Latest news with #StephenCohen
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) CEO Sells $50M in Shares as Execs Also Cut Holdings
Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR) CEO Alex Karp has sold over $50 million in company shares this week, according to recent securities filings. The transactions, which took place between $125.26 and $127.70 per share, leave Karp with approximately 6.43 million PLTR shares, valued at around $787 million based on Thursday's closing price. The sales were part of automatic transactions to cover tax obligations related to vesting restricted stock units. Other senior executives also executed major stock sales: Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar sold about $21 million in shares, while co-founder and president Stephen Cohen offloaded roughly $43.5 million. These moves come as Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR)'s stock continues to climb, recently surpassing Salesforce in market value and entering the ranks of the top 10 most valuable U.S. tech companies. Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR)'s surge is fueled by strong demand for its artificial intelligence software and a wave of new government contracts, amid a broader push for federal efficiency. The stock has soared nearly 62% in 2025, outpacing major tech peers, though concerns about international growth linger. Despite the volatility, Karp remains bullish, telling CNBC, 'We're happy. We're going to partner with the world's best people and we're going to dominate.' While we acknowledge the potential of PLTR 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 PLTR and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about this READ NEXT: and Disclosure: None.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) CEO Sells $50M in Shares as Execs Also Cut Holdings
Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR) CEO Alex Karp has sold over $50 million in company shares this week, according to recent securities filings. The transactions, which took place between $125.26 and $127.70 per share, leave Karp with approximately 6.43 million PLTR shares, valued at around $787 million based on Thursday's closing price. The sales were part of automatic transactions to cover tax obligations related to vesting restricted stock units. Other senior executives also executed major stock sales: Chief Technology Officer Shyam Sankar sold about $21 million in shares, while co-founder and president Stephen Cohen offloaded roughly $43.5 million. These moves come as Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR)'s stock continues to climb, recently surpassing Salesforce in market value and entering the ranks of the top 10 most valuable U.S. tech companies. Palantir Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:PLTR)'s surge is fueled by strong demand for its artificial intelligence software and a wave of new government contracts, amid a broader push for federal efficiency. The stock has soared nearly 62% in 2025, outpacing major tech peers, though concerns about international growth linger. Despite the volatility, Karp remains bullish, telling CNBC, 'We're happy. We're going to partner with the world's best people and we're going to dominate.' While we acknowledge the potential of PLTR 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 PLTR and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about this READ NEXT: 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
The Guardian
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
The case for American reindustrialisation
A poll from the conservative Cato Institute recently went viral. It found that 80% of Americans think the country would be better off if more people worked in manufacturing. At the same time, only 25% of respondents said they themselves would be better off working in a factory. What should we make of the results? First, there's nothing contradictory between these figures. It's easy to see how it would be good for the country to reshore manufacturing jobs, even if it's not good for you, personally, to work in a factory. Imagine a local pharmacist in an industrial town. He can see how his business would benefit from the expansion of a nearby plant. Yet he could also see that he would personally lose out on a lot of income if he gave up his trade and marched into the factory himself. The same can be said for any number of other workers. The reason so many people find appeals to reindustrialization attractive is because life was undoubtedly better when the old factories in their town were buzzing with activity than it is today, where they sit idle. Second, that 25% figure represents a lot of people. Across the political spectrum, libertarians at Reason Magazine, liberals at the Financial Times, mainstream conservatives, and even some on the far left have misread this figure. They think 25% indicates a woefully low ceiling for appeals to reindustrialization. Yet currently only 8% of Americans are directly employed in manufacturing. If we gave the people what they wanted, we would more than triple the amount of manufacturing jobs in the United States, an increase from about 12.7 million workers to more than 40 million. That is not small, it's seismic. That a quarter of Americans think they would be personally better off with a factory job – jobs that are often dangerous and difficult – represents a scathing indictment of the so-called 'knowledge economy' that promised prosperity but has often delivered devastation instead. Back in 1987, the economists Stephen Cohen and John Zysman warned:'Lose manufacturing and you will lose – not develop – high-wage service jobs.' How prescient they were. Everywhere factories have fled, social rot has followed. Since then, wage growth for most Americans has been stagnant. For those without a college degree it has declined. The promise of a 'service economy' was built on the myth that jobs in services could simply replace jobs in manufacturing, without any real trade-off. But, as experience has shown, many service jobs have proved to be stubbornly low-waged. And there is good evidence that, all things being equal, jobs in manufacturing still offer pay advantages over jobs in services. Moreover, as developmental economists have long acknowledged, the health of a nation is tied to the health of its industrial heartlands. Just look at China's explosive rise to see how important manufacturing is to a nation's economic strength. Or, alternatively, look at the deindustrialization of the United States, and now Germany, for examples of the equal and opposite effect. A decline, especially a rapid one, in manufacturing is linked to a decline in the social and economic health of the country as a whole. Still, some argue that the only thing special about manufacturing jobs in the US was that the sector was highly unionized and that in a more pro-labor environment, service jobs would make just as much money as factory jobs. For instance, Matt Bruenig notes: 'McDonald's workers in Denmark make more than Honda workers in Alabama.' He's right. Yet, as he knows, the Danish example doesn't just show the power of unions, it actually helps make the case for a strong manufacturing sector. For one thing, Danish manufacturing workers make nearly twice the amount that Danish McDonald's workers do. For another, Denmark employs nearly twice as many (15.7%) workers in manufacturing than does the United States (8%). And, according to the World Bank, manufacturing counts for a significantly larger portion of Denmark's GDP (about 16%) than it does in the United States (about 10%). Ultimately, a major reason Danish McDonald's workers can earn high wages is that, thanks to intelligent industrial policy, Denmark has retained its manufacturing sector. It is because blue-collar Danes earn high wages that McDonald's can afford to pay high wages. The same can't be said of the United States. While unionized service workers at say, Starbucks, may be able to win significant wage increases through union bargaining, they won't be able to make anything close to the wages made by union auto workers. And that is not due to a lack of effort or heroism on the part of the baristas. It's structural. Manufacturing jobs simply have greater wage potential than many jobs in services because they have more room for productivity growth and a higher degree of leverage to win wage demands. Increases in productivity, the amount of work accomplished by each worker in a set period of time, make firms more efficient and more profitable. As productivity increases, so do profits, which can translate to higher wages through bargaining. But service firms and factories have very different productivity curves. A Starbucks store can introduce more efficient espresso machines but ultimately the potential for increased productivity is limited by the nature of the business itself. Starbucks is selling a service, a consumer experience, and it's hard to increase the per-worker output of an experience. This is a problem across the service sector where the rate of productivity growth remains low. By contrast, manufacturing firms can rapidly increase the output of each worker by introducing new techniques and technologies. As a result, these workers have a regular claim to corresponding wage increases – each year they get more productive, they make the company more money, and therefore the company can afford to pay their wage demands. Still, whether they can win those demands depends on leverage. Here too manufacturing workers have the advantage. A strike in a key auto plant can shut down all downstream operations, resulting in windfall losses quickly. Yet no strike at any given Starbucks store could have the same effect. Productivity and worker-leverage give manufacturing its unique high-wage potential, and for these reasons, a strong manufacturing sector has a salutary effect on the entire economy. Even for union baristas, manufacturing matters. Besides the pay advantages, there are other good reasons for reshoring manufacturing. As John Maynard Keynes argued, national self-sufficiency, the ability of a nation to provide its own industrial necessities, has all sorts of benefits. Including increased leverage in trade negotiations, more sovereignty over economic policy, and greater potential for robust social programs (remember, none of the famously generous Nordic states allowed their major industries to shrivel and die the way that Britain and the United States have). Put simply, if we want more social equality, we need a better economic balance. Consider that in 1960 almost 95% of the clothing worn by Americans was made in the US – today it is 2%. And unionized American garment workers made more then than Bangladeshi garment workers make now. Finally, reindustrialization is great politics. With the left struggling to reach working-class voters, an economic appeal that reaches some 80% of the country is a good way to win back favor. Donald Trump's chaotic and contradictory policies won't yield an industrial renaissance, and his fumbling of the economy could make it yet harder to do so, but while we are in the political wilderness the left should figure out the right mix of industrial policies that can bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to figure out an exit path from neoliberal globalization and that involves a wholesale rethinking of trade and industrial policy; immigration and labor market policies; monetary and fiscal policies. The good news is there is hope. As UAW's president, Shawn Fain, notes, even a modest reorganization of economic policy can result in an instant boost in new manufacturing employment. By the union's calculations more than 50,000 new jobs could be reshored simply by filling out the capacity of existing plants. That may not sound like a lot, and it's far short of the 25% figure, but if you're among those newly employed it could mean the difference between scraping by in a post-industrial town and having a living wage with union rights. Beyond the short term, US deindustrialization, ironically, could be an advantage for its industrial rebirth. After the second world war, Europe saw the most fantastic industrial turnaround ever recorded. Decimated economies such as France and Germany, where industrial towns were bombed to smithereens, suddenly emerged as manufacturing powerhouses. How? The destruction of their old factories gave them a fresh start. Industrial policy-makers didn't have to deal with stubborn institutional inertia or outmoded infrastructure. While British firms struggled after the war, unwilling to build new plants, French and German manufacturers, with a clean slate upon which to build, surged ahead. Walking through America's deindustrialized zones is a bit like walking through Dresden after 1945. Maybe then, with a clean slate, we can rebuild better than before. Dustin Guastella is a research associate at the Center for Working Class Politics and the director of operations for Teamsters Local 623
Forbes
22-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Return To Office: The Entrepreneurs Making The Workplace Matter Again
Coworking spaces appeal to employees Five years after the start of the pandemic-driven work-from-home (WFH) phenomenon, the return to office (RTO) trend is gathering pace. Some organizations are mandating a full return while others are enforcing a minimum number of days in the workplace. Not surprisingly, many employees are pushing back, and who can blame them after five years without an expensive and time-consuming commute and the ultimate in work-life balance? But are employers missing a trick by focusing solely on a mass return of staff to the same office environment they left behind? Company plans to implement RTO policies are driven largely by concerns about productivity, face-to-face collaboration and workplace culture. Figures from KPMG found that 83% of U.K. CEOs expect to see a full return to the office within three years. Some organizations are taking a hardline approach, monitoring attendance and using the data gathered in performance and pay reviews. Others are linking RTO compliance with bonuses, potentially reducing or withholding them from those who don't meet attendance expectations. It could be argued that there is a right way and a wrong way to encourage staff to return to the office, and many businesses have a valid rationale for wanting some employees to be more present, but ultimatums don't tend to sit well. However, as RTO policies continue to roll out, some companies are taking a different approach and going to greater lengths to create workspaces that people will want to use. Some are experimenting with ways to draw reluctant employees back by utilizing flexible workspaces to bring people together and create better environments. Initially, the goal was to reduce their fixed costs by having more flexible space, however, a growing number are now embracing this flexibility to create more dedicated and welcoming places for their people to come. Stephen Cohen, CEO and founder of New York City-based coworking space Nomadworks, has seen a rise in corporate clients looking to use his spaces as dedicated work environments. Stephen Cohen, CEO and founder of Nomadworks He says: 'Companies are realizing that the office must offer something people can't get at home, in essence, community and hospitality. The isolation of Zoom calls and the Covid era has shown us that real collaboration needs a structured, creative, and social environment.' Historically, he adds, previous RTO waves have been driven more by mandates or policy changes. 'Companies that just reopened offices without reimagining them saw higher disengagement, while some companies returned after Covid acting as though nothing had happened,' says Cohen. 'The new work culture demands increased collaboration and work-life balance, supported by a more hospitality-focused work environment, centered around teams. The 9-to-5 mindset has been replaced; employees now want flexibility, as well as environments that enhance their work, not just house it. That is where coworking comes in.' It seems that space is no longer just real estate. It is an experience that includes amenities, community building, hospitality and networking. Forward thinking companies are treating the office as a curated environment, blending work, culture, and social connection. Teams no longer want a static desk; they want spaces that adapt to and flex the type of work they're doing that day. And it is a concept that is resonating with employers and their staff. As challenger bank Monzo continues to grow its presence in the U.S., flexibility has been key to its progress. Executive operations manager Michelle DeMateo says: 'We needed a space that could support both in-person collaboration and the realities of a hybrid, distributed team. Nomadworks gave us the ability to scale thoughtfully without making a hard choice between fully remote or fully in-office. That flexibility aligns perfectly with how we operate at Monzo; empowering teams to do their best work, wherever they are.' RTO is a nuanced issue that touches on many aspects of work and the role it plays in people's lives. For example, in the drive to get people back in the office, generational differences are often overlooked, as Amy Sawbridge, owner of Sawbridge Consulting, explains. She says: 'Younger generations are more likely to have issues with sufficient space to work at home and the cost of commuting. Younger generations tend to have an increased sense of boundaries and discretionary effort and less comfort with social interactions. How do we enable more junior employees to learn from others through proximity?' Those companies that are getting it right are not really focusing on RTO, which frames the office as a chore, rather than a catalyst, says Chase Garbarino, CEO and founder of real estate software firm HqO. Chase Garbarino, CEO and founder of HqO 'The best teams are investing in environments that bring people together for collaboration, creativity, and culture-building,' he says. 'It's not because someone said, 'you must', but because that's where the magic happens, especially in an age where AI is taking over the task work. If your people are just sitting alone at a desk, you've already lost.' Hardline RTO mandates will also impact the talent pool. Underperforming staff will be weeded out, but there is the risk that it will also deter valuable talent. New research shows that 46% of U.S. remote and hybrid workers said that they were unlikely to stay at their jobs if a full RTO was to be implemented. Sawbridge questions whether a demanding RTO simply reflects an inability to properly manage performance. 'There's a tendency to forget about all the roles that are field-based or international,' she says. 'We've been dealing with this type of distance relationship for a long time but seem to have reinvented this as a new issue.' The decisions behind most RTO plans appear to have been commercial and logistical rather than emotional. The reality is that humans are social beings, and the physical environment has a huge impact on people, shaping their mood, energy, and even purpose. Garbarino adds: 'Working alongside others fuels creativity, sharpens thinking, and builds trust. That's not a 'perk'; it is core to performance. And as AI gets better at doing the routine and the repeatable, the uniquely human skills; empathy, strategy, storytelling, and decision-making, become even more valuable. You don't unlock that over Zoom. 'The future office isn't just a place to work, it's a place to become better at what you do because you're around others. That means better design, better tech and better hospitality. It also means rethinking how AI fits in because as AI takes over tasks, the office needs to be where people become more strategic, more creative and more valuable. That's how you make the office matter again.'
Globe and Mail
24-03-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Palantir's President Just Dumped PLTR Stock. Should You?
Palantir (PLTR) surged more than 300% in 2024, easily outpacing the broader market returns. Currently, PLTR stock trades 23% below all-time highs, valuing the company at a market cap of $213.3 billion. According to SEC filings, Palantir's President Stephen Cohen sold nearly $27 million worth of Palantir shares on March 17, with shares sold at prices ranging from $85.18 to $88.63. These sales were executed under a pre-existing Rule 10b5-1 trading plan established in December 2024. The plan involved the exercise of 310,000 vested Class B common stock options that were converted to Class A shares before being sold. Following the March 17 sale, Cohen held 592 shares of Class A common stock. While company insiders are lowering their stakes in Palantir, the tech stock is still a good buy. Is PLTR Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Palantir's sales increased from $595 million in 2018 to $2.86 billion in 2024. Its growth story is far from over, given that it continues to expand its portfolio of products and solutions, widening its customer base. Palantir has secured six new customers for its Warp Speed platform in defense and manufacturing, including Epirus, Red Cat, Saildrone, Saronic, SNC, and Ursa Major. These companies span critical industries from drone technologies and maritime solutions to propulsion systems and advanced manufacturing. The Warp Speed platform is helping these companies accelerate on-shore manufacturing capabilities, optimize maintenance, and enable advanced fleet management. Palantir is also gaining traction in the financial services sector through a strategic joint venture with TWG Global. This partnership aims to reimagine AI deployment across banking, investment management, and insurance by moving beyond fragmented solutions to a comprehensive, enterprise-wide approach. Palantir CEo Alex Karp described the partnership as 'seamlessly weaving AI into the fabric of financial services' to help companies 'position themselves for dominance' in today's complex global market. Palantir's aggressive expansion across these diverse sectors highlights its strategic positioning at the intersection of AI infrastructure and critical industries and its ability to customize solutions for specific industry challenges while leveraging its core technological strengths. Is PLTR Stock Overvalued? Palantir's sales are forecast to increase to $4.79 billion in 2026, and adjusted earnings are forecast at $0.70 per share. Even if PLTR stock was priced at a lofty multiple of 100x trailing sales, it would trade at $70 per share, below the current trading price. This suggests shares are overvalued here. Out of the 19 analysts covering PLTR stock, three recommend 'Strong Buy,' 11 recommend 'Hold,' one recommends 'Moderate Sell,' and four recommend 'Strong Sell.' The average target price for PLTR stock is $84.22, also below the current price.
