Satellite Propane Tank Monitoring Leader One-Tank to Return to LP Gas Summit
ST. CHARLES, MO, UNITED STATES, August 15, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- One-Tank, a leader in satellite propane tank monitoring technology, is excited to announce its participation in the 2025 LP Gas Growth Summit, taking place September 9-11 at the Reunion Resort in Orlando, Florida. This marks its third year participating in the LP Gas Summit which is by invitation only.
The LP Gas Growth Summit is an exclusive event where propane retailers come together to discover new opportunities to diversify their offerings, increase efficiencies, and grow their businesses. The summit provides an invaluable forum for propane industry professionals to connect with leading providers of products, equipment, and services through one-on-one meetings and networking events.
One-Tank is dedicated to providing innovative satellite propane tank solutions that streamline operations, improve margins, and help businesses thrive in an evolving industry.
'We understand the challenges facing propane marketers because we've been in this industry ourselves,' said Brian Humphrey, CEO of One-Tank. 'Our mission is to provide propane businesses with the tools they need to succeed by streamlining operations and increasing profitability.'
About One-Tank
Based in St. Charles, Missouri, One-Tank provides satellite propane tank monitoring to propane marketers with a reliable, cost-effective way to remotely monitor customer tanks. The company's flagship Pulse Monitoring System uses satellite technology to deliver continuous tank-level data, even in areas where cellular coverage is unreliable or unavailable. Designed for safety, efficiency, and long-term value, One-Tank's solution helps propane providers prevent runouts, reduce delivery costs, and operate with greater confidence across their entire service area.
Cheryl Heppard
Cheryl Heppard Consulting
+1 248-973-7669
email us here
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple's 10% Stock Pop: Time to Invest in the Technology Giant Embracing America?
Key Points Apple has increased its spending plans in the United States from $500 billion to $600 billion. There are positives and negatives to the announcement from an investor's perspective. Shares of Apple stock look expensive today relative to its growth rate. 10 stocks we like better than Apple › Investors are back on the Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) train. The stock of the multinational technology giant is still down slightly in 2025 but popped over 10% in the last week after management announced new planned spending in the U.S. CEO Tim Cook even visited the White House in a joint press conference with President Donald Trump to announce this new planned spending on components for the iPhone as well as other Apple products in America. It has helped the company achieve some breathing room around potential tariffs on semiconductors, iPhone components, and iPhones themselves getting imported to America. Apple's stock got its mojo back on this upsized spending news, but should you actually buy shares today? Here's what the numbers say. A $600 billion investment Earlier this year, Apple announced that it would spend $500 billion over the next four years in the United States. Last week, it upped its estimate to $600 billion, or $150 billion annually. This is different than a company's announced capital expenditure plans, such as when Amazon promises $100 billion in investments related to data centers and its delivery network. Apple is spending money with its suppliers, including advanced glass screens and various semiconductor manufacturers. It is more of an announcement around committed orders for products, which will spur demand for factory work in the United States. Apple is a sprawling company, and the announced spending will occur in all 50 states, impact 450,000 jobs, and involve 79 different factories. It is astounding how complex Apple's supply chain for the iPhone and other computing hardware is today. However, Apple is still not at the point of a "Made in America iPhone" as assembly and other services are performed in China and India, with Apple negotiating with the U.S. government around what is feasible to bring to the United States. Investors applauded the spending plans as a way to shy away from tariff risks on iPhone and semiconductor imports, which could have added huge costs to Apple's supply chain, damaging its profits. Now, it seems to be in good standing with the U.S. government and regulation authorities again. Does the announcement matter? In regard to tariffs, this spending announcement won't necessarily hurt the company, it just prevents Apple from having future cost increases across its supply chain. However, since the U.S. has higher salaries and labor standards, this investment may lead to higher input costs for product components, which could lead to margin compression. Apple's operating margin has steadily risen since the COVID-19 pandemic, hitting a record high of 32% over the last 12 months. Sourcing components in the United States may reverse this expansion. What matters more at the end of the day is demand for Apple's products. Last quarter, the company released solid figures for the three months ending in June. Total revenue grew just under 10% year over year, driven by services revenue and iPhone revenue growth. Even though the iPhone is almost 20 years old, it remains the bread and butter of Apple's business today. This puts the company in a tough spot. Even though the iPhone remains wildly popular, unit volumes have stagnated for years, meaning Apple is only able to grow revenue by increasing prices. This is not an ideal position to be in. Price increases may be necessary just to maintain profit margins in the future if input costs grow due to the Made-in-America investments. All in all, this announcement does matter. It just might be a negative for Apple's business, contrary to the stock's initial reaction. The truth about Apple stock There are a lot of arguments to be made -- both bearish and bullish -- for Apple stock. Bulls might say this is a fantastic brand with major lock-in effects along with a growing services division with strong profit margins. Bears may say that Apple's unit volumes for the iPhone have fallen with no new successful products coming down the pipeline. For example, the Apple Vision Pro has turned into a total product bust, likely losing the company billions if not tens of billions of dollars. A deciding factor in this debate could be the stock's valuation. Apple's price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) is 35. This is quite expensive for a business with low revenue growth. Compare that to Alphabet, which has grown its revenue significantly faster than Apple over the last few years but trades at a more reasonable P/E ratio of 22. Apple may be a great business, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the price you pay when analyzing its stock. Avoid buying shares of Apple after this post-announcement pop. 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 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 $663,630!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,115,695!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,071% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% 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 Brett Schafer has positions in Alphabet and Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Apple's 10% Stock Pop: Time to Invest in the Technology Giant Embracing America? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional deal with Nvidia and AMD, explained: Alexander Hamilton would approve
'We negotiated a little deal,' President Donald Trump told reporters on August 11, about the developing situation with leading chip makers Nvidia and AMD continuing to do business in China. He explained that he originally wanted a 20% cut of Nvidia's sales in exchange for the company obtaining export licenses to sell H20 chip to China, but he was persuaded to settle at 15%. The H20 chip is 'obsolete,' Trump added … 'he's selling a essentially old chip.' The chips do appear to be quite significant to China, considering that the Cyberspace Administration of China held discussions with Nvidia over security concerns that the H20 chips may be tracked and turned off remotely, according to a disclosure on its website. The deal, which lifted an export ban on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and followed heated negotiations, was widely described as unusual and also still theoretical at this point, with the legal details still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. Legal experts have questioned whether the eventual deal would constitute an unconstitutional export tax, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports. This has come to be known as the 'export clause' of the constitution. Indeed, it's hard to find much precedent for it anywhere in the history of the U.S. government's dealings with the corporate sector. Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied the history of the export clause, told Fortune he was not aware of anything like this in history. In the 1990s, he added, the Supreme Court struck down two attempted taxes on export clause grounds (cases known as IBM and U.S. Shoe). Jensen said tax practitioners were surprised that the court took up the cases: 'if only because most pay no attention to constitutional limitations, and the Court hadn't heard any export clause cases in about 70 years.' The takeaway was clear, Jensen said: 'The export clause matters.' Columbia University professor Eric Talley agreed with Jensen, telling Fortune that while the federal government has previously applied subsidies to exports, he's not aware of other historical cases imposing taxes on selected exporters. Talley also cited the export clause as the usual grounds for finding such arrangements unconstitutional. Rather than downplaying the uniqueness of the arrangement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been leaning into it. In a Bloomberg television interview, he said: 'I think you know, right now, this is unique. But now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it? I think we could see it in other industries over time.' Bessent and the White House insist there are 'no national security concerns,' since only less-advanced chips are being sold to China. Instead, officials have touted the deal as a creative solution to balance trade, technology, and national policy. How rare is this? The arrangement has drawn sharp reaction from business leaders, legal experts, and trade analysts. Julia Powles, director of UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, told the Los Angeles Times: 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration, which is quite rare.' Experts warned that if replicated, this template could pressure other firms—not just tech giants—into similar arrangements with the government. Already, several unprecedented arrangements have been struck between the Trump administration and the corporate sector, ranging from the 'golden share' in U.S. Steel negotiated as part of its takeover by Japan's Nippon Steel to the federal government reportedly discussing buying a stake in chipmaker Intel. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment on specifics. When contacted by Fortune for comment, Nvidia reiterated its statement that it follows rules the U.S. government sets for its participation in worldwide markets. 'While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide. America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' The White House declined to comment about the potential deal. AMD did not respond to a request for comment. While Washington has often intervened in business—especially in times of crisis—the mechanism and magnitude of the Nvidia/AMD deal are virtually unprecedented in recent history. The federal government appears to have never previously claimed a percentage of corporate revenue from export sales as a precondition for market access. Instead, previous actions took the form of temporary nationalization, regulatory control, subsidies, or bailouts—often during war or economic emergency. Examples of this include the seizure of coal mines (1946) and steel mills (1952) during labor strikes, as well as the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, where the government took equity stakes in large corporations including two of Detroit's Big three and most of Wall Street's key banks. During World War I, the War Industries Board regulated prices, production, and business conduct for the war effort. Congress has previously created export incentives and tax-deferral strategies (such as the Domestic International Sales Corporation and Foreign Sales Corporation Acts), but these measures incentivized sales rather than directly diverting a fixed share of export revenue to the government. Legal scholars stress that such arrangements were subjected to global trade rules and later modified after international complaints. Global lack of precedent The U.S. prohibition on export taxes dates back to the birth of the nation. Case Western's Jensen has written that some delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such as New York's Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of the government being able to tax revenue sources such as imports and exports, but the 'staple states' in the southern U.S. were fiercely opposed, given their agricultural bent, especially the importance of cotton at that point. Still, many other countries currently have export taxes on the books, though they are generally imposed across all exporters, rather than as one-off arrangements that remove barriers to a specific market. And many of the nations with export taxes are developing countries who tax agricultural or resource commodities. In several cases (Uganda, Malaya, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti, Thailand), export taxes made up 10% to 40% of total government tax revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, according to an IMF staff paper. Globally, most countries tax profits generated within their borders ('source-based corporate taxes'), but rarely as a direct percentage of export sales as a market access precondition. The standard model is taxation of locally earned profits, regardless of export destination; licensing fees and tariffs may be applied, but not usually as a fixed percent of export revenue as a pre-negotiated entry fee. Although the Nvidia/AMD deal doesn't take the usual form of a tax, Case Western's Jensen added. 'I don't see what else it could be characterized as.' It's clearly not a 'user fee,' which he said is the usual triable issue of law in export clause cases. For instance, if goods or services are being provided by the government in exchange for the charge, such as docking fees at a governmentally operated port, then that charge isn't a tax or duty and the Export Clause is irrelevant. 'I just don't see how the charges that will be levied in the chip cases could possibly be characterized in that way.' Players have been known to 'game' the different legal treatments of subsidies and taxes, Columbia's Talley added. He cited the example of a government imposing a uniform, across-the-board tax on all producers, but then providing a subsidy to sellers who sell to domestic markets. 'The net effect would be the same as a tax on exports, but indirectly.' He was unaware of this happening in the U.S. but cited several international examples including Argentina, India, and even the EU. One famous example of a canny international tax strategy was Apple's domicile in Ireland, along with so many other multinationals keeping their international profits offshore in affiliates in order to avoid paying U.S. tax, which at the time applied to all worldwide income upon repatriation. Talley said much of this went away after the 2018 tax reforms, which moved the U.S. away from a worldwide corporate tax, with some exceptions. The protection racket comparison If Trump's chip export tax is an anomaly in the annals of U.S. international trade, the deal structure has some parallels in another corner of the business world: organized crime, where 'protection rackets' have a long history. Businesses bound by such deals must pay a cut of their revenues to a criminal organization (or parallel government), effectively as the cost for being allowed to operate or to avoid harm. The China chip export tax and the protection rackets extract revenue as a condition for market access, use the threat of exclusion or punishment for non-payment, and both may be justified as 'protection' or 'guaranteed access,' but are not freely negotiated by the business. 'It certainly has the smell of a governmental shakedown in certain respects,' Columbia's Talley told Fortune, considering that the 'underlying threat was an outright export ban, which makes a 15% surcharge seem palatable by comparison.' Talley noted some nuances, such as the generally established broad statutory and constitutional support for national-security-based export bans on various goods and services sold to enumerated countries, which have been imposed with legal authority on China, North Korea, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, and others. 'From an economic perspective, a ban on an exported good is tantamount to a tax of 'infinity percent' on the good,' Talley said, meaning it effectively shuts down the export market for that good. 'Viewed in that light, a 15% levy is less (and not more) extreme than a ban.' Still, there's the matter, similar to Trump's tariff regime, of making a legal challenge to an ostensibly blatantly illegal policy actually hold up in court. 'A serious question with the chips tax,' Case Western's Jensen told Fortune, 'is who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge the tax?' In other words, it may be unconstitutional, but who's actually going to compel the federal government to obey the constitution? This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Top Three Dividend Stocks To Consider For Your Portfolio
As the U.S. stock market navigates a period of mixed signals, with inflation concerns tempering hopes for interest rate cuts, the S&P 500 continues to achieve record highs. In this environment, dividend stocks can offer investors a steady income stream and potential stability amid market fluctuations. Top 10 Dividend Stocks In The United States Name Dividend Yield Dividend Rating Peoples Bancorp (PEBO) 5.48% ★★★★★☆ Huntington Bancshares (HBAN) 3.69% ★★★★★☆ First Interstate BancSystem (FIBK) 6.14% ★★★★★★ Ennis (EBF) 5.49% ★★★★★★ Employers Holdings (EIG) 3.06% ★★★★★☆ Douglas Dynamics (PLOW) 3.69% ★★★★★☆ Dillard's (DDS) 5.21% ★★★★★★ Columbia Banking System (COLB) 5.51% ★★★★★★ Citizens & Northern (CZNC) 5.77% ★★★★★☆ Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) 3.44% ★★★★★☆ Click here to see the full list of 133 stocks from our Top US Dividend Stocks screener. Here's a peek at a few of the choices from the screener. Euroseas Simply Wall St Dividend Rating: ★★★★☆☆ Overview: Euroseas Ltd. offers ocean-going transportation services globally and has a market cap of $395.59 million. Operations: Euroseas Ltd. generates its revenue by providing ocean-going transportation services across the globe. Dividend Yield: 4.6% Euroseas has demonstrated a stable dividend profile, with consistent payments over the past three years. The company's dividends are well-covered by both earnings and cash flows, boasting a low payout ratio of 11.4%. Recent increases in quarterly dividends, such as the US$0.70 per share for Q2 2025, highlight growth potential. Despite recent declines in net income to US$29.86 million for Q2 2025, Euroseas maintains strong fleet utilization and charter coverage, supporting future cash flow stability crucial for dividend sustainability. Delve into the full analysis dividend report here for a deeper understanding of Euroseas. Insights from our recent valuation report point to the potential undervaluation of Euroseas shares in the market. Timberland Bancorp Simply Wall St Dividend Rating: ★★★★☆☆ Overview: Timberland Bancorp, Inc. is the bank holding company for Timberland Bank, offering a range of community banking services in Washington, with a market cap of $264.08 million. Operations: Timberland Bancorp, Inc. generates its revenue primarily from community banking services, amounting to $78.34 million. Dividend Yield: 3.1% Timberland Bancorp offers a stable dividend profile, with consistent growth over the past decade and a current payout of $0.26 per share. The dividend is well-supported by earnings due to a low payout ratio of 29.3%. Despite trading below estimated fair value, its dividend yield of 3.13% is modest compared to top-tier US payers. Recent financial results show net income growth, although significant insider selling raises concerns about future stability amidst ongoing share repurchase activities. Take a closer look at Timberland Bancorp's potential here in our dividend report. In light of our recent valuation report, it seems possible that Timberland Bancorp is trading behind its estimated value. Universal Insurance Holdings Simply Wall St Dividend Rating: ★★★★★☆ Overview: Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc., with a market cap of $695.50 million, operates as an integrated insurance holding company in the United States through its subsidiaries. Operations: Universal Insurance Holdings generates revenue primarily through its Property & Casualty insurance segment, which accounted for $1.57 billion. Dividend Yield: 3.2% Universal Insurance Holdings maintains a stable dividend profile, offering a 3.16% yield with consistent growth over the past decade. Its dividends are well-covered by earnings and cash flows, evidenced by low payout ratios of 27.2% and 8.1%, respectively. Despite recent insider selling, the company continues share buybacks and reported solid financials for Q2 2025, with revenue at US$400.14 million and net income slightly lower than the previous year at US$35.09 million. Click to explore a detailed breakdown of our findings in Universal Insurance Holdings' dividend report. The valuation report we've compiled suggests that Universal Insurance Holdings' current price could be quite moderate. Summing It All Up Unlock more gems! Our Top US Dividend Stocks screener has unearthed 130 more companies for you to here to unveil our expertly curated list of 133 Top US Dividend Stocks. Invested in any of these stocks? Simplify your portfolio management with Simply Wall St and stay ahead with our alerts for any critical updates on your stocks. Simply Wall St is a revolutionary app designed for long-term stock investors, it's free and covers every market in the world. Curious About Other Options? Explore high-performing small cap companies that haven't yet garnered significant analyst attention. Fuel your portfolio with companies showing strong growth potential, backed by optimistic outlooks both from analysts and management. Find companies with promising cash flow potential yet trading below their fair value. This 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. Companies discussed in this article include ESEA TSBK and UVE. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
