Sony hikes annual profit forecast by 4%, citing smaller trade war impact
In May, Sony forecast a profit of 1.28 trillion yen, factoring in a 100 billion yen hit from the tariffs.
The Japanese conglomerate has transformed from a maker of household electronics such as the Walkman to an entertainment behemoth spanning games, movies, music and chips.
Sony reported a 36.5% rise in operating profit to 340 billion yen for the April-June quarter, beating an estimate of 288 billion yen from eight analysts surveyed by LSEG.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Analysis: 4 possible outcomes of a gerrymandering battle royale
The American political system has for years transformed into a more partisan, brutalized and norm-scorning version of itself. The old rules are increasingly out; whatever-it-takes is increasingly in. Few developments epitomize that transformation like the burgeoning gerrymandering arms race. Texas Republicans' recent move to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade has little precedent, and for once nobody is pretending this is about anything other than raw politics. Republicans just want to make it harder for Democrats to flip a closely divided US House in 2026. A Texas Republican state representative told CNN the GOP is doing this 'because it's good for our party.' President Donald Trump said this week that the GOP is 'entitled to five more seats' in the state. This has led to promises of reprisals from Democrats. They've pledged to respond in kind by playing dirty in states where they could re-draw the maps, like California. Other states – red and blue – are actively considering jumping into the fray with their own map overhauls. All of it raises the prospect of something pretty scary and undemocratic: a continual race to the bottom in which districts are constantly redrawn whenever it suits one party or another, rather than once a decade. It's an inauspicious prospect, to say the least. Lawmakers could find themselves representing and seeking election in ever-changing districts to which they have little personal connection. Those districts' residents could become pawns in a sophisticated and constant game of divide-and-conquer. Adding to the potential chaos is the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, which has long required states to ensure minority communities are not barred from electing candidates of their choice. So what's to stop the madness? How could this ultimately shake out? Here are a few scenarios. So what if nobody can — or will — stop what's been set in motion? As many as a dozen states could conceivably be mined for partisan advantage by redrawing their maps either before the 2026 or 2028 elections. CNN has looked at some of them, in both red and blue states. Republicans could add as many as five seats in both Texas and in Florida. They could also go for smaller gains in states like Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and South Carolina. Democrats could conceivably try to add five districts in California, a handful in New York and possibly one more seat in states like Illinois and Maryland. That doesn't mean all of these efforts would succeed — or that the politicians in all these states would even try. Many of these states' maps were already extensively gerrymandered just a few years ago, after the 2020 census. Trying to add new seats could mean stretching a party's advantage in certain districts too thin — i.e. creating very marginal advantages — and having it backfire in a good election for the other side. (There is already some speculation this could happen in Texas.) Democrats also face significant legal hurdles in even attempting to re-draw the maps in states like California and New York. But if the gloves come off and this truly becomes a free-for-all, it's possible Republicans could flip between five and 10 seats, thanks to their superior opportunities. That's not an overwhelming shift, but it matters — the margin of victory for House control has been reliably narrow in recent election cycles. If Democrats won five more seats in 2024, they would currently control the chamber. Still, the real impact is arguably in the precedent it sets for a never-ending gerrymandering war. It's often the case that a such a partisan war appears unavoidable — right up until the moment the two sides avoid it. And there's a case to be made that they each have incentives to prevent this from truly getting ugly. One is the risk of the gerrymanders backfiring because the two sides get too aggressive. Another is that members whose own districts could be impacted start to balk. We're beginning to see this with some California and New York Republicans who could be targeted in retaliatory strikes urging Texas Republicans to back off. Even lawmakers who might not lose their seats often don't like having them diluted or extensively redrawn to facilitate their party's gains elsewhere; no one wants to sign up for a tougher reelection bid. It's conceivable that a handful of states pursue these gerrymanders — maybe Texas follows through, and California tries to retaliate — and then it fizzles because lawmakers decide it's just not worth it for such marginal gains. Maybe they even worry about democracy (a quaint thought, sure). Of course, it will be hard to reach such a détente, especially if Trump is intent on extracting whatever advantage he can. The president has demonstrated little regard for such norms or the prerogatives of even his fellow Republicans. And given the GOP clearly has more to gain here, the party has little incentive to back away. Perhaps the most efficient way to avoid this war is for Texas Democrats' walkout to actually, somehow, work. Texas is the canary in the coal mine here, and Democrats appear dug-in to do what they can to stop it. Dozens of lawmakers have left the state to prevent the legislature from getting the quorum it needs to do business. Republicans have issued a series of threats aimed at getting them to return. Those include talking about arrests, fines and a proposal from a Texas Republican facing a primary — Sen. John Cornyn — to enlist the FBI to help in some way. But those threats might not be as serious as Republicans would like to pretend they are. It's not at all clear what role the FBI could even play, for example, in the absence of laws being broken. The name of the game for Democrats is getting to early December. That's when time runs out for Texas Republicans to be able to re-draw the maps in time for the 2026 primaries. Walkouts often don't work, but sometimes they lead to some concessions. Perhaps Republicans begin to worry about the spotlight being cast on their power grab. Perhaps Democrats cut a deal to return that means smaller GOP gains, and the temperature drops. It might be the cleanest resolution. This is probably the most far-fetched resolution in this political day and age. But what if this whole mess leads lawmakers to actually, you know, decide to do something to rein in gerrymandering? (Another quaint thought, we know.) One of those lawmakers who could be targeted by Democratic reprisals, GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, is talking about a bill banning mid-decade redistricting. Another, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, wants to ban gerrymandering — though it's not at all clear what such a ban would entail, since they would have to define what actually constitutes gerrymanding, or how it would ever get consensus. It's virtually impossible to see either of these proposals becoming law. But perhaps Democrats could band together with blue-state Republicans to threaten a discharge petition to at least force the issue a little bit. It almost surely would never pass, but they could bring some pressure to bear.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Private Equity Firms Celebrate Trump's Executive Order Giving Them The Keys To Retirement
Donald Trump directed his Secretary of Labor Thursday to reevaluate past guidance on 401(k) regulation in a win for private equity that could unlock trillions in assets. Getty Images President Donald Trump signed his long-awaited executive order paving the way for 401(k) providers to offer access to private equity investments on Thursday, opening the floodgates to what the private equity industry has long salivated over, as a huge untapped reserve of funds. With $12.2 trillion in defined contribution workplace accounts like 401(k)s and another $16.8 trillion in individual retirement accounts, according to the Investment Company Institute, individuals' retirement savings could prove spectacularly fruitful for Wall Street if even a small amount of them are allocated to private equity and credit. But these and other alternative assets typically come with higher fees, and plan administrators and sponsors (meaning employers) have been concerned courts could rule that they are breaching their fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by offering these products. 'The challenge that has slowed adoption in defined contribution has really been from a litigation standpoint—plan sponsors are reluctant to make available investments that include private markets for fear of being sued,' says Dan Cahill, head of U.S. defined contribution at Swiss-based private equity firm Partners Group. 'It will be on the Secretary of Labor to understand how we can stifle that litigation to allow for innovation to occur.' Thursday's executive order aims to provide legal cover to sponsors, asking the Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, to review and consider rescinding guidance issued by President Joe Biden's labor department that was read as discouraging the prospect of private assets in 401(k)s. The order also covers other alternative asset classes like real estate and cryptocurrencies. It doesn't put any policy into effect immediately and simply asks Chavez-DeRemer to clarify this guidance within 180 days, but it didn't take that long for Chavez DeRemer to hint that her conclusion will be in favor of private equity. 'The federal government should not be making retirement investment decisions for hardworking Americans, including decisions regarding alternative assets,' she said in a statement shortly after the executive order was signed, adding that the order supports efforts to 'eliminate unfair one-size-fits-all approaches' to retirement investing. Private equity firms that have been clamoring for looser regulations ever since Trump reclaimed the presidency are finally getting their wish, following a springtime marked by tariff-fueled uncertainty that slowed dealflow and fundraising efforts. Most of the biggest players in private equity have been laying the groundwork to court more retail investors all year—Blackstone teamed up with Vanguard and Wellington Management in April to develop strategies combining public and private markets, one of several partnerships that have sprouted up among blue-chip firms. Skeptics fear that high fees and more complex investing strategies will do more harm than good to retirees. Private equity evangelists counter that with fewer companies going public in the last 20 years, diversified access to the entire market needs to include private equity, the same way index funds gave investors access to the whole stock market 50 years ago. Plus, those who have or are still earning traditional pensions have long reaped the rewards of private equity, with public pension funds allocating 23% of their portfolios to alternatives on average, while 401(k) savers haven't had the same options. 'For decades, public pension funds have invested in private assets because they deliver strong returns over the long term and are a smart, safe way to diversify retirement savings,' said Will Dunham, president and CEO of the American Investment Council, a private equity lobbying organization, in a statement echoing the language of the executive order. 'President Trump's EO is a great step that will help all Americans enjoy the same benefits of stronger returns.' Partners Group, which launched a private equity fund aimed at the U.S. defined contribution market in 2015, has been at the forefront of lobbying the federal government since then, arguing for more protection against excessive fee lawsuits. Trump's Labor Department sent a lawyer representing the firm an information letter in 2020 expressing openness to private markets in 401(k) plans, but when Biden took office a year later, that progress was reversed. Today, Partners Group has a modest sum of about $150 million of the firm's $174 billion in assets in its U.S. defined contribution products, Cahill says, and will have to accelerate working alongside its private equity peers to develop and market products that will be suitable for retirement accounts. Cahill stresses that the best avenue for private equity in 401(k)s is through professionally-managed target date funds or other diversified managed accounts, instead of as a separate option on a menu that individual workers choose from. Marc Pinto, global head of private credit at Moody's, anticipates that the executive order will lead to a proliferation of products like so-called evergreen funds which offer periodic liquidity, but cautions that 'if these new investments don't live up to their promise, asset managers could face lawsuits and regulatory heat.' Moody's has also raised concerns about blending illiquid assets with flexible withdrawal features, and it will likely take time before major retirement plan providers like Vanguard and Fidelity develop mainstream products addressing these concerns. The ideal endgame for private equity firms is to be incorporated into target date funds, which have grown to hold about $4 trillion in assets and are now the default investment option in many 401(k) plans. These funds offer daily liquidity, but proponents of private equity argue there will be ways to incorporate small allocations to illiquid alternatives without introducing excessive risk. 'Target date funds will always be daily liquid, but there is a sentiment that everything within the target date fund must also be daily liquid, and I think that will evolve,' says Cahill. 'These funds have smart managers who have been managing portfolios for a long time. They'll know exactly what they can access and what's best to access at the right times.' More from Forbes Forbes Inside Private Equity's $29 Trillion Retirement Savings Grab By Hank Tucker Forbes Blackstone's $80 Trillion Opportunity By Sergei Klebnikov Forbes Inside Robinhood's Crypto-Fueled Plan For World Domination By Nina Bambysheva
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
How closely do congressional delegations reflect how people vote? Not very
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Constitution makes it clear: 'The People' get to pick those who'll represent their interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. But just how closely do those choices reflect the overall political leanings of the people? The question is at the heart of a power play in Texas, where Republicans are trying to reshape the state's congressional boundaries to help them maintain control of the House in next year's midterm elections. In many cases, a state's congressional delegation doesn't align very closely with what would seem to be the will of the voters, although that's not always because of partisan gerrymandering. Every state decides how to draw its own congressional boundaries. Some, like California, rely on independent redistricting commissions, while most leave it to the state Legislature and the governor to hammer out a plan. It's states where one party controls all the levers of government where redistricting dramas like the one in Texas often play out as the majority tries to maximize its power. Regardless of the process, the resulting maps often produce congressional delegations much more lopsided in favor of one party than the state's partisan demographics might suggest. A state's presidential vote result isn't a precise tool for measuring what its congressional delegation ought to look like, but it can provide a compelling point of comparison. Politicians frequently cite it when decrying partisan redistricting practices they think are unfair. President Donald Trump, who's pushing Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps, said this week Republicans were 'entitled to five more seats' in Texas based in part on the size of his win there in November. Trump won 56% of the Texas vote, but Republicans already hold 65% of the state's congressional delegation — which would rise to 79% if the GOP's new maps are adopted and past voting patterns hold in the next election. During an event with Texas Democratic lawmakers in Boston, Missouri state Rep. Ashley Aune cited her state's presidential vote results in warning of possible Republican-driven redistricting efforts there. 'Fifty-eight percent of Missouri voted for Trump, but they want to send an 87% representation to Congress,' said Aune, a Democrat. It's actually fairly common for a state's congressional delegation not to align with statewide presidential vote results. In 41 of the 44 states with more than one congressional district, the party of the winning presidential candidate had a larger share of the state's congressional seats than its share of the presidential vote, an Associated Press analysis found. In most cases, it was a much larger share, a gap of at least 10 percentage points. Here's a comparison of the congressional delegations and presidential vote results in a sampling of states, including some of those considering a redraw of their congressional boundaries after Texas called its special session. California and Illinois In remarks to CNBC, Trump pointed to California and Illinois as justifications for redrawing the Texas map in Republicans' favor. 'You notice they go to Illinois for safety, but that's all gerrymandered,' he said in reference to the Texas Democrats who relocated to the Chicago area to block, at least temporarily, the Republican redistricting efforts. 'California's gerrymandered. We should have many more seats in Congress in California,' he said. He's right about Illinois: Democrats have gerrymandered the lines so they hold 14 of the 17 House seats. Not so in California. Democrats there do have an outsized majority, holding 43 of the state's 52 House seats, about 83%. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, received about 59% of the November vote. But that's not because of Democratic gerrymandering. A ballot initiative took the process away from state lawmakers and gave it to an independent citizens commission. California's lopsided map is due in part to the way like-minded people cluster: California Democrats tend to live in and near major cities that get more congressional districts because of their population. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis scored a legal victory in July when the state Supreme Court upheld his congressional redistricting plan redrawing a district with a large Black population. That plan resulted in Republicans holding about 71% of the state's 28 U.S. House seats. Trump carried the state in November with 56% of the vote. DeSantis later indicated there may be more 'defects' in the map that need to be addressed before the next census. Republicans held an 18-7 advantage over Democrats in Florida's House delegation after the 2000 census. Democrats slowly narrowed the gap, reaching 13 seats to Republicans' 14 after the 2018 election. But Republicans reestablished their advantage after the redistricting that followed the 2020 census, when they reached the 20-8 split they hold today. New York Democrats have long enjoyed an advantage at the New York ballot box in presidential and congressional elections. Harris received nearly 56% of the vote in 2024, while Democrats hold 73% of the state's 26 House seats. With Democratic advantages in both chambers of the state Legislature, New York might have been a ripe target for Democrats looking to offset Republican redistricting gains in Texas and elsewhere. But they would need to amend the state constitution to conduct a new round of redistricting before the next census. That constraint means the earliest Democrats could enact a new map would be for 2028. North Carolina North Carolina, among the most closely divided states, has been embroiled in its own redistricting drama. State Republicans implemented new House boundaries in 2023 that turned a 7-7 congressional delegation into one in which Republicans took a 10-4 advantage with the 2024 elections. Several districts are now the subject of a federal lawsuit, with Democrats alleging Republicans illegally diluted Black voting power. North Carolina has been among the most competitive states in the last several presidential elections. While Trump carried the state in November with about 51% of the vote, it has elected Democrats as governor and attorney general and to other statewide offices. In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama narrowly edged Republican John McCain with 49.7% of the vote. The congressional delegation at the time mirrored that with an almost even split, with Democrats holding seven seats and Republicans six after the 2010 midterms. But following rounds of Republican-controlled redistricting after the 2010 census, Republicans held a 10-3 or 9-4 advantage in the congressional delegation for the rest of that decade. After the 2020 census, a Democratic-majority North Carolina Supreme Court threw out a Republican-drawn plan and permitted elections under a map adopted by trial judges that produced the 7-7 split. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the boundaries to be used in the 2022 elections. After flipping to a Republican majority in 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled partisan gerrymandering wasn't outlawed by the state constitution, allowing GOP lawmakers to redraw a congressional map in use today that led to their party's 10-4 majority. Minnesota Minnesota is the state where the congressional breakdown most closely matches the 2024 presidential result. Harris received 51% of that vote, compared with Trump's 47%. Democrats and Republicans split the state's eight House seats with court-imposed maps. Nevada Nevada, where a Democratic Legislature drew the lines, is the only state where the party of the winning presidential candidate is outnumbered by the other party in the state's congressional delegation. Trump received 51% of the vote in Nevada, but Democrats hold three of the state's four House districts. ___ Associated Press writer Leah Willingham in Boston contributed to this report.
