Latest news with #Abrahams
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Sport
- Irish Examiner
Thaakir Abrahams aiming for winning return to his 'second home' as Munster head to Durban
Thaakir Abrahams' return to Durban with Munster this week has turned into a joyous family reunion for the South African full-back, in stark contrast to his first arrival as a homesick teenager. On Saturday, the 26-year-old, who joined last summer from Lyon, bids to extend his debut season in red at least an extra week by getting one over his former club the Sharks at Kings Park. He spent six years with the club, met his wife Tasneem in the city and now calls it his second home but it is a much happier Abrahams who arrived in Durban with the Munster squad on Tuesday afternoon than the 19-year-old who first pitched up in the Sharks academy, 1500 kilometres from his family in Paarl, near Cape Town. 'I was straight out of school, Paarl Boys High, 19 years old,' Abrahams told the Irish Examiner this week. 'It was my first time moving away from home and it was a hard decision for me and also for the family. Everything had been around me and I had to move outside of that bubble and actually grow. It was excellent for me. 'It was harder for my mum to be totally honest! It was her little boy growing up and moving away, it was tough and I remember I wanted to go home every month because I got a bit homesick. 'But then you get to know the place and you get along with the people and build your own community, I guess. You get used to it and now I call it my second home, because my wife is from here.' Read More Munster starting team unchanged but bench tweaked for URC quarter-final Abrahams has only good things to say about the Sharks and credits the franchise for giving an ideal platform to launch his professional career, not least joining a successful Under-19 side that also featured current Sharks back-rower Phepsi Buthelezi and hooker Fez Mbatha, both of whom will start Saturday's quarter-final from the bench at Kings Park. 'It was a good group to come into and the start of my career. I played in the 2018 Under-19 Currie Cup tournament and the Sharks won that year, which I think was the first time since 2008. 'I grew so much at the Sharks so it was a good start for me. And it's good to be back here, familiar places, familiar faces. "I met my wife here in Durban so she's here as well, with the little one (baby daughter Diyaana) and we're meeting up with the family here, which is always good. 'I hadn't seen them for two years so it's great seeing them. It's good to be back here again, and with the sun as well.' Munster will also benefit from the mass exodus of the extended Abrahams family from the Western Cape this weekend, as he explained. 'Oh man, we've quite a big family and quite a tight family. When I come over for holidays I have to try and see everyone, my mum is one of eight children, so lots of aunts, cousins and oh man, it just goes on and on. 'I have two older sisters and a younger brother, he's 10 years younger than me, we call him 'laat lammetjie', that's what we say in South Africa. It basically means he's a late lamb, because of the age difference. I don't know what the English term for that is, I'm Afrikaans, I barely speak English! 'But they'll all be there on Saturday and my eldest sister has two daughters, and the other one has one daughter so my nieces will all be in their Munster kit. I haven't seen them in a while so it will be great seeing them and in the stands as well. Looking forward to it.' After back-to-back victories to round out the regular season of the URC campaign, Abrahams can look forward to a positive on-pitch performance as Munster bid to repeat their run to the title of two seasons ago. 'The confidence is high. We know they will be physical and we'll bring that part as well but also their kicking game, the aerial battle will be vital for us. Those are things they bring to the table so we'll have to counter that and I think we'll be ready for that.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
RBC Reaffirms Outperform on Regeneron (REGN) Ahead of Key COPD Drug Results
Analyst Brian Abrahams reiterated an Outperform rating and a price target of $943 for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGN) on May 29. The rating comes as Regeneron awaits the findings of a phase III study on the medication candidate itepekimab, which is intended to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Based on a thorough analysis of preclinical and clinical data for COPD biologics, Abrahams expressed hope over itepekimab's potential to reduce episodes of COPD drastically. He estimates an unadjusted global peak revenue of $6 billion and believes that favorable study results could open up a sizable market opportunity. According to the analyst, there is a 65% possibility that Regeneron's stock would rise by 5–15% as a result of the upcoming itepekimab data. Additionally, he asserts that positive results from the itepekimab trials and other pipeline outcomes would divert investors' attention from worries about the depletion of Regeneron's other medicine, Eylea. While we acknowledge the potential of REGN to grow, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than REGN and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. Read More: and Disclosure: None. 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
Business Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Times
The AI job suck is the China shock of today
REARVIEW-mirror policymaking seems as unavoidable as it is self-defeating. President Donald Trump is falling into this trap with his focus on reversing the past quarter-century of trade policy — trying to put the toothpaste back in its tube. In attempting to undo the so-called China shock, he is missing the opportunity to preempt collateral damage from the coming artificial intelligence shock, which will reshape labor markets over the coming decade. Even relatively positive economic changes hurt some workers. As did the decline of America's manufacturing hubs, AI is likely to prove a challenge for millions of workers. At the more apocalyptic extreme, Anthropic chief executive officer Dario Amodei told Axios this week that AI could eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs and push unemployment as high as 20 per cent over one to five years. While I'm not expecting anything that dire, there are subtle signs — as The Atlantic's Derek Thompson pointed out last month — that the impacts may be already materialising in the unique and recent increase of the unemployment rate for recent college graduates to the highest since 2021. Brookings Institution research projects that about 30 per cent of the workforce could see at least half of their tasks disrupted by generative AI. That could include close to 19 million people in office and administrative support; 13 million in sales and related jobs; and 10 million in business and financial operations, according to Brookings' analysis of OpenAI and Bureau of Labour Statistics data. Geographically speaking, economists Scott Abrahams and Frank Levy found that such work is most concentrated in expensive coastal areas, including the Bay Area and the nation's capital. For the government, the key is to stand ready to provide help to those who need it. The wildly uncertain fallout from AI requires modern tools for monitoring trends in employment and wages. In the China shock, the negative outcomes were concentrated in manufacturing communities. By failing to appreciate the scope of the problem early, policymakers allowed parts of the country to fall into a self-reinforcing cycle of decay, engendering a sense of unfairness and lighting a fire under a populist backlash in American politics. In contrast, the Abrahams and Levy study shows that a generative AI shock could nudge workers away from expensive coastal cities to places such as Savannah, Georgia, or Greenville, South Carolina, which offer affordable housing and economies that are less exposed to the job losses. One source of forward-looking data is online job postings, which can be mined for keywords related to AI, Abrahams told me this week. Such data is far more comprehensive than it was in earlier shocks, and it reveals in real time the areas where companies are expanding and replacing workers — and, equally important, the areas where they aren't. As Abrahams pointed out, AI's impact may play out in large part through job-leavers that go unreplaced, rather than large and obvious layoffs. In terms of the latter, improved disclosure would help. Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the UT Austin School of Law, has suggested updating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which generally requires companies to provide 60 days advance notice of closures and layoffs of 50 workers or more. Frazier has suggested that medium and large-sized firms be required to disclose 'widespread integration of new AI tools', whether or not the new technology corresponds with immediate job cuts. Though compliance could be a challenge, this would add a layer of forward-looking visibility. Frazier also wants to change the WARN policy to capture more layoffs and give communities and policymakers more time to respond. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Second, the US should make preparations to provide a strong response to any visible labour market disruptions, including getting its fiscal house in order. While some people believe that AI will eventually be so disruptive that it demands a version of Universal Basic Income, the near-term solution is likely to look like an improved and probably costlier version of Trade Adjustment Assistance, the programme rolled out during John F Kennedy's presidency to help workers sidelined by trade. That programme was too bureaucratic and small to blunt a development as big as the China shock. Any new effort would have to cut down on red tape and be better funded. Frazier has suggested businesses themselves be required to pay into rainy-day-type funds for worker retraining. Third, policymakers should make it easier for workers to move for new opportunities. Many lost jobs will be replaced by new and even better ones, but we can't take for granted that the labour supply will automatically migrate to the sectors and regions with the greatest opportunity. In fact, one key takeaway from the China shock literature is that, while the labour market migrated, many individuals didn't. David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson have found that incumbent workers were 'largely frozen in the declining manufacturing sector in their original locations'. It's not clear why so many stayed. Personal ties may have motivated some, but others may have faced financial constraints — a problem exacerbated by today's housing affordability crisis. As for Trade Adjustment Assistance, it provided only a laughable relocation allowance of no more than US$1,250, a figure that should be much larger if it's going to promote labour mobility. Finally, the US must ensure that the next generation is equipped with the skills of the future, including general AI literacy as well as domain expertise around AI and robotics engineering. The future is also likely to place a premium on the general critical thinking skills and emotional intelligence that liberal arts degrees engender. While the payoffs of higher education may become less clear, it's likely to remain essential to America's success. Policymakers can support it through thoughtfully allocated student and research grants, and immigration policies that bring the best inventors and entrepreneurs to our country. Unfortunately, Trump has paid short shrift to the AI challenge. He's spending much of his time pursuing a policy of ex post protectionism, seemingly trying to reverse the outcomes of a shock that the US inadequately prepared for a quarter century ago. Instead, if he wants to leave an economic legacy, he should take steps to ensure that AI maximally benefits Americans by mitigating the inevitable dislocations along the way. Left unaddressed, America could face another populist backlash against uneven labour market outcomes, and the Republican Party may well find itself on the wrong side of this one. BLOOMBERG
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Do retailers make it too easy to return items? Why shoppers love lenient policies.
Returns of items are both a fact of life for retailers but also a difficult balance to maintain as they try to keep customers happy while not losing money. For consumers, lenient return policies play a big role in where they choose to buy. But then there is also the dark side of returns, with criminal rings set up to take advantage of those lenient return policies. Returns cost retailers a lot of money: total returns were expected to top $890 billion in 2024, according to a December 2024 report by the National Retail Federation. Retailers estimated that 16.9% of their annual sales in 2024 would be returned. But shoppers also say return policies impact where they shop: 67% of shoppers said a negative return experience would impact whether they would go back to that retailer. In a survey by Forter of 4,000 shoppers in both the United States and the United Kingdom, 68% said they believe retailers make it easy to abuse flexible return policies. In fact, 49% admitted to abusing policies in the last year. Another 29% said they use the policies to avoid paying full price. Thirty percent said they use and return expensive wardrobe items they otherwise couldn't afford and that number spikes to nearly half or 46% for younger consumers. More than half, or 58% also said they open multiple online accounts to take advantage of promotions. Retailers have to navigate how to please customers while not losing money on returns, said Doriel Abrahams, principal technologist for Forter, a software company that helps digital commerce brands block fraud. "Clamping down too hard on policies to curb abuse could turn away good customers," Abrahams said, adding that nearly 1 in 5 consumers in the survey said they've stopped shopping with a brand that initiated more strict return policies. "Ultimately, blanket policies – whether that's charging for all returns or having zero restrictions – are bad for business. The goal is to block abuse, not loyal customers, "Abrahams said. Lauren Beitelspacher, a professor in the marketing division of Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts whose research includes return policies, said she was not surprised that shoppers abuse return policies, but she was surprised that a significant number admitted to it. The numbers are probably even higher than the 49% of people who admitted to taking advantage of lenient policies in the survey, she said. "Returns have always been a problem, but since the pandemic, it's been really bad," said Beitelspacher. Return policies got very generous during the Covid-19 pandemic when shoppers couldn't go to physical stores and online e-commerce began to explode, said Beitelspacher. But with online e-commerce, comes the lack of being able to feel an item or try it on. "So in order for retailers to minimize the consumers' risk they offer that free returns and free shipping and people just went nuts and took advantage of it," she said. Some retailers started quietly dialing back their return policies or charging for return shipping or restocking fees during the holiday season of 2023, but they didn't make a big deal of it so as not to alienate their customers, said Beitelspacher. "Returns are a big cost for online retailers although, arguably, they are part of the price of doing business in the ecommerce space. The problem is that the consumer rarely covers the full cost of returns, so it harms the bottom line," said Neil Saunders, a retail analyst at the research and analytics firm GlobalData. Tighter policies around returns, such as making the consumer pay, helps offset some of the cost but it also deters customers and can harm sales, so there is a balance to be struck, he said. Social media is full of videos of moms who brag that they have taken a years' worth of used kid clothes from the Target Cat & Jack brand back to Target for a refund or exchange for new clothes. But some shoppers say it is up to the Target store manager's discretion. Are the shoppers who are getting refunds or exchanges smart consumers or taking advantage of a lenient Target policy? Target customers can return the Cat & Jack items or any Target branded item for up to a year with the receipt or proof of purchase in the Target app, a Target spokesperson confirmed. This guarantee is in place because of the confidence the retailer has in the quality of what it is offering when guests shop Target's owned brands, the spokesperson said. Some retailers don't even want the returned product back. An Amazon spokesperson said customers are allowed to receive refunds without returning some products as a convenience to customers. That is allowed on a very small number of returns and helps keep prices low for customers, the spokesperson said. Some shoppers have shared on social media that Walmart in some cases also allows consumers to return an item and keep it. The retailer would not specifically address that claim when asked, pointing to its return policy, which does not have any details about keeping a returned item. A Walmart spokesperson added that she didn't have anything to add on its return policy, but pointed to the retailer's return policy, which says on most items shoppers have 90 days to return. However, in an online guide for its Marketplace or online site, which includes sales from third-party sellers, Walmart offers tips on how those resellers can implement a "keep it rule," allowing customers to keep the returned item. Love 'em or hate 'em?: What's in store for the future of self checkouts? How retailers are pulling back. Beitelspacher, the marketing professor, said retailers will allow customers to return an item on the theory that "the delight that you might feel might make you more of a lifetime customer." The cost of that item to gain the lifetime customer would be more than the cost of absorbing the cost for you to ship the item back, she said. But Beitelspacher also pointed out that Amazon's lenient return policies, while it may help shoppers have better feelings about Amazon, can hurt the many third-party sellers on the platform, who are actually taking the return hit. There's a big difference between a shopper who takes advantage of a retailer's lenient return policy and criminals making a business of bilking retailers through returns – and consumers who participate. Some shoppers purposely buy an item and "wardrobe" it, or wear it with the tags on and then return it, which is arguably gaming the system, said Eyal Elazar, head of market intelligence at Riskified, a company that helps e-commerce companies detect and prevent bad behavior. But criminal rings also exist to defraud retailers and some consumers are participating in this fraud, he said. Real shoppers are using cyber criminals to handle the return process for them, but with a twist, said Elazar. The criminals scam the retailers using methods such as disappearing ink on return labels, which shows proof that some package was scanned in and on its way back to the retailer. When that package doesn't arrive, the criminal can put pressure on the retailer to still give the refund. The customer gets to keep the item and some of the refund while the criminal also gets a cut, he said. The criminals love this method since they don't have to put out any investment to buy stolen credit cards or stolen inventory and are still earning money from the fraudulent returns, Elazar said. This new return fraud really ramped up after the Covid-19 pandemic when people stopped needing to sign for deliveries and when retailers were trying to figure out ways to make consumers happy with the increase in e-commerce and returns, he said. Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@ or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @ on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which will include consumer news on Fridays, here. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Don't like an item? Why shoppers love lenient return policies Sign in to access your portfolio
USA Today
3 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Do retailers make it too easy to return items? Why shoppers love lenient policies.
Do retailers make it too easy to return items? Why shoppers love lenient policies. Show Caption Hide Caption How to give the best gifts all year long It's never too soon to start gift shopping for your loved ones! This simple tip will help you get them the perfect gift every time. Returns of items are both a fact of life for retailers but also a difficult balance to maintain as they try to keep customers happy while not losing money. For consumers, lenient return policies play a big role in where they choose to buy. But then there is also the dark side of returns, with criminal rings set up to take advantage of those lenient return policies. Returns cost retailers a lot of money: total returns were expected to top $890 billion in 2024, according to a December 2024 report by the National Retail Federation. Retailers estimated that 16.9% of their annual sales in 2024 would be returned. But shoppers also say return policies impact where they shop: 67% of shoppers said a negative return experience would impact whether they would go back to that retailer. Shoppers admit to abusing lenient return policies In a survey by Forter of 4,000 shoppers in both the United States and the United Kingdom, 68% said they believe retailers make it easy to abuse flexible return policies. In fact, 49% admitted to abusing policies in the last year. Another 29% said they use the policies to avoid paying full price. Thirty percent said they use and return expensive wardrobe items they otherwise couldn't afford and that number spikes to nearly half or 46% for younger consumers. More than half, or 58% also said they open multiple online accounts to take advantage of promotions. Retailers have to navigate how to please customers while not losing money on returns, said Doriel Abrahams, principal technologist for Forter, a software company that helps digital commerce brands block fraud. "Clamping down too hard on policies to curb abuse could turn away good customers," Abrahams said, adding that nearly 1 in 5 consumers in the survey said they've stopped shopping with a brand that initiated more strict return policies. "Ultimately, blanket policies – whether that's charging for all returns or having zero restrictions – are bad for business. The goal is to block abuse, not loyal customers, "Abrahams said. Return abuse is on the rise Lauren Beitelspacher, a professor in the marketing division of Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts whose research includes return policies, said she was not surprised that shoppers abuse return policies, but she was surprised that a significant number admitted to it. The numbers are probably even higher than the 49% of people who admitted to taking advantage of lenient policies in the survey, she said. "Returns have always been a problem, but since the pandemic, it's been really bad," said Beitelspacher. Return policies got very generous during the Covid-19 pandemic when shoppers couldn't go to physical stores and online e-commerce began to explode, said Beitelspacher. But with online e-commerce, comes the lack of being able to feel an item or try it on. "So in order for retailers to minimize the consumers' risk they offer that free returns and free shipping and people just went nuts and took advantage of it," she said. Some retailers started quietly dialing back their return policies or charging for return shipping or restocking fees during the holiday season of 2023, but they didn't make a big deal of it so as not to alienate their customers, said Beitelspacher. "Returns are a big cost for online retailers although, arguably, they are part of the price of doing business in the ecommerce space. The problem is that the consumer rarely covers the full cost of returns, so it harms the bottom line," said Neil Saunders, a retail analyst at the research and analytics firm GlobalData. Tighter policies around returns, such as making the consumer pay, helps offset some of the cost but it also deters customers and can harm sales, so there is a balance to be struck, he said. Are shoppers using or abusing Target loophole? Social media is full of videos of moms who brag that they have taken a years' worth of used kid clothes from the Target Cat & Jack brand back to Target for a refund or exchange for new clothes. But some shoppers say it is up to the Target store manager's discretion. Are the shoppers who are getting refunds or exchanges smart consumers or taking advantage of a lenient Target policy? Target customers can return the Cat & Jack items or any Target branded item for up to a year with the receipt or proof of purchase in the Target app, a Target spokesperson confirmed. This guarantee is in place because of the confidence the retailer has in the quality of what it is offering when guests shop Target's owned brands, the spokesperson said. Retailers say good return policies are good business Some retailers don't even want the returned product back. An Amazon spokesperson said customers are allowed to receive refunds without returning some products as a convenience to customers. That is allowed on a very small number of returns and helps keep prices low for customers, the spokesperson said. Some shoppers have shared on social media that Walmart in some cases also allows consumers to return an item and keep it. The retailer would not specifically address that claim when asked, pointing to its return policy, which does not have any details about keeping a returned item. A Walmart spokesperson added that she didn't have anything to add on its return policy, but pointed to the retailer's return policy, which says on most items shoppers have 90 days to return. However, in an online guide for its Marketplace or online site, which includes sales from third-party sellers, Walmart offers tips on how those resellers can implement a "keep it rule," allowing customers to keep the returned item. Love 'em or hate 'em?: What's in store for the future of self checkouts? How retailers are pulling back. Beitelspacher, the marketing professor, said retailers will allow customers to return an item on the theory that "the delight that you might feel might make you more of a lifetime customer." The cost of that item to gain the lifetime customer would be more than the cost of absorbing the cost for you to ship the item back, she said. But Beitelspacher also pointed out that Amazon's lenient return policies, while it may help shoppers have better feelings about Amazon, can hurt the many third-party sellers on the platform, who are actually taking the return hit. The dark side to retail returns There's a big difference between a shopper who takes advantage of a retailer's lenient return policy and criminals making a business of bilking retailers through returns – and consumers who participate. Some shoppers purposely buy an item and "wardrobe" it, or wear it with the tags on and then return it, which is arguably gaming the system, said Eyal Elazar, head of market intelligence at Riskified, a company that helps e-commerce companies detect and prevent bad behavior. But criminal rings also exist to defraud retailers and some consumers are participating in this fraud, he said. Real shoppers are using cyber criminals to handle the return process for them, but with a twist, said Elazar. The criminals scam the retailers using methods such as disappearing ink on return labels, which shows proof that some package was scanned in and on its way back to the retailer. When that package doesn't arrive, the criminal can put pressure on the retailer to still give the refund. The customer gets to keep the item and some of the refund while the criminal also gets a cut, he said. The criminals love this method since they don't have to put out any investment to buy stolen credit cards or stolen inventory and are still earning money from the fraudulent returns, Elazar said. This new return fraud really ramped up after the Covid-19 pandemic when people stopped needing to sign for deliveries and when retailers were trying to figure out ways to make consumers happy with the increase in e-commerce and returns, he said. Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@ or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @ on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which will include consumer news on Fridays, here.
