Mercedes Teases Upscale VLE Van For America
While only the VLE was teased, Mercedes-Benz made it clear that the two upcoming vans will occupy different segments. The VLE is expected to be a practical people-mover with seating for up to eight people, so is expected to be a more premium alternative to minivans like the Honda Odyssey and Chrysler Pacifica.
Less was said about the VLS, but the 'S' in the name hints at a spacious model that will have much more luxurious accommodations; think of it as the S-Class of vans.
"The VLS will define a unique segment of its own that bestows true greatness to automotive luxury," said Mercedes. "For the first time, Mercedes-Benz will offer all-electric midsize luxury vehicles in the U.S., Canada, and China (Grand Limousines)."
Both models will ride on the new scalable Van Architecture - also known as VAN.EA, previewed last year - coming in 2026, which accommodates both luxury-focused Grand Limousines and more commercial-type vans.
Considering the renewed interest in minivans in America, it looks like there is justification for the VLE and VLS to be sold here.
Related: It's The Year 2000 Again As Minivans Soar In Popularity
Two VLE test vehicles were tested over a distance of 683 miles, from Stuttgart to Rome. They only required two 15-minute charging stops to complete the journey. A mix of long highway stretches, packed rural roads, and cramped city streets tested the comfort and agility of the electric van, which is equipped with rear-axle steering to improve maneuverability.
"Our future MPVs have once again impressively demonstrated their suitability for everyday use on the long-distance route," said Dr. Andreas Zygan, Head of Development at Mercedes-Benz Vans. "With just two short charging stops from Stuttgart to the Alps to Rome - the Mercedes-Benz VLE demonstrates the impressive efficiency of the new Van Electric Architecture."
Related: Every minivan you can buy in America in 2025
The VLE was almost completely covered in a camo wrap, but the narrow greenhouse and high beltline give it a less utilitarian profile than the V-Class. Cut-outs in the rear body show that this model has practical sliding doors, so getting in and out in tight spots should be easier.
Pricing will be key, but it's possible that the new VLE will be cross-shopped with the Volkswagen ID.Buzz and even three-row electric SUVs such as the Kia EV9. The VLS, however, is unlikely to have any direct rivals.
We expect more information to follow about these vans as we get closer to 2026.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
21 minutes ago
- CNBC
Coming to a 401(k) near you: Private market assets
Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan told attendees at an investor conference last month that the day will soon come when private assets are accessible in Americans' retirement accounts. "I would expect at some point, in this administration's history or in the future, to be able to sell private markets into the 401(k) system," Rowan said on stage at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago, Illinois, where the convergence of private and public markets was a major theme. Those comments come as no surprise from the billionaire CEO, who has long stressed the growing importance of private markets in investing. However, the idea is reaching a tipping point. Private market exposure in 401(k) plans was considered permissible in 2020, when the Department of Labor under the Trump administration issued an information letter indicating it could be appropriate for defined contribution plans under certain conditions. The guidance was later affirmed by the Biden-directed agency. But its presence is starting to expand. Asset managers and plan sponsors have created products for retirement vehicles in which Americans collectively hold roughly $8.7 trillion in assets, according to data on 401(k)s at the end of the first quarter of 2025 from the Investment Company Institute . In June, BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, said it's launching a 401(k) target date fund in the first half of 2026 that will include a 5% to 20% allocation to private investments. In May, Empower, the country's second-largest retirement plan provider, said it's joining asset managers such as Apollo to start allowing private assets in some accounts later this year. Those developments come amid a broader push under Trump's second term in office to expand the definition of "accredited investors" to allow more people to invest in private markets through their 401(k)s. Within the retirement plan industry itself, the conversation is reaching a fever pitch. Bonnie Treichel, chief solutions officer at Endeavor Retirement, said, "If you're at retirement plan-related conferences right now, this topic is all the rage, so to speak." Similarly, Fred Reish, a partner at law firm Faegre Drinker said: "It's not just out there somewhere on the horizon, I would say that's in the immediate future." How it works The strategies created for 401(k)s thus far will be coming in the form of pooled investments such as collective trusts, or managed accounts overseen by professional investors, instead of standalone investments assessed by individual employees. Adding private assets to target date funds, which automatically adjust allocations based on a retirement date, is one option that's growing in popularity in the industry. The structure of those investments are meant to address some of the regulatory concerns around the assets, which have traditionally been excluded from 401(k)s even as they were embraced by pension funds and university endowments. The treatment stems from the perception that private investments have risks such as a lack of transparency, which raises predatory concerns, as well as higher fees and long lockup periods. The 2020 Labor Department information letter also attempted to address those concerns, outlining that investments into private assets made within 401(k)s must be done with prudence, or held to the standard of a person who is "familiar with such matters," without which a company or an asset manager can open themselves up to legal ramifications. "If fiduciaries make a bad investment, not bad an outcome, but bad both in outcome and bad in that they didn't really vet it properly, they can be sued, and they can be personally liable for damages," said Reish, who specializes in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) that governs employee retirement plans. "So, not just the company, but also each individual member of the plan committee. Each of those officers and managers that serves on the plan committee can be personally liable. That's frightening." Intel, for example, had a lawsuit dismissed earlier this year by a federal appeals court in San Francisco after a yearslong dispute over its use of alternative assets in its retirement plans. Additionally, what that could also mean is that larger plan sponsors, which have the internal capabilities to vet private investments, could move faster to integrate privates into a 401(k) plan, rather than smaller companies. The case for privates Still, there are several reasons for the excitement around private assets in 401(k) plans. Proponents point out that the investable universe has shrunk over the last three decades, roughly halving to about 4,000 companies from more than 8,000 back in the 1990s, according to the Center for Research in Security Prices. At the same time, the dominance of the largest public companies grows increasingly pronounced with each passing year. CRSP found that the market cap of the top 10 companies accounted for 35% of the total market in 2024, more than double what it was before 2020. Meanwhile, more companies are staying private for longer. The decision helps executives build their businesses away from the glare of regulatory scrutiny or responsibilities to shareholders, but also makes it harder for investors to get in on the ground floor of the next Microsoft or Apple. Thus, the argument goes, private assets will give investors exposure to a market that looks markedly different from what it had in the past — even if it requires locking up capital for longer periods of time at greater cost and greater risk. Still, there are many who worry the risks far outweigh any benefits, calling private investments far too opaque for plan sponsors to do appropriate due diligence. "Being private does not make it better. It makes it less liquid," Apollo's Rowan told investors at the Chicago conference. "Our job is to deliver excess return."
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Break even at the casino? You may still owe taxes.
(DealBook) It's President Donald Trump's casino — and the house always wins. That is the crux of gamblers' frustration after they read Trump's landmark policy legislation, which includes an under-the-radar provision that amends how gambling income is taxed. Previously, gamblers were taxed like any other profession: If a poker player or sports bettor broke even, he or she would report zero taxable income. But starting next year, only 90% of losses will be deductible. When gamblers break even, or incur a net loss, they will still owe taxes — effectively a 10% penalty on gambling winnings. The change is expected to generate an additional $1.1 billion in tax revenue through 2034. 'It makes it impossible to gamble for a living,' said Phil Galfond, a professional poker player. Almost immediately after the law's contents became public, professional gamblers, gaming coalitions, lawmakers and members of the casino industry denounced the betting-related change, vowing to roll back the rule before it goes into effect. The backlash has set up a battle over earnings from the hundreds of billions of dollars that Americans legally wager each year through casinos, racetracks and sports betting apps. A new congressional bill aims to overturn the rule. Monday, Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., who is the cochair of the Congressional Gaming Caucus, introduced the Fair Accounting for Income Realized From Betting Earnings Taxation Act, or FAIR BET Act, which would restore the 100% deduction for gambling losses. 'It's taxing people on money that they don't have,' Titus said, 'and unfairly targeting one industry that should be treated like any other.' Cosponsored by a fellow Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., the legislation immediately received bipartisan support, with Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, signing on. Poker players fear accounting nightmares. Under the new rules, professional gamblers will not only pay more taxes and take home less net income but see these effects compound as they win and lose more money. For example: If a player wins $100,000 and loses $100,000 in a given year — breaking even, with zero net income — the player would owe taxes on $10,000 in 'earnings,' essentially phantom income. But if a player wins $1 million and loses $1 million — again, breaking even -- the player would owe taxes on $100,000. For professional poker players who regularly have winning and losing streaks well into the millions of dollars, this type of penalty for high-stakes play can spell ruin. Similarly, if a player claims a net loss at the end of the year, he or she will still owe taxes. For example: If a player wins $300,000 in the first half of the year but then goes on a losing streak and counts $315,000 in losses — ending the year with a net loss of $15,000 — the player will owe taxes on $16,500 because the deduction would be capped at 90% of the losses, or $283,500. Lobbyists for the gambling industry are in an awkward position. In May, the American Gaming Association, the lobbying arm of the casino and gambling industry, defended the current way of taxing gambling income in a letter to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 'This longstanding itemized deduction for gaming losses is not a subsidy for gaming customers,' the association wrote. 'It is a tool for properly measuring income.' Despite these tax-related preferences, the group supported Trump's bill, saying in a July 3 statement that the act significantly enhances the gambling industry's 'ability to sustain quality jobs and deliver economic benefits.' Now the American Gaming Association is backing the FAIR BET Act, which criticizes the bill it just endorsed. The tax-code change could have a profound effect. While the industry benefits from some of Trump's new economic policies, it may see a reduction in the amount of money that professional and amateur gamblers play with at commercial outlets, such as casinos, which in 2024 posted a record $72 billion in revenue. 'It will be tens of billions of dollars,' said Derek Stevens, owner and CEO of Circa Sports, a sports betting chain and app. 'It's definitely going to impact jobs, hotel occupancy, visitation and other elements of casino games,' he added. Some industry executives also believe the changes will push professional gamblers away from aboveground commercial establishments and into unregulated and illegal betting markets where they can avoid the financial penalty associated with reporting their income. 'It doesn't take all that much, frankly, to have $20 million a year in winnings and to have $19.8 million in losses,' Stevens said. 'All of that liquidity is going to be moving offshore, or moving to illegal books. I just don't think people fully digest the impact.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Dave Ramsey shares harsh truth about bankruptcy, mortgages, and buying a home
As the cost of living rises and wages stagnate, many Americans struggling to balance financial obligations. Household debt levels have been on the rise for the past few decades, as younger generations try to balance paying off student loans, saving for retirement, and buying a home in a difficult housing market. Bankruptcy rates have risen over the past decade, driven by more households battling unmanageable debt and the threat of housing foreclosure. Don't miss the move: SIGN UP for TheStreet's FREE daily newsletter Most consumers seeking debt relief file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (involving liquidating assets to repay creditors) and Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which reorganizes debt to be repaid within 3 to 5 years. While bankruptcy may be the best option for those facing insurmountable debt, it may also damage your credit score and prevent you from getting a mortgage and buying a home in the future. Dave Ramsey reveals how filing for bankruptcy can impact your financial standing in the long run. Image source: Shutterstock Credit scores are one of the biggest financial indicators lenders look at when assessing mortgage applications. A credit score not only demonstrates your ability to repay debt, but also strongly influences the interest rate you'll receive on a mortgage loan. Homebuyers with lower credit scores are deemed higher risk, and typically require a higher down payment to offset the heightened liability. Since bankruptcy involves getting debts discharged, it signals to lenders that a person may have trouble managing their debts going forward. Though the process may make sense overall financially, Experian estimates it takes an average of 200 points off of a credit score. More on personal finance: Chase revokes a major privilege customers love in 'calculated' moveDave Ramsey warns Americans on a homebuying mistake to avoid nowConcerning new trend poses major risk to Americans' financial securityMajor student loan change from White House may impact your debt "We won't sugarcoat it: bankruptcy is a devastating, life-altering decision that drags you through the legal mud for all to see. Beyond the emotional impact, here are some ways bankruptcy can wreck you financially," Ramsey said. He warns that consumers may be dealing with the fallout from bankruptcy up to a decade after filling. "It's important to know that a bankruptcy will affect your FICO score. Hard. And that hit lingers. In fact, Chapter 13 bankruptcies stay on your credit report for about seven years, and Chapter 7 bankruptcies stay on there for 10 years," he continued. The mortgage loan application process can be burdensome, involving employment history, proof of income, and the borrower's debts and credit score. Filing bankruptcy significantly hurts a consumer's credit score, making it difficult for homebuyers to get approved for mortgage loans or obtain a competitive interest rate. Ramsey explains that it will take several years for anyone who has filed for bankruptcy to financially recover and get approved for a mortgage. Related: Dave Ramsey predicts major mortgage rate changes are coming soon "A bankruptcy is a huge red flag for mortgage lenders. While it's not impossible to buy a home after going through bankruptcy, it could take one to four years before anyone will even think about letting you take out a mortgage," Ramsey continued. While each family's financial circumstance is unique, most Americans will find buying a home is far more difficult after bankruptcy. "How soon you can qualify again depends on the type of bankruptcy you filed and the type of mortgage." Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
