Consumer rebounded in June but didn't offset declines from April, May: BofA's Liz Everett Krisberg
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Fatal explosion at U.S. Steel's plant raises questions about its future despite heavy investment
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The fatal explosion last week at U.S. Steel's Pittsburgh-area coal-processing plant has revived debate about its future just as the iconic American company was emerging from a long period of uncertainty. The fortunes of steelmaking in the United States — along with profits, share prices and steel prices — have been buoyed by years of friendly administrations in Washington that slapped tariffs on foreign imports and bolstered the industry's anticompetitive trade cases against China. Most recently, President Trump's administration postponed new hazardous air pollution requirements for the nation's roughly dozen coke plants, including Clairton Coke Works, where the blast occurred, and he approved U.S. Steel's nearly $15-billion acquisition by Japanese steelmaker Nippon Steel. Nippon Steel's promised infusion of cash has brought vows that steelmaking will continue in the Mon Valley, a river valley south of Pittsburgh long synonymous with steelmaking. 'We're investing money here. And we wouldn't have done the deal with Nippon Steel if we weren't absolutely sure that we were going to have an enduring future here in the Mon Valley,' David Burritt, U.S. Steel's chief executive, said at a news conference Tuesday, a day after the explosion. 'You can count on this facility to be around for a long, long time.' The explosion killed two workers and hospitalized 10 with a blast so powerful that it took hours to find two missing workers beneath charred wreckage and rubble. The cause is under investigation. The plant is considered the largest coking operation in North America and, along with a blast furnace and finishing mill up the Monongahela River, is one of a handful of integrated steelmaking operations left in the U.S. The explosion now could test Nippon Steel's resolve in propping up the nearly 110-year-old Clairton plant, or at least force it to spend more than it had anticipated. Nippon Steel didn't respond to a question as to whether the explosion will change its approach to the plant. A spokesperson for the company said in a statement that its 'commitment to the Mon Valley remains strong' and that it sent 'technical experts to work with the local teams in the Clairton Plant, and to provide our full support.' Meanwhile, Burritt said that he had talked to top Nippon Steel officials after the explosion and that 'this facility and the Mon Valley are here to stay.' U.S. Steel officials say that safety is their top priority and that they spend $100 million a year on environmental compliance at Clairton alone. Repairing Clairton, however, could be expensive, an investigation into the explosion could turn up more problems, and an official from the United Steelworkers union said it's a constant struggle to get U.S. Steel to invest in its plants. Besides that, production at the facility could be affected for some time. The plant has six batteries of ovens, and two — where the explosion occurred — were damaged. Two others are on a reduced production schedule because of the blast. There is no timeline to get the damaged batteries running again, U.S. Steel said. Accidents are nothing new at Clairton, which heats coal to high temperatures to make coke, a key component in steelmaking, and produces combustible gases as byproducts. An explosion in February injured two workers. Even as Nippon Steel was closing the deal in June, a breakdown at the plant dealt three days of a rotten egg odor into the air around it from elevated hydrogen sulfide emissions, the environmental group GASP reported. The Breathe Project, a public health organization, said U.S. Steel has been forced to pay $57 million in fines and settlements since Jan. 1, 2020, for problems at the Clairton plant. A lawsuit over a Christmas Eve fire at Clairton in 2018 that saturated the area's air for weeks with sulfur dioxide produced a withering assessment of conditions there. An engineer for the environmental groups that sued wrote that he 'found no indication that U.S. Steel has an effective, comprehensive maintenance program for the Clairton plant.' Clairton, he wrote, is 'inherently dangerous because of the combination of its deficient maintenance and its defective design.' U.S. Steel settled, agreeing to spend millions on upgrades. Matthew Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, said U.S. Steel has shown more willingness to spend money on paying fines, lobbying the government and buying back shares to reward shareholders than making its plants safe. It's unclear whether Nippon Steel will change Clairton. Central to Trump's approval of the acquisition was Nippon Steel's promises to invest $11 billion into U.S. Steel's aging plants and to give the federal government a say in decisions involving domestic steel production, including plant closings. But much of the $2.2 billion that Nippon Steel has earmarked for the Mon Valley plants is expected to go toward upgrading the finishing mill, or building a new one. For years before the acquisition, U.S. Steel had signaled that the Mon Valley was on the chopping block. That left workers there uncertain whether they'd have jobs in a couple of years and whispering that U.S. Steel couldn't fill openings because nobody believed the jobs would exist much longer. In many ways, U.S. Steel's Mon Valley plants are relics of steelmaking's past. In the early 1970s, U.S. steel production led the world and was at an all-time high, thanks to 62 coke plants that fed 141 blast furnaces. Nobody in the U.S. has built a blast furnace since then, as foreign competition devastated the American steel industry and coal fell out of favor. Now, China is dominant in steel and heavily invested in coal-based steelmaking. In the U.S., there are barely a dozen coke plants and blast furnaces left, as the country's steelmaking has shifted to cheaper electric arc furnaces that use electricity, not coal. Blast furnaces won't entirely go away, analysts say, because they produce metals that are preferred by automakers, appliance makers and oil and gas exploration firms. Still, Christopher Briem, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Social and Urban Research, questioned whether the Clairton plant really will survive much longer, given its age and condition. It could be particularly vulnerable if the economy slides into recession or the fundamentals of the American steel market shift, he said. 'I'm not quite sure it's all set in stone as people believe,' Briem said. 'If the market does not bode well for U.S. Steel, for American steel, is Nippon Steel really going to keep these things?' Levy writes for the Associated Press.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Changing jobs? How to protect your 401(k) from hidden fees
If you're not careful, 401(k) fees can eat away at your retirement savings. Here's what to know. A U.S. Government Accountability Office study reported that 41% of American workers are unaware that 401(k) plans carry fees. Yet these fees can cost a workers thousands (and thousands) of dollars throughout their working years, leaving them with smaller retirement accounts than expected. It's common to lose track of fees when deciding whether to roll your existing 401(k) over or leave it where it is. However, it's essential to know how much you're paying in 401(k) fees and the effect they'll have on your retirement account. Here's what you need to know about 401(k) fees when changing jobs, where to find them, and how to control them. If you're not changing jobs, these tips can help you take control of an existing 401(k) and the amount you're paying out in fees. 401(k) fees add up If you're changing jobs, it's possible that your old employer paid your retirement account fees on your behalf while you worked there. However, once you move on from the job, it's unlikely that the company will continue to cover those fees. If that's the case, your old retirement account may be exposed to fees you know nothing about. Let's say one of the fees you're suddenly responsible for paying is a $4.55 monthly non-employee account maintenance fee. You could lose $17,905 in fees throughout your career. More: Americans believe this is the No. 1 obstacle to saving for retirement Get a copy of your 401(k) fee schedule Whether it's an old account managed by a former employer or an account you're opening with your new employer, you need to know exactly where to find fee information. A fee schedule is typically buried deep in the 401(k) plan document, making it difficult to find. Knowing what to look for is the key. Your employer must provide documents detailing how much you're paying in fees. The fee-specific document is often called the 401(a)(5) fee disclosure, although it may have another name. If you don't have a copy somewhere at home, you can typically find it on your plan's website or through your company's human resources department. What to look for 401(k) plans label their fees with a variety of names. Here are some of the most common names: As you review the Participant Fee Disclosure, note any terms that suggest a fee. How to know if you're paying too much All 401(k) plans charge fees, and you can't avoid paying them. However, there are steps you can take to keep your costs to a minimum. 401(k) fees usually range from 0.5% to 2% or more of plan assets annually. If the fees associated with your retirement account are more than 0.5%, you're probably paying too much. The chunk of money going to fees each year represents money you could have kept in your retirement account and allowed to grow. What you can do to control 401(k) fees While you won't find a prospectus that covers your 401(k) as a whole, you will find individual prospectuses for each fund in your 401(k). A prospectus is a document that gives you detailed information about each investment, including objectives, expected outcomes, risks, and fees. Most plan administrators provide these documents online. If not, contact your 401(k) administrator or HR department. You may not be able to eliminate fees entirely, but here's what you can do to reduce them: 401(k) fees may not actually be "hidden," but they can definitely be a challenge to find. Knowing how to find them could be your superpower, your way of redirecting money once spent on fees toward investments. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs
General Motors, a cornerstone of American industry, is suffering the consequences of President Trump's unconstitutional 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. In the second quarter of 2025, GM suffered a $1.1 billion tariff blow to its operating income, slashing the company's profit margin from a healthy 9 percent to just 6.1 percent. Net income plunged by 36.1 percent from the prior quarter and by a staggering 40.7 percent compared to a year ago. Although the estimated tariff impact for the full year of $4 billion to $5 billion is less than 3 percent of GM's overall revenue, that cost represents more than half of the typical annual income for the company over the past decade. The consequences extend far beyond GM's balance sheet. Tariffs, paid by importers to the federal government, are partly absorbed by companies and partly passed to consumers. We've especially seen this in import-sensitive sectors including furnishings, appliances, clothes and toys. Men's shirts and sweaters, for instance, rose 4.9 percent in June alone. When businesses 'eat' the cost, as GM tried to do last quarter, the fallout is no less severe. Diminished earnings mean less capital for investment in better technology or expanded operations, slowing broader economic growth, fewer resources for pay raises or new jobs — hardly the boon for workers that tariff advocates promise. The data confirms this. Nationwide, 14,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the past two months, erasing all gains in 2025. In June, real average weekly earnings dropped by 0.4 percent, an annualized loss of nearly 5 percent. Shareholders are also feeling the pinch. Stock valuations track a company's expected future earnings. Since 2012, GM's stock price increased by more than 200 percent. GM's price-to-earnings ratio today stands at 6.83, almost identical to 2012 levels. Stock prices increased alongside earnings. A sustained $5 billion annual hit, wiping out over half of GM's annual net income, could erase more than $20 billion in market capitalization if valuations adjust. With tariffs eroding profits, is it any wonder that GM's stock has slid 8 percent since its post-2024 election peak and now languishes 13 percent off its 2021 highs? This affects millions of middle-class Americans and retirees with pensions and savings invested. More broadly, lower dividends and diminished returns discourage investment, starving companies of the capital needed to expand. The result: slower growth, fewer jobs and weaker wage gains. GM, to its credit, is fighting to offset 30 percent of this burden by boosting U.S. production, cutting costs and increasing domestic content to comply with the USMCA trade agreement's labyrinthine rules. Yet even if successful, the net impact of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion will devour a significant slice of GM's already thin margins. Profit margins at GM — as in most other sectors — are far less than conventional wisdom. GM's net profit margin over the past decade has averaged less than 5 percent. In other words, a $30,000 vehicle yields less than $1,500 in profit. GM's plans to shift some production to U.S. plants and rework supply chains is a testament to private enterprise's resilience. But make no mistake: These shifts sacrifice efficiency for compliance. Restructuring operations in a free market in pursuit of efficiency yields more profit, consumer benefit and economic growth. Doing so under duress to escape arbitrary tariffs may result in survival, but without these benefits. Resources that could have fueled innovation or lowered prices are now squandered on navigating artificial trade barriers. As an important sidenote, roughly half the tariff's cost stems from GM's South Korean operations, a stark reminder of the folly of taxing trade with allies. Rather than strengthening ties with democratic partners through bold free-trade agreements, these tariffs risk pushing nations like South Korea toward China, America's chief adversary. Far from economic strategy, it is geopolitical shortsightedness. Politicians sometimes prefer tariffs to other forms of taxation because they are less visible than taxes on income or sales. This makes it easier to dodge accountability by blaming 'greedy' corporations. For this reason, Trump called Jeff Bezos to deter Amazon from listing tariff costs on purchases. The White House press secretary labeled this a 'hostile and political act by Amazon.' Regardless, protectionism is not cost-free. Sustained tariffs will raise prices, shrink profits, erode real wages and slow economic growth. GM's quarterly results are a warning.
