Global Markets Mostly Fall; Oil Price Rises on Fresh Iran, Israel Attacks
Oil prices headed higher again Tuesday as Iran and Israel launched fresh attacks against each other.
The latest strikes came after President Trump left the Group of Seven summit early to deal with the crisis and after social-media posts in which Trump urged an immediate evacuation of Tehran. Investors retreated from risky assets–U.S. stock futures fell and Treasury yields eased.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With 59% ownership in Robinhood Markets, Inc. (NASDAQ:HOOD), institutional investors have a lot riding on the business
Given the large stake in the stock by institutions, Robinhood Markets' stock price might be vulnerable to their trading decisions The top 25 shareholders own 47% of the company Insiders have sold recently Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Robinhood Markets, Inc. (NASDAQ:HOOD) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 59% ownership. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk). And last week, institutional investors ended up benefitting the most after the company hit US$64b in market cap. One-year return to shareholders is currently 245% and last week's gain was the icing on the cake. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Robinhood Markets. See our latest analysis for Robinhood Markets Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. We can see that Robinhood Markets does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Robinhood Markets' historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Robinhood Markets. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is currently the largest shareholder, with 8.4% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 6.8% and 4.6% of the stock. Baiju Bhatt, who is the second-largest shareholder, also happens to hold the title of Top Key Executive. In addition, we found that Vladimir Tenev, the CEO has 0.8% of the shares allocated to their name. On studying our ownership data, we found that 25 of the top shareholders collectively own less than 50% of the share register, implying that no single individual has a majority interest. While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. We can report that insiders do own shares in Robinhood Markets, Inc.. Insiders own US$5.4b worth of shares (at current prices). we sometimes take an interest in whether they have been buying or selling. With a 32% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Robinhood Markets. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies. While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 1 warning sign with Robinhood Markets , and understanding them should be part of your investment process. But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Trump shatters ethics norms with a Qatari jet and a $499 smartphone, experts lament Biden's ‘failure' to pass reforms
Ethics watchdogs rarely mince words about President Donald Trump. They've called him the most corrupt and conflicted president in US history. And since he returned to the White House, they've watched with horror as he privately dined with wealthy investors for his personal memecoin fund, brazenly accepted a $400 million luxury airplane from Qatar and purged inspectors general from federal agencies. Adding to their long list of gripes, the president's company announced Monday that it was launching Trump Mobile, a wireless service with monthly plans and a $499 smartphone, which would be regulated by many of the federal agencies now run by Trump appointees. That has led to soul-searching among Washington, DC's self-appointed ethics watchdogs at advocacy groups and think tanks, who are wondering how this could've been prevented. Some have championed liberal causes for years; others aren't beholden to either party but are stunned by Trump's sea-change to the ethics landscape. While they primarily hold Trump responsible for his own actions, they're increasingly concluding that former President Joe Biden also deserves some of the blame. 'The single biggest failure of the Biden administration was that he and Congress didn't pass any post-Watergate-style reforms,' said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, director of government affairs at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight. 'President Biden had zero interest in doing that, and congressional Democrats didn't have much interest.' Many of these experts, including Biden allies, say much more could've been done to get legislation across the finish line when Democrats had unified control in DC. House Democrats passed a landmark ethics and democracy bill in late 2021, but it languished. It would've banned officials from taking foreign money (as Trump has with his memecoin). It would've tightened the rules for who can serve as acting leaders at federal agencies (a loophole Trump used to install loyalists). It would've protected civil servants from being reclassified and fired (which Trump is trying to do). it would've added job protections for inspectors general (Trump summarily fired more than a dozen in January). And it would've added transparency to the pardon process (which Trump has wielded to reward allies). But one former Biden administration official faulted Trump alone. 'Blaming Biden when Trump breaches ethical norms is a prime example of the Democratic Party's problem right now,' the former Biden administration official told CNN. 'The suggestion is that the previous administration should have passed more laws? They're not following the current ones. The reality is, there is no way to Trump-proof the government.' In response to CNN's questions about Trump breaking ethics norms, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said Trump is 'restoring the integrity of the Executive Branch' and claimed Trump's administration is the 'most transparent in American history.' The Office of Government Ethics didn't respond to requests for comment about how Trump is avoiding conflicts of interests. (In February, Trump fired the Biden-appointed director of the agency, who was confirmed in December by the Senate in a party-line vote.) The Trump Organization rolled out a new ethics pledge in January. Attorneys for the company said Trump won't be involved in managing his real estate empire, that they won't pursue new deals with foreign governments, and that an outside adviser would review all major deals – including deals with foreign businesses that will be allowed to continue. Trump took these steps voluntarily, 'to avoid even the appearance of any conflict,' the lawyers wrote, even though some federal ethics laws don't apply to the president, and 'neither federal law nor the United States Constitution prohibits any President from continuing to own, operate and/or manage their businesses' while in the White House. Presidents have limited time and political capital to enact their agenda. Some outside experts said it was clear that Biden prioritized other landmark laws – on Covid-19 relief, health care, climate change, infrastructure and gun control – instead of ethics reforms. 'That should have been the low-hanging fruit for Congress and the president when there was unified control,' said Daniel Weiner of the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice. Hedtler-Gaudette said that during strategy sessions about reforms, Biden White House officials would often say they were doing their part by 'promoting a culture of compliance' by adhering to ethics laws. 'But compliance means you're complying with the weak set of laws that are already on the books,' Hedtler-Gaudette said, 'and not improving them.' House Democrats did pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act in December 2021, but the Democratic-run Senate never took action on the legislation. (Ten Republicans would've needed to cross party lines to break a filibuster for the Senate to even consider the bill.) 'The Biden administration did not put its weight behind that, and those sorts of reforms really need the buy-in of the administration,' Weiner said. 'It should've been a priority.' A former Democratic Hill staffer, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said ethics bills 'fell by the wayside' under Biden to make space for more pressing national needs. 'We were still in the worst parts of the pandemic. There were a lot of critical, in-your-face issues that needed to be fixed,' they said. 'We had just defeated Trump, and it was difficult for Democrats to wrap their heads around the fact that he could really come back. These ethics bills would've moved up the priority list if we had internalized that possibility.' Donald Sherman, the top lawyer at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Trump has redefined what the mainstream deems acceptable. 'Government corruption isn't unique to one political party,' Sherman said. 'But Trump is singular in shifting the Overton window so far, in breaking rules that most people in government could never even imagine breaking, that it's impossible to ignore.' CREW calls itself nonpartisan and has filed ethics complaints in the past against top Democrats, including under Biden. But like many 'good government' groups, it has increasingly adopted a staunch anti-Trump posture, as he keeps pushing the limits. In that vein, CREW led the unsuccessful effort to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot based on the Constitution's 'insurrectionist ban.' These watchdog groups are looking back longingly to when Trump's power was at its nadir. Trump's approval rating tanked after the January 6, 2021, insurrection. And when Biden was sworn in, Democrats had unified control of Washington for the first time in a decade. In those early weeks of the Biden era, a bipartisan House majority voted to impeach Trump, and a bipartisan Senate majority supported the effort, though it fell short of the 67 senators needed for conviction. 'The period after January 6, in the first years of President Biden's term, was an example of a missed opportunity,' Sherman said. 'This is a glaring moment now, because the corruption of President Trump's first term has predictably escalated.'
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's Cosco Eyes Stake in MSC-BlackRock Panama Ports Deal
Cosco Shipping could potentially be a new partner in the deal that would transfer two ports on the sides of the Panama Canal to Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and BlackRock. China's largest container shipping company is one of multiple Chinese state-backed companies that is in discussion to invest in the consortium to buy more than 40 ports from port operator CK Hutchison Holdings, according to a report from Bloomberg. More from Sourcing Journal Apparel Tariffs Climbed to Historic Highs in April China-to-US Freight Rates 'No Longer Surging'-Is it All Downhill from Here? Trump Touts Higher Duty Rate for Chinese Imports Under New Trade Deal The addition of Chinese investors emerged as a potential option as the current iteration of the deal has hit regulatory roadblocks in the country amid a power struggle with the U.S. over influence on the trade artery. The Panama Canal Authority acknowledged the sale could put the waterway's neutrality at risk. China's antitrust body is currently probing the deal after reports that President Xi Jinping was unhappy with the port sale by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison. It is unclear what stake Cosco would have if a port deal took place, or what ports it would gain control over. The deal itself followed President Donald Trump's rhetoric that the U.S. should 'take back' the canal, partly due to Washington's worries that Hutchison's ownership of the adjacent ports poses national security concerns for U.S. trade interests. But according to the Bloomberg report, the idea to include Chinese investors in the MSC/BlackRock consortium came to be after high-stakes tariff negotiations in Switzerland concluded last month between Chinese and U.S. officials. Cosco's—or any other Chinese company's—involvement could still sound off some bells due to their state-owned status, according to analysis by Drewry provided after a webinar on the deal held Thursday. 'This will be problematic in many jurisdictions, for example Cosco was limited to taking only a 24.99 percent stake in Container Terminal Tollerort in Hamburg' in 2021, Drewry said. A previous Financial Times report from early June indicates that Hutchison is also considering exploring a sale of some or all of its remaining 10 ports in greater China in a separate deal as a way to appease the U.S. and China. 'We would expect that if sold that both Cosco Shipping Ports and China Merchants Ports would be likely candidates, but there may be competition concerns here given existing strength of these companies in the Chinese port sector,' according to Drewry. A 145-day period for exclusive talks between Hutchison and the consortium ends in late July. The parties have already missed an initial goal of signing an agreement on the Panama part of the deal by early April. If a deal goes through as initially planned, it would cost $22.8 billion for the ports to switch hands, with CK Hutchison netting more than $19 billion in cash from the transaction. MSC would be the lead investor in this acquisition through its Terminal Investment Limited (TIL) terminal operator subsidiary, various reports have said. The ocean freight giant is setting itself up as the dominant figure across container shipping and port terminals if a tentative deal to acquire the Panama ports clears approval. But that remains a big if—and a resolution isn't going to come quick. 'We're going to be talking about this deal for at least a year, if not longer, while it makes its way through regulatory approvals,' said Eleanor Hadland, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry, during the webinar. An approved deal would thrust MSC into the position of largest global terminal operator worldwide, up from its rank of seventh in 2023, Drewry said. When including the 43 ports from Hutchison, which comprise 199 berths in 23 countries, MSC would have a terminal capacity of 196 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs), giving the firm equity interest in more than 15 percent of global capacity. 'While it's unlikely that MSC/TIL will be allowed to take over all of Hutchison's assets due to market concentration concerns from the relevant competition authorities, it's also unlikely that this would make a large enough dent in the combined portfolio to affect this final outcome of going up to first place in the rankings,' said Eirik Hooper, senior associate of ports and terminals at Drewry. The MSC shakeup would spark an uptrend of 'hybrid' global terminal operators (GTOs), Hooper pointed out. For the first time, three hybrid operators would be represented among the top five GTOs, including MSC, Cosco (fourth) and Maersk (fifth) through its APM Terminals division. Hooper acknowledged the risks of consolidation within the industry, namely for liners without terminal-operating capacity, noting that the larger ports will typically see greater alignment between ownership of the terminal and the customer base of the terminal. However, these carriers can still reap benefits in a hybrid-dominated environment, he said. 'In small-medium ports, even where terminals are operated by a hybrid GTO, they are catering to all liners calling at the port. While this may sound less than ideal, terminal service agreements specify the berth windows, productivity and price therefore minimizing the risk of 'preferential treatment' for aligned carriers,' Hooper said. 'In some markets, the investment by a hybrid operator may be motivated to improve service levels for their own shipping services, but equipment upgrades and service level improvements will benefit all users.' Sign in to access your portfolio
