EMCOR Services Northeast, J.C. Higgins, and BTE Raise $20,000 for Local Charities
Paul Feeney, President, EMCOR Services Northeast, Inc.; Bill Dunham, CEO, and Tammy Ferland, President, J.C. Higgins Corp.; and Tom Coates, General Manager and Vice President, BTE, presented donations to the Jimmy Fund, the Alzheimer's Association and the Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation for Autism. The Jimmy Fund received $7,500 to support the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute for patient care and research, the Alzheimer's Association received $7,500 to advance Alzheimer's care and research, and the Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation for Autism received $5,000 to help fund programs and resources for individuals and families affected by autism.
'We are incredibly proud of the success of this year's Invitational, an event which speaks to our core values and commitment to the communities where we work and live,' said Feeney. 'We extend our deepest gratitude to the volunteers, clients, participants and peers who make this annual event possible and thank the Jimmy Fund, the Alzheimer's Association and the Doug Flutie Jr. Foundation for Autism for the important work they do in our community.'
EMCOR Services Northeast, J.C. Higgins, and BTE are leading mechanical services, mechanical construction, and facilities services contractors, respectively, in Greater Boston. They are all subsidiaries of EMCOR Group, Inc.
About EMCOR Services Northeast, J.C. Higgins and BTE
EMCOR Services Northeast is one of the largest independent service contractors in metropolitan Boston and among the nation's top mobile/mechanical services providers. J.C. Higgins is one of New England's largest fully integrated mechanical contracting companies, providing a single-source solution for complete mechanical systems and services. BTE provides a complete range of facilities services, including equipment repair and replacement, preventative and predictive maintenance, and facility/equipment operations. All three companies are subsidiaries of EMCOR Group, Inc., (NYSE:EME), a Fortune 500 ® leader in mechanical and electrical construction, industrial and energy infrastructure, and building services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Snap Stock Plunged After Earnings. Buy the Dip?
Key Points Sponsored Snaps are showing strong engagement and conversion gains. Subscription revenue from Snapchat+ is growing quickly from a small base. Heavy stock-based compensation and dilution keep valuation concerns high. 10 stocks we like better than Snap › Snap (NYSE: SNAP), the parent company of social media platform Snapchat, took a hard hit following its second‑quarter earnings release earlier this month. Shares tumbled, driven by worries about slowing growth, execution missteps, and a worsening net loss. But dig deeper, and the underlying narrative is more nuanced; there were a lot of positives in the report, too. Revenue and users continue to grow at a robust rate, free cash flow has turned positive year over year, and new ad formats, such as sponsored Snaps, are demonstrating real engagement traction. Given the mix of good and bad in its underlying business and the stock's recent sell-off, it makes sense to check whether the shares have been pushed into oversold territory. Let's look at what changed in the business and what it might mean for investors today. Momentum in key areas Snap reported second-quarter revenue of $1.345 billion, marking a 9% gain from a year earlier. Further, the lifeblood of the company -- user activity -- performed exceptionally well. Daily active users (DAUs) rose 9% to 469 million, while monthly active users (MAUs) climbed 7% to 932 million. Operating cash flow reached $88 million, and free cash flow came in positive at $24 million, a notable reversal from the previous year, when the company burned cash. Still, Snap posted a net loss of $263 million (wider than a net loss of $249 million in the year-ago quarter), and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) slid lower on a year-over-year basis to $41 million, underscoring that profitability remains out of reach. An ad platform glitch -- where auction settings pushed some campaigns to clear at unusually low prices -- weighed on performance early in the quarter. Snap reversed the change mid-period, and management said that advertiser activity is of my favorite data points to support the bull case: On the diversification front, "other revenue" -- primarily from subscriptions like Snapchat+ -- grew 64% year over year, and Snapchat+ subscribers rose roughly 42%, nearing 16 million. One of the quarter's most promising developments was sponsored Snaps -- video ads delivered directly into users' inboxes. Snap co-founder Evan Spiegel said in the company's second-quarter earnings call that after a user opens a sponsored Snap from their chat feed, they "exhibit significantly higher engagement per full-screen ad view, driving a 2x increase in conversion, a 5x increase in click-to-convert ratios and a 2x increase in website dwell times compared to other inventories. That signals a powerful new lever for monetizing deeply engaged the company's fast-growing subscription business, advertising revenue growth trends after the glitch was addressed, and momentum in sponsored Snaps, management guided for continued top-line growth in Q3. Valuation remains a concern Despite a handful of promising trends at Snap, valuation remains troubling. The company has long leaned on equity dilution and stock-based compensation to fund growth. While Q2 did include a $243 million share repurchase (30 million shares), its stock-based compensation burden remains high. Full-year stock-based comp is still pegged north of $1.1 billion, even after recent downward revisions. Keep in mind that we're talking about a company with only a $12 billion market cap. Dilution continues to erode per-share value, even as Snap shows cash generation. So while the sell-off may feel overdone, the stock hasn't quite yet fallen low enough to make it a bargain. Of course, I could be wrong. A potential bull case lies not in near-term profits but in optionality -- whether Snap can scale newer revenue streams, stabilize pricing, and get to a point where it doesn't need to regularly materially dilute shareholders. Overall, Snap trades at a valuation that remains questionable given its history of dilution and heavy reliance on noncash compensation. But the emergence of fast-growing subscription revenue, sponsored Snaps, better cash flow, and an engaged user base make it extremely interesting -- worthy of a high spot on any investor's watchlist. Should you buy stock in Snap right now? Before you buy stock in Snap, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Snap wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Daniel Sparks and his clients have no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Snap Stock Plunged After Earnings. Buy the Dip? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This CEO laid off nearly 80% of his staff because they refused to adopt AI fast enough. 2 years later, he says he'd do it again
Eric Vaughan, CEO of enterprise-software powerhouse IgniteTech, is unwavering as he reflects on the most radical decision of his decades-long career. In early 2023, convinced that generative AI was an 'existential' transformation, Vaughan looked at his team and saw a workforce not fully on board. His ultimate response: He ripped the company down to the studs, replacing nearly 80% of staff within a year, according to headcount figures reviewed by Fortune. Over the course of 2023 and into the first quarter of 2024, Vaughan said IgniteTech replaced hundreds of employees, declining to disclose a specific number. 'That was not our goal,' he told Fortune. 'It was extremely difficult … But changing minds was harder than adding skills.' It was, by any measure, a brutal reckoning—but Vaughan insists it was necessary, and says he'd do it again. For Vaughan, the writing on the wall was clear and dramatic. 'In early 2023, we saw the light,' he told Fortune in an interview, adding that he believed every tech company was facing a crucial inflection point around adoption of artificial intelligence. 'Now I've certainly morphed to believe that this is every company, and I mean that literally every company, is facing an existential threat by this transformation.' Where others saw promise, Vaughan saw urgency—believing that failing to get ahead on AI could doom even the most robust business. He called an all-hands meeting with his global, remote team. Gone were the comfortable routines and quarterly goals. Instead, his message was direct: Everything would now revolve around AI. 'We're going to give a gift to each of you. And that gift is tremendous investment of time, tools, education, projects … to give you a new skill,' he explained. The company began reimbursing for AI tools and prompt engineering classes, and even brought in outside experts to evangelize. 'Every single Monday was called 'AI Monday,'' Vaughan said, with his mandate for staff that they could only work on AI. 'You couldn't have customer calls, you couldn't work on budgets, you had to only work on AI projects.' He said this happened across the board, not just for tech workers, but also for sales, marketing, and everybody at IgniteTech. 'That culture needed to be built. That was… that was the key.' This was a major investment, he added: 20% of payroll was dedicated to a mass-learning initiative, and it failed because of mass resistance, even sabotage. Belief, Vaughan discovered, is a hard thing to manufacture. 'In those early days, we did get resistance, we got flat-out, 'Yeah, I'm not going to do this' resistance. And so we said goodbye to those people.' The pushback: Why didn't they get on board? Vaughan was surprised to find it was often the technical staff, not marketing or sales, who dug in their heels. They were the 'most resistant,' he said, voicing various concerns about what the AI couldn't do, rather than focusing on what it could. The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added. This friction is borne out by broader research. According to the 2025 enterprise AI adoption report by WRITER, an AI platform that specifically helps enterprise clients with AI integration, one in three workers say they've 'actively sabotaged' their company's AI rollout—a number that jumps to 41% of millennial and Gen Z employees. This can take the form of refusing to use AI tools, intentionally generating low-quality outputs, or avoiding training altogether. Many act out due to fears that AI will replace their jobs, while others are frustrated by lackluster AI tools or unclear strategy from leadership. WRITER's Chief Strategy Officer Kevin Chung told Fortune the 'big eye-opening thing' from this survey was the human element of AI resistance. 'This sabotage isn't because they're afraid of the technology … It's more like there's so much pressure to get it right, and then when you're handed something that doesn't work, you get frustrated.' He added that WRITER's research shows that workers often don't trust where their organizations are headed. 'When you're handed something that isn't quite what you want, it's very frustrating, so the sabotage kicks in, because then people are like, 'Okay, I'm going to run my own thing. I'm going to go figure it out myself.'' You definitely don't want this kind of 'shadow IT' in an organization, he added. Vaughan says he didn't want to force anyone. 'You can't compel people to change, especially if they don't believe.' He added that belief was really the thing he needed to recruit for. Company leadership ultimately realized they'd have to launch a massive recruiting effort for what became known as 'AI Innovation Specialists.' This applied across the board, to sales, finance. marketing, everywhere. Vaughan said this time was 'really difficult' as things inside the company were 'upside down … We didn't really quite know where we were or who we were yet.' A couple key hires helped, starting with the person who became IgniteTech's chief AI officer, Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu. That led to a full reorganization of the company that Vaughan called 'somewhat unusual.' Essentially, every division now reports into the AI organization, regardless of domain. This centralization, Vaughan says, prevented duplication of efforts and maximized knowledge sharing—a common struggle in AI adoption, where WRITER's survey shows 71% of the C-suite at other companies say AI applications are being created in silos and nearly half report their employees left to 'figure generative AI out on their own.' No pain, no gain? In exchange for this difficult transformation, IgniteTech reaped extraordinary results. By the end of 2024, the company had launched two patent-pending AI solutions, including a platform for AI-based email automation (Eloquens AI), with a radically rebuilt team. Financially, IgniteTech remained strong. Vaughan disclosed that the company, which he said is in the nine-figure revenue range, finished 2024 at 'near 75% EBITDA'—all while completing a major acquisition, Khoros. 'You multiply people … give people the ability to multiply themselves and do things at a pace,' he said, touting the company's ability to build new customer-ready products in as little as four days—an unthinkable timeline in the old regime. What does Vaughan's story say for others? On one level, it's a case study in the pain and payoff of radical change management. But his ruthless approach arguably addresses many challenges identified in the WRITER survey: lack of strategy and investment, misalignment between IT and business, and the failure to engage champions who can unlock AI's benefits. The 'boy who cried wolf' problem To be sure, IgniteTech is far from alone in wrestling with these challenges. Joshua Wöhle is the CEO of Mindstone, a firm similar to WRITER that provides AI upskilling services to workforces, training hundreds of employees monthly at companies including Lufthansa, Hyatt, and NBA teams. He recently discussed the two approaches described by Vaughan—upskilling and mass replacement—in an appearance on BBC Business Today. Wöhle contrasted the recent examples of Ikea and Klarna, arguing the former's example shows why it's better to 'reskill' existing employees. Klarna, a Swedish buy-now pay-later firm, drew considerable publicity for a decision to reduce members of its customer support staff in a pivot to AI, only to rehire for the same roles. 'We're near the point where [AI is] more intelligent than most people doing knowledge work. But that's precisely why augmentation beats automation,' Wöhle wrote on LinkedIn. A representative for Klarna told Fortune the company did not lay off employees, but has instead adopted several approaches to its customer service, which is managed by outsourced customer-service providers who are paid according to the volume of work required. The launch of an AI customer-service assistant reduced the workload by the equivalent of 700 full-time agents—from roughly 3,000 to 2,300—and the third-party providers redeployed those 700 workers to other clients, according to Klarna. Now that the AI customer service agent is 'handling more complex queries than when we launched,' Klarna says, that number has fallen to 2,200. Klarna says its contractor has rehired just two people in a pilot program designed to combine highly trained human support staff with AI to deliver outstanding customer service. In an interview with Fortune, Wöhle said one client of his has been very blunt with his workers, ordering them to dedicate all Fridays to AI retraining, and if they didn't report back on any of their work, they were invited to leave the company. He said it can be 'kinder' to dismiss workers who are resistant to AI: 'The pace of change is so fast that it's the kinder thing to force people through it.' He added that he used to think that if he got all workers to really love learning, then that could help Mindstone make a real difference, but he discovered after training literally thousands of people that 'most people hate learning. They'd avoid it if they can.' Wöhle attributed much of the AI resistance in the workforce to a 'boy who cried wolf' problem from the tech sector, citing NFTs and blockchain as technologies that were billed as revolutionary but 'didn't have the real effect' that tech leaders promised. 'You can't really blame them' for resisting, he said. Most people 'get stuck because they think from their work flow first,' he added, and they conclude AI is overhyped because they want AI to fit into their old way of working. 'It takes a lot more thinking and a lot more kind of prodding for you to change the way that you work,' but once you do, you see dramatic increases. A human can't possibly keep five call transcripts in their head while you're trying to write a proposal to a client, he offers, but AI can. Ikea echoed Wöhle when reached for comment, saying that its 'people-first AI approach focuses on augmentation, not automation.' A spokesperson said Ikea is using AI to automate tasks, not jobs, freeing up time for value-added, human-centric work. The WRITER report notes that companies with formal AI strategies are far more likely to succeed, and those who heavily invest in AI outperform their peers by a large margin. But, as Vaughan's experience shows, investment without belief and buy-in can be wasted energy. 'The culture needed to be built. Ultimately, we ended up having to go out and recruit and hire people that were already of the same mind. Changing minds was harder than adding skills.' For Vaughan, there's no ambiguity. Would he do it again? He doesn't hesitate: He'd rather endure months of pain and build a new, AI-driven foundation from scratch than let an organization drift into irrelevance. 'This is not a tech change. It is a cultural change, and it is a business change.' He said he doesn't recommend that others follow his lead and swap out 80% of their staff. 'I do not recommend that at all. That was not our goal. It was extremely difficult.' But at the end of the day, he added, everybody's got to be in the same boat, rowing in the same direction. Otherwise, 'we don't get where we're going.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
EQT Corporation's (NYSE:EQT) high institutional ownership speaks for itself as stock continues to impress, up 3.0% over last week
Explore EQT's Fair Values from the Community and select yours Key Insights Significantly high institutional ownership implies EQT's stock price is sensitive to their trading actions A total of 15 investors have a majority stake in the company with 50% ownership Insiders have sold recently AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. A look at the shareholders of EQT Corporation (NYSE:EQT) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 88% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. And last week, institutional investors ended up benefitting the most after the company hit US$33b in market cap. The one-year return on investment is currently 67% and last week's gain would have been more than welcomed. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about EQT. See our latest analysis for EQT What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About EQT? Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. We can see that EQT 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. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It's therefore worth looking at EQT's earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters. Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. EQT is not owned by hedge funds. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is currently the largest shareholder, with 12% of shares outstanding. BlackRock, Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 7.6% of common stock, and Wellington Management Group LLP holds about 6.9% of the company stock. After doing some more digging, we found that the top 15 have the combined ownership of 50% in the company, suggesting that no single shareholder has significant control over the company. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily. Insider Ownership Of EQT The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. Our most recent data indicates that insiders own less than 1% of EQT Corporation. It is a very large company, so it would be surprising to see insiders own a large proportion of the company. Though their holding amounts to less than 1%, we can see that board members collectively own US$229m worth of shares (at current prices). In this sort of situation, it can be more interesting to see if those insiders have been buying or selling. General Public Ownership The general public-- including retail investors -- own 11% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. 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. Next Steps: While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. I like to dive deeper into how a company has performed in the past. You can access this interactive graph of past earnings, revenue and cash flow, for free. If you are like me, you may want to think about whether this company will grow or shrink. Luckily, you can check this free report showing analyst forecasts for its 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.
