. By investing strategically and choosing the right account for you, it will be easier to build a healthy nest egg by retirement age.

See the original post:
3 Reasons a Roth IRA Is Better Than a 401(k) - The Motley Fool

USS Sterett (DDG-104) steams through the night in the Gulf of Oman on Sept. 17, 2020. US Navy Photo

This post has been updated to include additional information from Adm. Gildays remarks.

After it took the better part of nine months to convince Mark Espers Pentagon that the naval force needed greater investment to be ready to deter or defeat China and Russia even if that investment came at the expense of the Army or the Air Force the Navy and Marine Corps will have to start anew with the incoming Biden administration, the chief of naval operations said today.

The two sea services in January wrapped up an extensive effort to plan out a future force design that would allow them to distribute small but lethal units across wide swaths of ocean, sensing and fighting their way through whatever obstacles an adversary could pose. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper was not convinced and said in no uncertain terms that if the Navy wanted to grow the fleet theyd have to find the money internally.

Even as of mid-summer, Esper still wasnt convinced to increase Navy and Marine Corps topline, USNI News understands.

By late September, he changed his mind.

Given the serious reform efforts put forward by the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations and their commitment to continue them I agreed to provide additional funding from across the DoD enterprise, funding that was harvested from ongoing reform efforts such as Combatant Command reviews, Fourth Estate reforms, and other initiatives, Esper said in early October when announcing the results of his Future Naval Force Study. Together, these additional funding streams will increase the shipbuilding account to 13 percent within the Navys topline, matching the average percentage spent for new ships during President Reagans buildup in the 1980s.

However, Esper was fired just weeks after he started promising Cold War-era levels of investment in Navy shipbuilding.

I think that we made a lot of progress in the last year with Secretary Esper and his staff in terms of coming to a place where there was a realization that weve under-invested in naval forces for too long and we needed to, not double down, but increase the investment in naval forces, perhaps at the expense of other areas. That we were making the argument that we believe we need overmatch in the maritime, based on the adversaries that were facing, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said today while speaking at the U.S. Naval Institutes annual Defense Forum Washington event. We think that our analysis withstood the rigors through the [Future Naval Force Study], in a CAPE-led analytical effort, and delivered an FNFS and discussions about a topline in [Fiscal Year 2022] that would support an increase in those investments.

With a change in administration coming before that FY 2022 budget is released, I think internally certainly well have challenges again with the new administration in terms of explaining the rationale for making the investments in the naval force and heading down in the direction the commandant and I want to go in, he said.

Espers vision for the future fleet included all the same elements the Navy and Marine Corps had touted in their own Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment that Esper rejected in February though the two plans differ in how aggressively they seek to overhaul the fleet from larger and more powerful platforms to smaller manned and unmanned ones that can distribute their offensive weapons and challenge an adversarys targeting. Its unclear if the future Biden administration would support high enough funding levels to make the changes as quickly as Esper had suggested he wanted to in his last weeks on the job.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper tours the avenger class minesweeper USS Devastator, docked at Naval Support Activity Bahrain on Oct. 28, 2020. DoD Photo

Gilday said that, as the sea services modernize the fleet and grow in size, he would not do so at the expense of readiness.

We cant afford a navy much bigger than about 306 to 310 ships, based on the composition of the fleet that we have today. And so it is going to require more Navy topline. We have found money inside the Navy budget, but not enough to sustain that effort to give you the numbers that you really need to fight in a [Distributed Maritime Operations]/[Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment] fight, he said during the event.

Gilday said the new fleet needs more submarines, fewer big surface combatants, more small combatants, more unmanned, more logistics ships, and a new composition for the amphibious fleet. He also needs to invest in future offensive technologies like hypersonic weapons and defensive technologies like lasers powerful enough to serve in a missile defense role.

Some of these efforts may take longer to fully realize, due to the long service lives of ships and the time it will take for larger combatants to age out and be replaced by smaller or unmanned ships.

Still, Gilday said there were some actions he wanted to get after on a quicker timeline: specifically, this decade he wants to deliver the Constellation-class frigate, design and begin building the DDG Next that will follow the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, develop a network to tie manned and unmanned platforms together, and significantly scale up the unmanned presence in the fleet. For DDG Next, he said he hoped to see the design start in 2026 so that construction could begin in 2028, on the heels of the Arleigh Burke production line ending.

Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite has promised billions of dollars in savings a year to help pay for some of these investments, with Esper promising something of a dollar-matching effort to help get the Navy where it needed to be. Braithwaite has on several occasions declined to say what cuts hes eyeing or give a total dollar amount that can be reinvested in the future fleet.

Gilday said today he wanted to divest some legacy gear, such as the original four Littoral Combat Ships that the Navy uses just for mission package testing and would not deploy overseas. The CNO said he doesnt want to put any more money into those ships when it could be used to buy more lethality for the fleet.

Additionally, Gilday said a second challenge the Navy faces today is convincing lawmakers to let the sea services move out quickly on new programs such as a light amphibious warship, small logistics ships, unmanned systems and more.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday and U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and projection forces, visit the General Dynamics Electric Boat Quonset Point Facility in Rhode Island on Dec. 12, 2019. US Navy Photo

I think we have challenges up on the Hill, particularly the Navy, with respect to unmanned. And with DDG Next, he said, referring to the next large combatant that will follow the Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers. So we are fighting the ghosts of our past, whether its LCS, Zumwalt, the challenges weve had with Ford we need to explain how were not going to repeat the mistakes weve had in the past. And we cant just say it, we have to show them what we are doing systematically to build a little bit, test a little bit, and then move to scaling but when our confidence is high enough to do so.

In a later panel, Naval Sea Systems Command chief Vice Adm. Bill Galinis detailed what his command is doing to help build that confidence in future systems.

On unmanned systems, he said the technology already exists and doesnt need to be improved, they just need to do a lot of testing to prove out its reliability. He cited a recent trip by a large unmanned surface vessel from the Gulf Coast to California via the Panama Canal with little to no manned intervention there. He said NAVSEA and the Defense Department were pushing hard to prove and to improve the reliability and maturity of USVs and the components within them.

On more complex systems like the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, Galinis said NAVSEA is investing in significant land-based testing. In Philadelphia the Navy has built a propulsion plant and drive train to wring out the technology as individual components and as an integrated system. Similarly, on the Flight III destroyers, the Navy has now connected its first radar array to the new electrical system to ensure they can work together as a system.

Galinis added that, for the Navys newest ship program the Constellation-class frigate NAVSEA is still working through what kind of land-based testing and other prototyping efforts will be needed to drive down risk and raise confidence in the program.

Here is the original post:
CNO: Navy Will Have to Convince Biden Administration to Invest in Larger, Lethal Fleet - USNI News

The interior of Jacobs' headquarters in Dallas.

Dallas-based engineering giant Jacobs is buying a majority stake in an innovation consulting firm that places a $2.4 billion enterprise value on the company.

Jacobs $995 million equity investment in PA Consulting amounts to a 65% stake. The remaining 35% will be held by PA employees, following the exit of existing majority stakeholder Carlyle Group.

Jacobs also will assume $845 million of PAs debt and provide up to a $130 million credit line to fund growth.

Over the last several years we have transformed Jacobs to a leading technology-enabled solutions provider, said Jacobs chairman and CEO Steve Demetriou in a statement. This strategic partnership is an intentional move in accelerating our strategy.

PA has seen its revenue grow from $459 million in 2016 to an estimated $715 million this year. The companys 3,200 employees work in the United Kingdom, U.S., Europe and the Nordics. It has operated an innovation center in Cambridge, England, for 50 years.

Founded in 1943, PAs recent work includes the Virgin Hyperloop, advances in gene therapy manufacturing with Ori Biotech, an inhaler used in tuberculosis research and a failure-predicting tool for public utilities.

Jacobs said it expects to ramp up PAs growth, particularly in the U.S., by targeting high growth sectors like health and life sciences, public services, consumer and manufacturing, and defense and security.

'We see Jacobs as the ideal partner for PA, leveraging their client relationship networks and global platform to position us for the next phase of growth, said PA Consulting CEO Ken Toombs in a statement.

The transaction is expected to close by the end of Jacobs fiscal 2021 second quarter.

Jacobs is one of the largest public companies in Dallas-Fort Worth, with $13.6 billion in fiscal 2020 revenue and 55,000 employees globally.

Last week, both Jacobs and PA Consulting made smaller acquisitions.

Jacobs acquired Reston, Va.-based cyber and intelligence company The Buffalo Group. PA Consulting bought a Boston-area engineering company, Cooper Perkins, that specializes in electromechanical device design.

Terms of those deals werent disclosed.

Visit link:
Dallas-based Jacobs investment puts $2.4 billion value on innovation firm - The Dallas Morning News

A Porsche 911 Speedster is presented at the Paris Motor Show on October 4, 2018 in Paris.

Christophe Archambault | AFP | Getty Images

German automaker Porsche is investing about $24 million in the development of "e-fuels," which officials say is a climate-neutral fuel to replace gasoline in nonelectric vehicles.

Production of such a fuel would allow the company and potentially other automakers a way to continue producing vehicles such as Porsche's iconic 911 sports car with a traditional engine alongside, or rather than, a new electric model. While electric vehicles can offer outstanding performance, the driving dynamics of the vehicles are different than traditional engines.

"We would like and love cars like the 911 with high-rev combustion engines or turbocharged engines still as cars you could drive in the future without having the burden of a CO2 footprint, an unnecessary CO2 footprint," Michael Steiner, Porsche's director of research and development, said Wednesday during a virtual media event.

Officials said e-fuels can act like gasoline, allowing owners of current and classic vehicles a more environmentally friendly way to drive. It also could use the same fueling infrastructure as current fuels rather than billions in investments for new infrastructure for electric vehicles.

The announcement does not change Porsche's target to have half of Porsche models sold by 2025 to be electrified, including all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Porsche, owned by Volkswagen, announced the investment in partnership with Siemens' renewable energy unit and other international companies such as energy firm AME and the petroleum company ENAP from Chile. It includes developing and implementing a plant in Chile that is expected to yield the "world's first integrated, commercial, industrial-scale plant" for making synthetic climate-neutral fuels, also known as e-fuels.

The pilot project is expected to begin e-fuel production at the plant as early as 2022. Porsche is expected to be the primary customer for the green fuel, starting with use in vehicles for motorsports and its driving experience centers.

The plant and process will be powered by renewable wind energy, a reason why Chile was chosen for the plant along with "excellent climate conditions."

E-fuels are produced by a complex process using water, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The CO2 is filtered from the air and combined with hydrogen from the water to produce synthetic methanol, according to officials. The result is "renewable methanol," which the companies say can be converted into gasoline using an MTG (Methanol to Gasoline) technology to be licensed and supported by Exxon Mobil.

The only emissions from the vehicles would be carbon produced that was initially pulled from the air to make the synthetic fuel. The vehicles would still need to use oil to lubricate the engine.

Continued here:
Porsche investing $24 million in 'e-fuels' to supplement electrification of sports cars - CNBC