Life360: Q1 Earnings Snapshot
SAN MATEO, Calif. (AP) — SAN MATEO, Calif. (AP) — Life360 Inc. (LIF) on Monday reported net income of $4.4 million in its first quarter.
On a per-share basis, the San Mateo, California-based company said it had net income of 5 cents.
The maker of location sharing mobile applications posted revenue of $103.6 million in the period.
_____
This story was generated by Automated Insights (http://automatedinsights.com/ap) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on LIF at https://www.zacks.com/ap/LIF
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Ford is navigating rare earth mineral supply chain disruptions, tariffs and more
Ford Motor Co.'s chief financial officer outlined how tariffs and supply chain disruptions are expected to impact Ford's vehicle production and its costs during a wide-reaching interview with a Wall Street analyst June 4. Ford CFO Sherry House said the Dearborn, Michigan-based carmaker will provide more details on the economic impact from President Donald Trump's tariffs and other policy changes in its second-quarter earnings next month. But she cautioned there are still many unknowns being sorted out, all of which could make Ford's upcoming financials "a bit lumpy," she said. "As we move into the next couple of weeks to prepare for the quarter, if we give guidance it will be in the caveats of what we can't define," House said. "If we don't, we're going to give you every piece of information that we feel we can to help you, other analysts and investors to understand the business as much as possible.' Here are the top takeaways from House's fireside chat with analyst Joe Spak at the UBS Auto and Auto Tech Conference in New York on June 4: House said Ford has seen some backlogs to getting rare earth minerals into the supply chain, so Spak asked how that could impact vehicle production. 'There are many components that rare earth minerals are in and many of those that are coming from China require you to now go through export controls, so there's an additional layer of administrative process that has to happen," House said. She said sometimes the components pass through smoothly, other times there are holdups and that's when Ford has to take action to mitigate any disruptions. "You have to look for alternative parts or alternative ways to get things," House said. "Frequently, it goes through, it just may take more time. So then you might be facing expedited shipment costs that you weren't anticipating and it just puts stress on a system that's highly organized with parts being ordered many weeks in advance." She said Ford has been managing the issue so far, but warned, "I don't know if at some point this is going to be a larger issue for us?" In case you missed it: Ford recall could force over 1 million drivers to use this safety technique As for Trump's latest tariff: a boost in steel and aluminum to 50%, House said the impact on Ford should be minimal because Ford buys all its aluminum from domestic suppliers and it buys 80% of steel from U.S. sources. Ford will manage any price increases in steel through "contract pricing," meaning prices have already been set. "So when all of this hits, there is a delayed impact," she said. On April 29, Trump signed an executive order that set up a complicated system of federal reimbursements on certain imports of auto parts and components for the next two years used in vehicles made in the United States. The order gives Detroit's automakers some relief from what Trump earlier had ordered — 25% tariffs on all imported autos which began in April and another 25% on all imported auto parts set to begin by May 3. Spak asked House how Ford is getting the federal reimbursements for the parts that are compliant with the United States Mexico Canada Agreement as outlined in the order Trump signed at the end of April. She said a lot of that is still being defined. "I don't completely know," House said. "So you're paying the tariffs now. I think it's very possible that there will be a delay in getting those offset. I'm talking about the parts offset. It could be by a quarter, it could be by a couple of quarters. But all of you who are looking at our financials in Q2, Q3 and Q4, are going to have to know that it's going to be a bit lumpy. You might have more expense before you actually get the money reimbursed.' The good news for Ford is 80% of the parts used on its vehicles are USMCA-compliant and 80% of the vehicles it sells in the United States are built here. Still, the automaker warned during its first-quarter earnings report that tariffs will add $1.5 billion in net costs this year. For the 20% of suppliers who import parts, House said Ford is having conversations with them, seeking ways to help mitigate Ford's exposure to tariffs and lower those costs, while also meeting the business obligations of its suppliers. 'As we face the tariff situation, we face it together," House said of Ford's suppliers. "The types of conversations we are having are around: Do you have additional capacity in the U.S.? Could you move to the U.S.? What types of investments might help you get there?' But she explained that it is "a very complex and nuanced situation" with the supply base as to which suppliers to press for changes. Ford considers the kinds of quality, cost, technology and performance a supplier has provided in the past as to how it works with them around the tariffs, she said. 'But on an individual basis we're decided whether or not it makes sense to make some of these changes," House said. "I don't have anything to announce with you right now, but, of course, you would look at some of your higher priced components first, items that affect more vehicles, that would be the order of operations.' House did not address a May 25 report in the Wall Street Journal that cited sources as saying Ford would share production space in its battery plant in Kentucky with rival Nissan. The move signals Ford's retrenchment from electric vehicle investments and it helps the Japanese automaker reduce its exposure to tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. But House did say given the "very competitive global landscape" with companies having different needs and levels of technology, it makes sense to be thinking about partnerships so as to get more efficiency, especially if it is an area where Ford does not need to be No. 1. She said the automaker is "absolutely open" to doing more partnerships than the ones it currently has in place. House joined Ford about a year ago and became its CFO in recent months. When asked how she has seen the company change culturally, she listed a few ways: First, Ford has started to put more specialists in roles as opposed to putting a really great generalist in roles. For example, when it named Liz Door as its chief supply chain officer in 2023. House called her "an amazing supply chain leader at the forefront of that thinking." House said she has challenged Ford to think about "not letting your governance define what the pace of the business is going to be." "What happens is big companies … you have weekly meetings on a topic, you have monthly meetings on topic, you have quarterly meetings on a topic. What happens when you set up your business that way is you are running to that governance structure and you're only doing the work to get ready for that weekly meeting or monthly meeting," House said. "But if you can step back and let the priorities define the pace versus the governance structure, the business define the pace, I think you can go a lot faster and you can make sure you're focused on the right things.' She said Ford also has looked to "break boundary constraints" in its strategy meetings. "If you're having meetings with just one function, a lot of times you can't break the boundary constraints because you don't have everybody in the room that can tell you can do something. So you feel like you can't," House said. "So having more cross functional meetings as well. These are all tactics that can make a difference." Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@ Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Ford CFO outlines how company is working through supply, tariff issues
