Latest news with #JohnMcGuire
Perth Now
27-05-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
Wild reason man kidnapped brother-in-law
Representative John McGuire (R-Virginia) recently bought shares of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH). In a filing disclosed on May 16th, the Representative disclosed that they had bought between $1,001 and $15,000 in UnitedHealth Group stock on April 10th. The trade occurred in the Representative's 'MERRILL LYNCH SEP IRA' account. UnitedHealth Group Stock Down 0.4% UnitedHealth Group stock opened at $295.37 on Tuesday. The company has a market cap of $267.94 billion, a P/E ratio of 19.06, a price-to-earnings-growth ratio of 1.37 and a beta of 0.56. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated has a 1-year low of $248.88 and a 1-year high of $630.73. The company has a fifty day simple moving average of $448.25 and a 200 day simple moving average of $501.48. The company has a current ratio of 0.83, a quick ratio of 0.91 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.74. UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH – Get Free Report) last released its earnings results on Thursday, April 17th. The healthcare conglomerate reported $7.20 earnings per share for the quarter, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $7.29 by ($0.09). The business had revenue of $109.58 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $111.56 billion. UnitedHealth Group had a net margin of 3.60% and a return on equity of 26.69%. During the same period last year, the business posted $6.91 EPS. Research analysts anticipate that UnitedHealth Group Incorporated will post 29.54 earnings per share for the current fiscal year. Insiders Place Their Bets In other UnitedHealth Group news, CEO Stephen J. Hemsley bought 86,700 shares of UnitedHealth Group stock in a transaction on Friday, May 16th. The shares were purchased at an average cost of $288.57 per share, with a total value of $25,019,019.00. Following the acquisition, the chief executive officer now directly owns 679,493 shares of the company's stock, valued at $196,081,295.01. The trade was a 14.63% increase in their position. The acquisition was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this hyperlink. Also, Director Kristen Gil acquired 3,700 shares of UnitedHealth Group stock in a transaction dated Thursday, May 15th. The stock was purchased at an average cost of $271.17 per share, for a total transaction of $1,003,329.00. Following the completion of the purchase, the director now owns 3,818 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,035,327.06. The trade was a 3,135.59% increase in their position. The disclosure for this purchase can be found here. Insiders have acquired 109,408 shares of company stock valued at $31,607,768 in the last ninety days. 0.33% of the stock is currently owned by insiders. Hedge Funds Weigh In On UnitedHealth Group Several hedge funds and other institutional investors have recently made changes to their positions in the company. NewSquare Capital LLC bought a new stake in shares of UnitedHealth Group during the fourth quarter worth $25,000. Marshall & Sterling Wealth Advisors Inc. bought a new stake in shares of UnitedHealth Group during the fourth quarter worth $26,000. Hurley Capital LLC bought a new stake in shares of UnitedHealth Group during the fourth quarter worth $28,000. Bayforest Capital Ltd grew its stake in shares of UnitedHealth Group by 685.7% during the first quarter. Bayforest Capital Ltd now owns 55 shares of the healthcare conglomerate's stock worth $29,000 after buying an additional 48 shares during the last quarter. Finally, AlphaMark Advisors LLC bought a new stake in shares of UnitedHealth Group during the fourth quarter worth $30,000. 87.86% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth A number of brokerages have recently commented on UNH. Bank of America downgraded shares of UnitedHealth Group from a 'buy' rating to a 'neutral' rating and decreased their price objective for the company from $560.00 to $350.00 in a research report on Wednesday, May 14th. Barclays decreased their price objective on shares of UnitedHealth Group from $513.00 to $362.00 and set an 'overweight' rating for the company in a research report on Thursday, May 15th. Erste Group Bank cut shares of UnitedHealth Group from a 'strong-buy' rating to a 'hold' rating in a research note on Wednesday, April 30th. HSBC restated a 'reduce' rating and set a $270.00 target price (down previously from $490.00) on shares of UnitedHealth Group in a research note on Wednesday, May 21st. Finally, Raymond James cut shares of UnitedHealth Group from a 'strong-buy' rating to a 'market perform' rating in a research note on Wednesday, May 14th. One equities research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, seven have issued a hold rating, seventeen have given a buy rating and one has issued a strong buy rating to the company. Based on data from UnitedHealth Group presently has an average rating of 'Moderate Buy' and an average price target of $441.87. Check Out Our Latest Research Report on UNH About Representative McGuire John McGuire (Republican Party) is a member of the U.S. House, representing Virginia's 5th Congressional District. He assumed office on January 3, 2025. His current term ends on January 3, 2027. McGuire (Republican Party) is running for re-election to the U.S. House to represent Virginia's 5th Congressional District. He declared candidacy for the 2026 election. John McGuire was born in Richmond, Virginia. McGuire graduated from Henrico High School. He served as a U.S. Navy Seal from 1988 to 1998. His professional experience includes founding SEAL Team Physical Training Inc. About UnitedHealth Group UnitedHealth Group Incorporated operates as a diversified health care company in the United States. The company operates through four segments: UnitedHealthcare, Optum Health, Optum Insight, and Optum Rx. The UnitedHealthcare segment offers consumer-oriented health benefit plans and services for national employers, public sector employers, mid-sized employers, small businesses, and individuals; health care coverage, and health and well-being services to individuals age 50 and older addressing their needs; Medicaid plans, children's health insurance and health care programs; and health and dental benefits, and hospital and clinical services, as well as health care benefits products and services to state programs caring for the economically disadvantaged, medically underserved, and those without the benefit of employer-funded health care coverage. Featured Articles companies with FREE daily email newsletter.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Congressman's First Stock Trade Tanks 45% After Betting On UnitedHealth Before Fallout
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. The trading activity of members of Congress has drawn increased attention from retail traders. Some disclosed trades resulted in huge profits, potential conflicts of interest, and red flags. One new member of Congress found out that trading stocks while in office might not be as easy as everyone thinks. What Happened: Members of Congress are currently able to buy and sell stocks and options as long as they disclose within 45 days, a practice that the P.E.L.O.S.I. Act looks to end if passed by Congress. While some members of Congress like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have disclosed hundreds of trades in 2025, Rep. John McGuire (R-Va.) is new to the game. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The Congressman who was sworn into office in January 2025 has made only one stock transaction according to the Benzinga Government Trades page. On April 10, McGuire purchased between $1,000 and $15,000 in UnitedHealth Group stock, one of the largest health insurance companies in the United States. The purchase drew attention because McGuire serves on the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services, a unit of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. However, the timing of the trade likely couldn't have gotten much worse for McGuire, who bought the stock before quarterly financial results that saw the company pull guidance and announce its CEO Andrew Witty was stepping down. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the Justice Department was investigating the company for potential Medicare fraud. The health insurance company said it hasn't been notified of any investigation. UnitedHealth Group shares traded between $580.00 and $601.88 on April 10 when McGuire made his purchase. Today, the stock trades at $321.50 and has fallen between 46.6% and 44.6% since April 10. Assuming McGuire bought the full $15,000 value of UnitedHealth Group in his disclosure, the position would be worth $8,010 to $8,310 It's Important: McGuire's trade could mark a new era in which members of Congress lose money instead of making large profits on their stock and options activities. In 2024, many members of Congress outperformed the S&P 500. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has often been the top-followed member of Congress for trading activity, with her husband Paul Pelosi often buying in-the-money options on large technology stocks. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has reintroduced legislation that would ban members of Congress from trading or holding individual stocks. The bill is known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, or PELOSI Act, based on the first letter of each of the main words. The name targets Pelosi. Hawley's bill is being reintroduced as President Donald Trump said he would support such a ban. "Well, I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send it to me, I would do it," Trump told TIME. Trump said he would sign the ban if the bill passes Congress. While Pelosi makes headlines for her trades, it's important to remember that both Republican and Democratic members of Congress are profiting from buying and selling stocks and options while in office. Some trades have questionable timing or are connected to committees they serve on. In 2024, a list of the top-performing traders in Congress included six Republicans and four Democrats. For McGuire to make the 2025 list of best-performing members of Congress, he will have to buy more stocks or hope for a huge recovery in the price of UnitedHealth Group stock. Read Next: Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — Invest at $0.60/share before it's too late. Invest Where It Hurts — And Help Millions Heal: Invest in Cytonics and help disrupt a $390B Big Pharma stronghold. Photo: Shutterstock Send To MSN: Send to MSN This article New Congressman's First Stock Trade Tanks 45% After Betting On UnitedHealth Before Fallout originally appeared on 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
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Congress seeks answers about rising drone activity over military bases
WASHINGTON, April 29 (UPI) -- The House Military and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Tuesday questioned Department of Defense officials about an increase in unauthorized drone activity over military bases and criminal cartels' drone usage at the southern border. Lawmakers said they want a comprehensive bill to enhance technology to "defeat adversaries" after a slew of drone sightings by "transnational criminal organizations" were reported last year. "It's only a matter of time until we have our next 9/11 terrorist attack," Rep. John McGuire, R-Va., said at the hearing. "The problem is bureaucracy prevents action, but this time, we know about it, and we can fix it." The DOD detected 350 drones over 100 military sites last year, according to testimony at the hearing. U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Paul Spedero Jr., one of the two officials testifying, said he would not reveal in an unclassified setting how that compares to previous years. "It has grown, though," he said. Committee members blamed "bad actors," such as the Chinese Communist Party, Iranians and south-of-the-border criminal cartels, for the increased activity over military installations. "We had open borders for the last four years, so the terrorist activity that's now in our country, bad actors from other states that don't have the best interest of our country," Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, said. "What can we do to speed up this process so that it's handled with urgency?" Since 2023, two Chinese nationals have been arrested for illegally flying drones to surveil military sites, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in a news release. Defense officials said many bases lack the capability to efficiently detect drones or defeat them. "In general, the technology to field systems has far outpaced the technology to defeat those systems," Spedero said, calling the Defense Department's capabilities "not comprehensive," "not efficient" and "var[ying] base to base." Lawmakers and the two men testifying pointed to unclear rules and oversight by too many agencies. The DOD, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security oversee some parts of these sightings. "These incursions happened while the Biden administration sat on their hands, allowing bureaucracy and interagency dysfunction to run the show," said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., an Air Force veteran, Trump supporter and onetime Freedom Caucus member. As lawmakers looked for answers, defense officials asked for funding and clear guidance on who has the authority to take down drones. Although no official action was voted upon, Cloud suggested a possible solution. He recommended changing the drone regulatory language from "aircraft' to "manned aircraft," which would allow for more military authority to shoot down the drones. The committee has five legislative days to submit any additional questions.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - America is not prepared for drone warfare in the homeland — yet
Earlier this month, the White House announced it would consider drone strikes against Mexican drug cartels. Although it is important to keep options open when dealing with viable threats, we must also remember that in military planning, the enemy gets a vote. Stated plainly: We must consider how the enemy will respond to our actions. In the case of potential drone strikes against the cartels, a predictable response would be that the cartels retaliate with their own version of drone warfare. Cartels are already using drones daily to track the movements of American law enforcement agents at the border and to transport contraband into our country. We also know that cartels have shown a willingness to weaponize drones and have used them to attack law enforcement, the Mexican National Guard and criminal rivals within Mexico. Given this, it seems likely the cartels would retaliate with drone strikes of their own, which invites the question: Are we ready for such a scenario? A similar question was recently raised in a March inter-agency letter penned by Reps. John McGuire (R-Va.) and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission and Department of Defense. The authors noted that, in a recent congressional delegation to the southern border, personnel on the ground shared their concerns regarding their ability to defend themselves should the cartels attempt a drone attack. Unfortunately, the ability to defend against drone attacks from any enemy, foreign or domestic, is severely hampered by a legal framework that has lagged behind this emerging threat. It turns out there is a complex web of federal laws that criminalize efforts to damage, disable or even detect or track drones. While Congress has carved out some ability to conduct drone detection and mitigation activities, this limited authority has only been extended to a select few federal government departments. State and local governments, not to mention private businesses and individuals, are almost completely stifled in their ability to protect against drone threats. Federal criminal laws that apply to protect traditional aircraft are also interpreted to apply to protect drones. Therefore, someone who damages or disables a drone would theoretically be guilty of violating the Aircraft Sabotage Act, just as if a 737 were attacked. Interfering with a drone may also violate the Aircraft Piracy Act, the Pen Trap statute, Wiretap Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and prohibitions on GPS interference. Currently, the only entities statutorily allowed to conduct counter-drone activities, notwithstanding other potentially applicable laws (such as those mentioned above), are the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Energy. However, even these agencies are mostly only allowed to engage in limited mitigation activities to counter drones presenting a credible threat to designated facilities or assets. State, local, tribal and territorial leadership and law enforcement have not been granted authority to conduct such counter-drone operations. Even if federal departments had broader authority to conduct counter-drone activities on American soil, such agencies would not have the resources to protect the expansive area of the country's 55 states and inhabited territories. A good first step to fix this problem would be a legislative update to clarify that statutes like the Aircraft Sabotage Act do not apply to unmanned aircraft. It is also imperative to empower non-federal entities to partner with law enforcement and federal agencies in a mutually supportive effort to address drone threats. Until such legislation can be enacted, it would be helpful to have an executive order guiding agencies on how to interpret applicable laws and exercise enforcement discretion. The goal of such a directive would be that law enforcement, at the federal level and below, could feel secure in their ability to engage drones presenting a credible threat without fear of being prosecuted. In the end, the potential for nefarious drone activities by cartels or other bad actors necessitates a robust counter-drone framework. Alongside legislative and policy changes allowing both federal and non-federal entities to contribute to counter-drone efforts effectively, it is essential to educate potential stakeholders in conducting counter-drone operations in collaboration with the appropriate governmental entities. Such education should cover legal considerations, operational procedures, technology utilization, communication protocols, counter-drone devices and activities' potentially adverse secondary effects. These steps could go a long way in addressing the drone threat in a responsible manner, and thus enhancing domestic security and response capabilities. C. Carter Lee is a Virginia attorney. He is also a colonel in the Virginia National Guard, serving as the state judge advocate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
26-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
America is not prepared for drone warfare in the homeland — yet
Earlier this month, the White House announced it would consider drone strikes against Mexican drug cartels. Although it is important to keep options open when dealing with viable threats, we must also remember that in military planning, the enemy gets a vote. Stated plainly: We must consider how the enemy will respond to our actions. In the case of potential drone strikes against the cartels, a predictable response would be that the cartels retaliate with their own version of drone warfare. Cartels are already using drones daily to track the movements of American law enforcement agents at the border and to transport contraband into our country. We also know that cartels have shown a willingness to weaponize drones and have used them to attack law enforcement, the Mexican National Guard and criminal rivals within Mexico. Given this, it seems likely the cartels would retaliate with drone strikes of their own, which invites the question: Are we ready for such a scenario? A similar question was recently raised in a March inter-agency letter penned by Reps. John McGuire (R-Va.) and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission and Department of Defense. The authors noted that, in a recent congressional delegation to the southern border, personnel on the ground shared their concerns regarding their ability to defend themselves should the cartels attempt a drone attack. Unfortunately, the ability to defend against drone attacks from any enemy, foreign or domestic, is severely hampered by a legal framework that has lagged behind this emerging threat. It turns out there is a complex web of federal laws that criminalize efforts to damage, disable or even detect or track drones. While Congress has carved out some ability to conduct drone detection and mitigation activities, this limited authority has only been extended to a select few federal government departments. State and local governments, not to mention private businesses and individuals, are almost completely stifled in their ability to protect against drone threats. Federal criminal laws that apply to protect traditional aircraft are also interpreted to apply to protect drones. Therefore, someone who damages or disables a drone would theoretically be guilty of violating the Aircraft Sabotage Act, just as if a 737 were attacked. Interfering with a drone may also violate the Aircraft Piracy Act, the Pen Trap statute, Wiretap Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and prohibitions on GPS interference. Currently, the only entities statutorily allowed to conduct counter-drone activities, notwithstanding other potentially applicable laws (such as those mentioned above), are the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Energy. However, even these agencies are mostly only allowed to engage in limited mitigation activities to counter drones presenting a credible threat to designated facilities or assets. State, local, tribal and territorial leadership and law enforcement have not been granted authority to conduct such counter-drone operations. Even if federal departments had broader authority to conduct counter-drone activities on American soil, such agencies would not have the resources to protect the expansive area of the country's 55 states and inhabited territories. A good first step to fix this problem would be a legislative update to clarify that statutes like the Aircraft Sabotage Act do not apply to unmanned aircraft. It is also imperative to empower non-federal entities to partner with law enforcement and federal agencies in a mutually supportive effort to address drone threats. Until such legislation can be enacted, it would be helpful to have an executive order guiding agencies on how to interpret applicable laws and exercise enforcement discretion. The goal of such a directive would be that law enforcement, at the federal level and below, could feel secure in their ability to engage drones presenting a credible threat without fear of being prosecuted. In the end, the potential for nefarious drone activities by cartels or other bad actors necessitates a robust counter-drone framework. Alongside legislative and policy changes allowing both federal and non-federal entities to contribute to counter-drone efforts effectively, it is essential to educate potential stakeholders in conducting counter-drone operations in collaboration with the appropriate governmental entities. Such education should cover legal considerations, operational procedures, technology utilization, communication protocols, counter-drone devices and activities' potentially adverse secondary effects. These steps could go a long way in addressing the drone threat in a responsible manner, and thus enhancing domestic security and response capabilities.
