ADVERTISEMENT Watch 'All walking in the same direction': Former premier McNeil on talks between provincial leaders, PM Former Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil discusses what premiers are expected to discuss with the prime minister over trade negotiations.
Former Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil discusses what premiers are expected to discuss with the prime minister over trade negotiations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
31 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Billionaires Sell Apple Stock and Buy a Stock-Split Stock Up 510% in the Last Decade
Key Points In the first quarter, billionaires David Shaw and Louis Bacon sold Apple and bought O'Reilly Automotive, a stock-split stock up 510% in the last decade. Apple is struggling to incorporate artificial intelligence into its business, and the company has gone seven-plus years without a groundbreaking new product. O'Reilly Automotive could be a winner as President Trump's tariffs encourage consumers to service older vehicles rather than purchasing new ones. 10 stocks we like better than Apple › The hedge fund billionaires listed below sold Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) during the first quarter and bought O'Reilly Automotive (NASDAQ: ORLY), a company whose share price rocketed 510% over the last decade, leading to a 15-for-1 stock split in early June. David Shaw's D.E. Shaw & Co. sold 340,900 shares of Apple, trimming its stake by 6%. The hedge fund also added 19,000 shares of O'Reilly Automotive, though it remains a very small holding. Louis Bacon's Moore Capital Management sold 495,800 shares of Apple, cutting its stake 97%. The hedge fund also purchased 240 shares of O'Reilly Automotive, starting a very small position. Importantly, both hedge funds still have exposure to Apple, and neither has an especially large position in O'Reilly Automotive. But investors should still consider both trades for their own portfolios. Here's why. 1. Apple Apple has durable brand moat built on design expertise that spans hardware and software. The company once again led the market in smartphone revenue in the March quarter, and it posted double-digit sales growth in its services segment due to strength in advertising, the App Store, and cloud storage. But its overall performance was still uninspiring. Revenue rose 5% to $95 billion, and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) net income climbed 5% to $24.8 billion. Importantly, Apple has struggled to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) into its business. Analysts thought the suite of generative AI features added last year (i.e., Apple Intelligence) would catalyze a massive iPhone upgrade cycle, but the consumer response has so far been underwhelming, perhaps because the company has repeatedly delayed highly anticipated AI upgrades to its digital assistant Siri. Apple's failure to monetize AI speaks to a larger problem: The company has seemingly lost its capacity for innovation. After a long stint of very successful product launches -- the iPhone in 2007, the iPad in 2010, the Apple Watch in 2015, and AirPods in 2017 -- Apple has now gone seven-plus years without a noteworthy new product. And its inability to capitalize on soaring demand for AI is a troubling continuation of that pattern. Wall Street expects Apple's earnings to increase at 11% annually over the next three years. That already makes the current valuation of 33 times earnings look expensive, but analysts may be overestimating. Apple's earnings compounded at less than 2% annually during the last three years despite the company repurchasing 8% of its outstanding shares. Put differently, had Apple not repurchased any stock during the last three years, earnings would have declined nearly 5% in that period. And with no clear catalysts on the horizon, earnings growth is likely to be meager in the coming years. Investors should avoid the stock right now, and shareholders with especially large positions should consider trimming. 2. O'Reilly Automotive O'Reilly Automotive is one of the largest specialty retailers of aftermarket automative parts, tools, equipment, and accessories. The company operates more than 6,400 stores across North America, serving both do-it-yourself (DIY) and professional customers. It also has a robust distribution network that allows "timely access to a broad range of products," which helps the company retain customers. Importantly, while O'Reilly will be impacted by tariffs on imported automobiles and parts, duties imposed by the Trump administration could actually be a net win for the company. That's because the 25% tax on imported automobiles will raise car prices, encouraging consumers to service older vehicles rather than purchasing new ones. Furthermore, the average interest rate on U.S. auto loans has almost doubled in the last four years. O'Reilly reported encouraging Q2 financial results. Revenue rose 6% to $4.5 billion, driven by 67 new store openings and 4.1% same-store sales growth. Meanwhile, GAAP earnings jumped 11% to $0.78 per diluted share, outpacing revenue growth because the company repurchased 6.8 million shares. Management also raised full-year guidance, such that earnings are forecast to increase 9% in 2025. Wall Street expects O'Reilly's earnings to increase at 10% annually during the next three to five years. That makes the current valuation of 36 times earnings look relatively expensive. Nevertheless, I think investors should consider buying a small position in this stock today. And if the share price declines, they should consider building a bigger position at a more reasonable valuation multiple. Should you invest $1,000 in Apple right now? Before you buy stock in Apple, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Apple 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 $636,774!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,942!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,040% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% 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 July 21, 2025
Globe and Mail
32 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, July 26: ‘It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation'
Re 'Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dismisses, demands apology for Jasper wildfire report' and 'Trump sues Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch for Epstein birthday letter coverage' (July 19): Two of three headlines on Page A3 feature democratically elected politicians complaining about or suing over reports which disagree with their particular narratives. Apparently the art of the deal and its followers do not abide any type of disagreement whatsoever. Interesting times. Vicki Nash-Moore Collingwood, Ont. Re 'A shrinking population is hardly what this country needs right now' (Opinion, July 19): Reducing immigration would not be walling ourselves off from the rest of humanity. I believe the root problem is declining birth rates, which is an affordability problem that should be fixed first. Using immigration to supplement declining population can create a never-ending cycle. New Canadians face the same economic issues such as access to homeownership, timely health care etc. Instead we should utilize a planned and selective approach to complement economic growth, fill gaps and ensure positive impacts for both existing and new Canadians. Joanne O'Hara Oakville, Ont. An ugly underlying aspect to the immigration discussion: It is clear to me that Pierre Poilievre's 'right people in the right numbers' is a Trump-like signal to his base for more white Christian immigrants and fewer refugees. We celebrate athletes such as Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, whose family comes from Antigua and Barbuda, and authors such as Esi Edugyan, whose parents are from Ghana. Yet both countries were threatened with a U.S. travel ban; not the right people in the view of the Trump administration. Most immigrants are not famous, nor are their children. The vast majority are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who love Canada because it was a refuge from hardship elsewhere. In that way, they are similar to those of us whose white forebears left Europe for better lives. It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation. David Steele Saskatoon Re 'Follow through' (Letters, July 19): Lurking behind a letter-writer's comments about housing refugees only after all Canadians have homes first – 'cold is just as deadly as bombs' – is a surprising rationale, and a troubling one for me in the extreme. We thankfully live in a war-free country. Almost everyone knows where they will rest their heads at night, comparatively speaking. I am not unaware of our own homeless populations, a great tragedy. But remedies are sought and often found because we care. For refugees, trying to survive in a world that seeks to destroy their homes, their lives and their hopes of surviving with peace and optimism is a hell on Earth. As human beings – and Canadians – we have always been our brother's and sister's keepers, no matter where they live. Indifference to their needs and survival would diminish us all. Surely compassion is borderless. Joan McNamee Kamloops My group sponsored Syrian Kurd refugee families that arrived in 2016. When a young couple arrived, joining those already there, I shed tears as I saw 12 family members greeting the newcomers, hugging and kissing. I cried to myself thinking of my grandparents, who arrived by ship before the First World War, one or two at a time. They all fled the Czarist Russian Empire and built lives for themselves and their families in Montreal. Earlier this summer, my 'Syrians' invited us to celebrate the arrival of a newly arrived bride with about 30 other at a picnic in the park. It included youngsters born in Toronto. Like my Jewish grandparents, they had been most vulnerable and are now settled Canadians. Today, Palestinian Gazans are the most susceptible group. Canada recognized that, but gave a cynical invitation. It's never too late to do better. Allan Fox O. Ont, Toronto Re 'The Giller Prize was a rare CanLit success story. Now it might become a casualty of a foreign war' (Opinion, July 19): Giller Prize executive director Elana Rabinovitch has worked tirelessly to promote Canadian literature, for which we should all be grateful. It is suggested that authors such as Omar El Akkad and Madeleine Thien have 'betrayed' Ms. Rabinovich. How so? They won the Giller in 2021 and 2016, respectively. They could not have predicted Israel's ramped-up war efforts after Oct. 7, 2023. I find it an absurd notion that Giller winners who speak out against Israel should return their prize money. A literary prize is not hush money. Anne Hansen Victoria I would like to ask all the Giller winners who have been boycotting the prize because of its association with Scotiabank: Why, if the bank's money is so tainted, they have not returned their own prize money? I would also like to know how they justify depriving other Canadian writers of the chance to earn the same large amount of money and get the same boost in sales? The war in Gaza is still going on, so I don't know what this boycott has achieved except to defund the Giller and make all future sponsors think twice about funding a literary prize. It's a complete shame. Goldie Morgentaler Professor emerita, department of English, University of Lethbridge It would indeed be sad if the Giller Prize were to end. But any award that is heavily associated with and financed by a single corporation or wealthy individual is by definition going to be fraught. If an artist who has benefitted from this prize later finds that the entity behind it has been involved in activities they find morally repulsive, must they muzzle themselves? Why? I think the real lesson is that important events benefitting the arts cannot be sustainably supported by the private sector. In light of how much benefit comes to Canada from artistic endeavours such as strong Canadian literature, I think this is a clear case where Canada should step up to the plate to support the continuation of the Giller. Paul Rasmussen Victoria Re 'I'm not offended when people praise my spoken English' (Opinion, July 19): I also believe in having 'a bit more faith in the better side of human nature' when it comes to clearing up potential cultural misunderstandings. That being said, context is everything. In 2018, Donald Trump's infamous and profane remarks on nations in the African continent provides background to his remarks on Liberian President Joseph Boakai's 'good English.' This was not an innocent remark; instead, it was offensive and disrespectful, as made clear in his previous comment on Africa and therefore Africans in general. Pointe finale. Veena Dwivedi St. Catharines, Ont. Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
33 minutes ago
- CBC
Trudeau radically overhauled the Senate — will Carney keep his reforms?
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau upended 150 years of Canadian parliamentary tradition when he dumped Liberal senators, named Independents to the upper house and generally stripped the place of partisan elements. The experiment produced mixed reviews, with some old-guard senators — those who were there well before Trudeau — arguing the Senate is now irrelevant, slower, less organized and more expensive. Some of Trudeau's appointees say the reforms have helped the Red Chamber turn the page on the near-death experience of the expenses scandal, which they maintain was fuelled by the worst partisan impulses. Defenders of the new regime say partisans are pining for a model that's best left in the dustbin of history. The Senate has been more active in amending government bills and those changes are not motivated by party politics or electoral fortunes — they're about the country's best interest, reformers say. As the debate rages internally over whether the last 10 years of change have been worth it, Prime Minister Mark Carney has said almost nothing about his vision for the upper house. Under the current model, would-be senators are recommended by an outside panel but the decision is still up to the prime minister. Most of Trudeau's early picks were strictly non-partisan but, as polls showed his party was headed for an almost certain defeat, he increasingly named Liberals to the chamber. Carney has already scrapped Trudeau's carbon tax, introduced legislation to bypass Trudeau-era regulations, repaired once-frosty relations with the provinces and taken a different approach to the trade war. All that has some senators wondering whether the non-partisan push in the Red Chamber will be the next domino to fall. In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, House leader Steve MacKinnon signalled there may indeed be more changes coming. "I think the Senate is very much a work in progress," he said. "We continue to work constructively with the Senate in its current configuration and as it may evolve. I know many senators, the various groups in the Senate and others continue to offer some constructive thoughts on that." Asked if Carney will appoint Liberals, MacKinnon said the prime minister will name senators who are "attuned to the vagaries of public opinion, attuned to the wishes of Canadians and attuned to the agenda of the government as is reflected in the election results." Carney is interested in senators who "are broadly understanding of what the government's trying to achieve," MacKinnon said. As to whether he's heard about efforts to revive a Senate Liberal caucus, MacKinnon said: "I haven't been part of any of those discussions." Alberta Sen. Paula Simons is a member of the Independent Senators Group, the largest in the chamber and one mostly composed of Trudeau appointees (she is one of them, appointed in 2018). Simons said she knows the Conservatives would scrap Trudeau's reforms at the first opportunity. What concerns her more are those Liberals who are also against the changes. "There's a fair bit of rumbling about standing up a Liberal caucus again. And I am unalterably opposed to that," she said. When the last Liberal caucus was disbanded, some of its members regrouped as the Progressive Senate Group, which now includes senators who were never Liberals. "To unscramble that omelette, whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative, I think would be a betrayal of everything that we've accomplished over the last decade," Simons said. "I think the Senate's reputation has improved greatly as a result of these changes. I think the way we are able to improve legislation has also increased tenfold. It would be foolish and wasteful to reverse that." Still, she said there's been pushback from some Trudeau appointees. Senate debates are now longer, committee hearings feature more witnesses and there's more amendments to legislation than ever before, she said. Not to mention Independent senators can't be whipped to vote a certain way. All of that makes the legislative process more difficult to navigate. "Partisan Liberals don't like the new independent Senate because they can't control it as easily," she said. Marc Gold, Trudeau's last government representative in the Senate who briefly served under Carney before retiring, said his advice to the new prime minister is to keep the Senate the way it is. "The evolution of the Senate to a less partisan, complementary institution is a good thing. I think it's a success, and I certainly hope that it continues," Gold said. On the other side of the divide, Quebec Sen. Leo Housakos, the leader of the Conservative Senate caucus, welcomes the idea of injecting some partisanship. He said, under the current model, the chamber is less influential. "The place has become, unfortunately, an echo chamber," he said. Housakos said the old Senate was more honest, when members were more transparent about their political leanings. Many of Trudeau's Independent appointees are Liberal-minded and their voting record suggests they often align with the government, Housakos said. "Look at how often they've held the government to account," he said. "Look how often they've asked the difficult questions in the moments when the government needed … their feet held to the fire." Simons sees things differently. "It's really difficult for people who've been brought up in a partisan milieu, whether they're Conservative or Liberal or New Democrat, to understand that it is actually possible to be a political actor without a team flag," she said. "It's not my job to stand for a political party." Saskatchewan Sen. Pamela Wallin is a member of the Canadian Senators Group, which is made up of non-partisan senators including some who, like her, formerly sat as Conservatives. She said the current process has produced some senators who are political neophytes, unfamiliar with the Senate's traditional role. "I don't care if somebody belongs to a political party.… I think people need to be better educated about what they're signing up for," she said. "Our job is to be an arbiter of legislation and laws put forward by the House of Commons. It's not a place where we can all ride our individual hobby horses." That's a reference to the proliferation of Senate public bills — legislation introduced by senators themselves. These bills often have no hope of passing through both chambers, while still taking time and resources to sort through. There is data to support Wallin's contention that there are more of these bills than there were before the Trudeau reforms. During Stephen Harper's last term, there were 56 Senate public bills introduced and nine of them were passed into law, according to a CBC News review of parliamentary data. By comparison, Trudeau's final session saw 92 bills introduced over a shorter time period. Only 12 of them passed — a worse success rate. In the first few weeks of this new Parliament, more than 32 such bills have already been introduced, some of them a revival of those that died on the order paper. Wallin said those bills often reflect senators' "personal interests or the interests that they've shared over a lifetime." She wants the Senate to take a "back to basics" approach. "Our job is sober second thought," she said. Wallin is also calling for better regional representation in the Senate, which may be a tricky proposition given the constitutional realities. A change in seat allocation would require cracking open that foundational document, a politically unpalatable idea. Still, Alberta separatists are agitating for change, calling the current breakdown grossly unfair. Housakos said depriving some parts of the country of meaningful representation needs to be addressed. In B.C., for example, the province's nearly six million people are represented by just six senators. P.E.I., by comparison, has four senators for about 180,000 people — an allocation formula that dates back to Confederation. "Western Canada has a legitimate beef. They are not fairly represented in the upper chamber," Housakos said. "It's probably the biggest problem that needs to be addressed." But the government isn't interested in that sort of change, MacKinnon said.
