Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Bed Bath & Beyond files for bankruptcy protection after failed turnaround efforts

    Bed Bath & Beyond filed for bankruptcy protection.
    The struggling home goods retailer has been warning of a potential bankruptcy since early January. 
    The company’s 360 namesake stores and 120 buybuy Baby locations will remain open as it begins to wind down the business and liquidate its assets

    A “Store Closing” banner on a Bed Bath & Beyond store in Farmingdale, New York, on Friday, Jan. 6, 2023.
    Johnny Milano | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Bed Bath & Beyond on Sunday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after it failed in several last-ditch efforts to raise enough money to keep the company alive.
    The beleaguered home goods retailer has been warning of a potential bankruptcy since early January, when it issued a “going concern” notice that it may not have the cash to cover expenses after a dismal holiday season. Shares of the company closed at 29 cents Friday, giving it a market value of $136.9 million. The stock is down about 88% this year. Last April, it was trading around $20 a share.

    The company’s 360 namesake stores and 120 Buybuy Baby locations will remain open as it begins to wind down the business and liquidate its assets. But it has filed motions in New Jersey bankruptcy court asking permission to auction the two brands, the company said in a release. It has already committed to closing all of its Harmon FaceValue stores.
    As of late November, Bed Bath had about $4.4 billion in assets and $5.2 billion in debts, court filings show. Alongside a long list of creditors, including vendors like Pinterest, Keurig and Blue Yonder, it owes the most to BNY Mellon at $1.18 billion, the documents show.
    “Millions of customers have trusted us through the most important milestones in their lives – from going to college to getting married, settling into a new home to having a baby. Our teams have worked with incredible purpose to support and strengthen our beloved banners, Bed Bath & Beyond and buybuy BABY,” CEO Sue Gove said in a statement.
    Sixth Street has agreed to lend Bed Bath $240 million in debtor-in-possession financing so the company can have the cash flow necessary to support operations through the bankruptcy process. It said it plans to continue to pay employees wages and benefits, maintain customer programs and honor obligations to vendors.

    The downward spiral

    Bed Bath has been hanging on by a thread since January but has refused to go down without a fight. It secured what was then-considered a Hail Mary stock offering in early February that was expected to infuse more than $1 billion in equity into Bed Bath, but the plan faltered and brought in only $360 million, the company said.

    At the end of March, Bed Bath announced another stock offering it hoped would bring in $300 million, but that news sent the share price tumbling and it struggled to raise the funds it hoped the offering would provide. As of April 10, the company had sold approximately 100.1 million shares and raised only $48.5 million.
    In filings, the company warned if it didn’t raise the anticipated proceeds from the offering, it would likely have to file for bankruptcy protection.

    Days after the second stock offering was announced, Bed Bath said it had partnered with liquidator Hilco Global to boost its inventory levels. Under the agreement, Hilco subsidiary ReStore Capital agreed to buy up to $120 million in merchandise from the company’s key suppliers after relationships with Bed Bath’s vendors soured because of its liquidity issues.
    However, the plans ultimately proved futile.
    The retailer has struggled to maintain relationships with its vendors and has been grappling with low inventory levels, lagging sales and a rapidly dwindling cash pile. 
    Going into the holiday season, Bed Bath had difficulty keeping its shelves stocked and because of its liquidity issues, some vendors began asking for prepayments, the company said in securities filings. 
    Gove had been leading the company through an attempted turnaround she hoped could save the business, but those efforts coincided with high inflation that affected consumer spending while rising interest rates slowed the housing market. 
    Plus, consumers who had spent 2020 and 2021 staying at home and updating their living spaces amid the pandemic were now spending on travel, eating out and other out-of-home experiences. 
    In mid-January, the company was looking to find a buyer willing to keep it afloat with an infusion of cash. Soon, though, Bed Bath revealed in a securities filing that it didn’t have enough cash to pay its debts and had defaulted on its credit line with JPMorgan. 
    The company was able to make its interest payments using funding gained from the first stock offering, but at the time it warned it would “likely” have to file for bankruptcy and see its assets liquidated if the deal didn’t go as planned.
    The company had loans with JPMorgan and Sixth Street that were reduced in late March after its second stock offering was announced. At the time, its total revolving commitment decreased from $565 million to $300 million and its revolving credit facility was reduced from $225 million to $175 million. Under the reduced credit agreements, Bed Bath was on the hook for monthly interest payments.
    The company said it was attempting to lower costs by reducing capital expenditures, closing stores and negotiating lease deals but warned in filings the efforts “may not be successful.” 
    At a popular Bed Bath outpost in New York City, a since laid-off staffer recently told CNBC that workers were standing around not knowing what to do after the company suddenly cut off in-store pickup and deliveries at the location. The worker was told liquidators would be coming the following day and soon learned employees wouldn’t receive severance after more than two decades with the company.
    “It was just so fast,” the worker said.  More

  • 175 Shares179 Views

    in Business

    Restaurants are expected to post strong earnings, but signs of trouble ahead could emerge

    McDonald’s, Chipotle Mexican Grill and Domino’s Pizza are among the restaurant companies reporting their earnings next week.
    Investors are anticipating strong first-quarter results, but the rest of the year may be rougher for the restaurant industry.
    Consumers have been pulling back on restaurant spending, and a recession is expected later this year.

    Pedestrians carry McDonald’s bags in New York, US, on Wednesday, April 6, 2023. 
    Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    As restaurants prepare to present their first-quarter earnings, investors are anticipating strong results.
    But the rest of the year may prove bumpier for the sector.

    McDonald’s, Chipotle Mexican Grill and Domino’s Pizza will all announce quarterly results next week. The following week, Starbucks, Burger King’s parent company Restaurant Brands International and Taco Bell’s owner Yum Brands are due to report their results.
    When restaurants released their fourth-quarter reports in February, many touted impressive sales growth in January. But those results faced easy comparisons to weak sales a year earlier, when Covid omicron outbreaks caused staffing shortages and forced more consumers to stay home.
    The industry saw less impressive growth in February and March. Same-store sales rose 6.8% in February and 3.2% in March, compared with January’s increase of 14.1%, according to Black Box Intelligence, which tracks restaurant industry metrics.
    Fast-casual and casual-dining restaurants saw the biggest sales declines month over month, according to Bank of America data, based on its customers’ credit and debit card transactions.
    While inflation accelerated over the past year, investors worried about consumers’ willingness to spend at restaurants. Some segments, like fast food and coffee shops, usually fare better during tough economic times, because of their relatively cheap prices and perception of being an affordable luxury.

    But even as inflation cools, some diners are still pulling back their restaurant spending.
    Investors will likely look to April for a better idea of consumer-spending trends, Bank of America Securities analyst Sara Senatore wrote in a research note published Wednesday.
    But even if consumers’ buying habits hold steady, restaurants’ same-store sales growth won’t look as impressive for the rest of the year as the comparable numbers from a year ago become harder to top.
    The first quarter of this year “is likely the last quarter of outsized pandemic-era comps,” Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Harbour wrote in a note to clients on Monday.
    Starting in the second quarter, restaurants will face comparisons to last year’s sales bump driven by double-digit price increases, so they’ll have to depend on higher traffic to drive sales growth. Weak traffic numbers have been an ongoing issue for many restaurants, with some notable exceptions like McDonald’s.
    Companies may also hold off on hiking their sales forecasts despite a strong first quarter, given the growing consensus that a recession will occur later in 2023, Stifel analyst Chris O’Cull said in a research note on Friday.
    Kevin McCarthy, portfolio manager of Neuberger Berman’s Next Generation Connected Consumer ETF, acknowledged that his outlook on restaurants is more negative than it has been for awhile. He said McDonald’s and Chipotle were two names that can play offense and gain market share, in spite of the tough environment.
    The relatively high valuations for restaurant stocks bring a downside for the industry, McCarthy said. McDonald’s, Starbucks, Chipotle, Papa John’s and Yum are all trading at more than 30 times their price-to-earnings ratio, according to Factset data.
    “Valuation isn’t cheap anywhere. It’s probably a standard deviation above anything that I would consider to be value. So we’re not value sniffing, and we don’t really have growth,” McCarthy said.
    Even strong first-quarter results could weigh on restaurant stocks as a result, especially if executives stick to their conservative forecasts or strike a vague tone on conference calls with analysts.
    Morgan Stanley’s Harbour wrote that stocks could fall even on solid results “if the path forward is less clear.” More

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Business

    How HBO and Netflix have evolved away from each other in the past decade

    The last two weeks have crystalized the divergence of HBO and Netflix.
    Warner Bros. Discovery is attempting to wall off HBO from the broader Max streaming service.
    Netflix is leaning into what it sees as its competitive advantage: broad breadth of audience and programming.

    Getty Images

    A decade ago, then-Netflix chief content officer — and now co-CEO — Ted Sarandos told GQ, “‘The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.”
    But, to quote HBO’s “The Wire,” “The thing about the old days: they the old days.”

    Today, the apparent goal for both companies is to avoid becoming one another.
    The past two weeks have crystalized the media giants’ diverging priorities. Parent company Warner Bros. Discovery decided to remove HBO from the name of its flagship Max streaming service to protect the HBO brand from becoming … Netflix. Rather than risk diluting HBO’s prestige brand with oodles of reality TV programming from Discovery+, Warner executives want HBO to stay pristine.
    “HBO is HBO. It needs to stay that way,” Warner Bros. Discovery head of streaming JB Perrette said at an April 12 event unveiling the new Max brand. “We will not push it to the breaking point by forcing it to take on the full breadth of this new content proposition had we kept the name in the service brand.”
    In a not-so-subtle shot at Netflix, HBO CEO Casey Bloys touted Max by highlighting its brand strength.
    “We’re not a giant undifferentiated blob of programming,” he said at the event.

    Protecting HBO, rather than expanding it, hasn’t always been the priority. Under the ownership of AT&T, then-WarnerMedia CEO (and now AT&T CEO) John Stankey appeared comfortable leaning on the HBO brand to challenge Netflix. This was the driving force behind making HBO Max — combining HBO’s programming with other original content and library programming from the WarnerMedia catalog. Stankey believed HBO couldn’t compete against Netflix on its own because it was too limited in scope.

    John Stankey, AT&T CEO speaks at the Boston College Chief Executives Club luncheon in Boston, Massachusetts, March 24, 2023.
    Brian Snyder | Reuters

    “We need hours a day,” Stankey said at an internal town hall in 2018 after AT&T closed its acquisition of Time Warner, HBO’s parent company. “It’s not hours a week, and it’s not hours a month. We need hours a day. You are competing with devices that sit in people’s hands that capture their attention every 15 minutes.”
    That sentiment didn’t sit well with HBO chief Richard Plepler, who would leave the company just months after the town hall. Plepler’s mantra, which he often repeated, was: “More is not better. Only better is better.” 
    AT&T would merge WarnerMedia with Discovery in a transaction that closed last year. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav will still chase Netflix, but he won’t be doing it by expanding HBO or its brand.

    Netflix’s shift from HBO

    Meanwhile, Netflix seems distinctly focused on delivering content that has as wide of an audience as possible. This is far from becoming HBO, which was Netflix’s goal in and around 2013. At the time, Netflix was just beginning to dabble in original content, bidding against HBO for shows such as the Kevin Spacey-led drama “House of Cards.” When Netflix hit again with the drama “Orange Is the New Black,” Sarandos seemed on his way to making Netflix the new HBO.

    But as the years went by, Netflix’s ambitions grew. Investors cheered on more spending. Simply buying prestige shows seemed like small potatoes. HBO’s U.S. audience was typically about 35 million subscribers, and Netflix quickly blew past that mark as it built a global streaming service whose target became the entire traditional pay-TV ecosystem rather than simply HBO.
    Netflix said this week it ended the first quarter with more than 232 million global subscribers.
    But the importance of making prestige shows to compete with HBO appears to be less and less essential to Netflix with every year. It’s also fair to argue Netflix hasn’t had the same hit rate as HBO when it comes to making prestige TV shows. From 2013 on, HBO has won dozens more major Emmys than Netflix.

    Ted Sarandos attends the 94th Oscars at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, California on March 27, 2022.
    Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

    “When we talk about our content, it sometimes sounds like a laundry list,” Sarandos said this week during Netflix’s earnings conference call. “Everyone has remarkably varied taste that you have to have very different things for different fans, and that’s what we are good at doing at scale.”
    Netflix has decided its competitive advantage is its breadth of programming. Sarandos told The New Yorker earlier this year that Netflix’s new strategy is to function as “equal parts HBO and FX and AMC and Lifetime and Bravo and E! and Comedy Central.”
    Ten years after Sarandos’ quote to GQ, it’s clear HBO won’t become Netflix, and Netflix won’t become HBO. And that’s fine with both of them.
    WATCH: Netflix’s password sharing is just a form of price increasing, says MMTN’s Mark Douglas More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Finance

    New ETF makes a big bet on cleaning up the environment

    A major ETF provider hopes the grass will get greener for climate-related funds in the United States.
    Asset manager DWS launched the Xtrackers MSCI USA Climate Action Equity ETF [USCA] this month. It’s designed to mimic a growing investing trend in Europe that’s tied to limiting emissions rather than following broad environmental, social and governance practice.

    “Institutional clients are looking to hone in specifically on climate as a relevant topic,” Arne Noack, the firm’s head of systemic investment and solutions, told “ETF Edge” on Monday.
    According to the DWS news release, the ETF tracks the performance of the MSCI USA Climate Action Index and is comprised of large and mid-cap U.S. companies leading their industries in achieving positive impact on climate change.
    Plus, the company website shows the ETF has amassed more than $2 billion in total net assets since its listing on April 4. Its holdings include Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia and Alphabet.
    To find the companies that yield the best results, Noack notes the MSCI index measures emissions levels of each company and ranks them within each sector. From there, the index excludes the companies that perform the worst, he said.
    The measurements follow the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Corporate Standard. It classifies a company’s greenhouse gas emissions into three categories: Scopes 1 and 2 account for emissions produced from a company’s owned and controlled sources. Scope 3 accounts for those produced by all activities from its unowned and uncontrolled sources, like customers and suppliers.

    Arrows pointing outwards

    Scope 3 is often considered the hardest to track and manage as a result.
    “Regulation straddles the line of having to be precise and specific, and also practical,” Noack said. “Certain assumptions have to be made in order to measure Scope 1, 2 and 3.”
    But this U.S.-based ETF may pose a risk for investors. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler’s recent push to require public companies to disclose their exposure to climate change risks is facing blowback from lawmakers and organizations, which have threatened lawsuits if the disclosure is finalized.
    However, Noack contends there may be a silver lining to this.
    “Where regulation becomes useful is … to make sure that all disclosures are harmonized as much as possible [and] meet that great objective to meet reality,” Noack said.
    USCA is up almost 1% since its launch earlier this month.

    Disclaimer More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Finance

    Here are the top 3 reasons to fire a financial advisor, say experts

    A small share of investors — just 6% — ever break up with their financial advisor, according to a new Morningstar study.
    There are some red flags that suggest it may be time to part ways, experts said.
    Aligning a financial plan to your goals, having good communication and charging reasonable fees for services are three key ingredients to a healthy relationship, they said.

    Edwin Tan | E+ | Getty Images

    Breakups are always hard.
    The relationship with your financial advisor is no different. But there are some telltale signs it’s probably time to call it quits, experts say.

    “When it comes down to it, it’s a business relationship,” said Micah Hauptman, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy group.
    “If advisors are not serving the client in a way the client deserves or expects, it’s entirely appropriate to end the relationship,” he said.
    More from Personal Finance:This is the ‘best defense’ against inflationHow Apple’s new 4.15% savings account rate ranksThis is the best way to ‘protect your money and your legacy’
    Statistics vary on how many people use a financial advisor.
    About 17% manage their money with the help of an advisor, according to one 2019 CNBC survey. A poll conducted last year by Northwestern Mutual found that the share jumped during the Covid pandemic, to 35%.

    But only 6% of clients ever fire an advisor — which suggests doing so is a “relatively rare occurrence,” according to a new Morningstar study.
    Here are three situations when it may make sense to part ways.

    1. The advisor doesn’t care about your goals

    Most investors who fired their advisor cite poor quality of financial advice and services or poor quality of relationship as primary drivers of their breakup, according to Morningstar.
    Indeed, 53% of individuals said these reasons accounted for their decision.  
    In other words, it’s largely not lackluster financial returns that people care about, said Danielle Labotka, a behavioral scientist at Morningstar and a co-author of the report.

    Instead, issues might arise if an advisor doesn’t devote enough time to understanding who their client is as a person or their personal financial needs and goals.
    Ultimately, a client’s money — whether retirement savings or otherwise — is earmarked to help investors live their best possible lives.
    “You want to work with advisor doing some digging around those goals,” Labotka said. “You might not have thought about that much as an investor. What are my deep goals here?”

    2. The advisor charges a lot for what they do

    Of course, some investors may not expect (or want) that level of service.
    They may be on the hunt for maximized investment returns without much regard for broad financial planning that accounts for cash flow, taxes, estate and long-term planning, for example.
    But cost is important to consider no matter the service involved.
    Cost is the No. 3 most frequently cited motivator for firing an advisor, behind lackluster quality of advice and relationship, Morningstar found.
    “If they’re charging 1% [a year] and all they’re doing is portfolio management, that should raise some red flags,” Hauptman said.

    The way I like to frame it is, look at costs and quality.

    Micah Hauptman
    director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America

    Advisory fees are often (though not always) expressed as an annual percentage of a client’s assets. A 1% fee on $100,000 equates to $1,000 a year, for example.
    Here’s the somewhat difficult thing: fees are subjective.
    While a 1% annual fee is generally high for investment management services, you may feel the advisor’s effort is worth it. The same logic applies across the range of advice services.
    “The way I like to frame it is, look at costs and quality,” Hauptman said.
    Clients should figure out what their annual fees are in dollar terms (not percentages) and decide if it’s worth it to them. Or, they can ask the advisor what their dollar fees are — and it’s a red flag if they’re hesitant to answer, Hauptman said.

    3. The advisor is a lousy communicator

    Let’s face it, finance can be confusing — and it’s part of an advisor’s job to explain concepts and strategies simply to their clients, according to Labotka.
    “If everybody knew it all, we wouldn’t need financial advisors,” she said.
    “Ensuring you have someone who will have those conversations with you — who’ll take the time to walk through the changes they want to make to your [financial] plan and why is an important source of value,” Labotka added.

    Bad communication may also erode a client’s trust in their advisor, Hauptman said.
    Do they communicate when they say they’ll do so? Are they out of touch for long periods of time? Do they do things they promised, or that you want and expect? Are they recommending things you don’t understand and are unable to explain in simple terms? Hauptman asked. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Big drug company CEOs to testify at Senate Health committee on insulin prices

    Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks, Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson and Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen will testify before the Senate Health Committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said.
    Those companies control 90% of the market for insulin, which treats diabetes. A quarter of all U.S. health-care spending is on people with diabetes.
    Top executives from the three major pharmacy benefit managers CVS Health, Express Scripts and Optum RX will also testify.

    In this photo illustration, an insulin pen manufactured by the Novo Nordisk company is displayed on March 14, 2023 in Miami, Florida.
    Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    The top executives of the three drug companies that control 90% of the global insulin market will testify May 10 before the Senate Health Committee on lowering prices of their diabetes drugs, panel Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday.
    Those companies — Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi — had announced in March that they will slash prices of their most widely used insulin products by 70% or more.

    Sanders on Friday called that move an important step forward that was the result of “public outrage and strong grassroots efforts.”
    But the Vermont independent added that Congress must ensure that insulin, whose price has increased by more than 1,000% since 1996, is affordable for everyone.
    “We must make certain, however, that those price reductions go into effect in a way that results in every American getting the insulin they need at an affordable price,” Sanders said in a statement announcing the scheduled testimony of Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks, Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson and Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen.
    The companies’ versions of insulin cost at least $275 before the announced price slashes, Sanders noted.
    Eli Lilly declined to comment when asked about the scheduled hearing. A Sanofi spokesperson said the company supports efforts to lower costs and believes other parts of the health-care system need to do more to help patients. Novo Nordisk said its CEO looks forward to “a productive and collaborative discussion about this important issue.”

    Top executives from the three major pharmacy benefit managers CVS Health, Express Scripts and Optum Rx also testify, according to Sanders’ office. Those executives are David Joyner, president of CVS Health pharmacy services; Adam Kautzner, president of Express Scripts; and Heather Cianfrocco, CEO of Optum Rx.
    Pharmacy benefit managers are the middlemen who negotiate drug prices with manufacturers on behalf of health insurance plans. PBMs have come under criticism for allegedly inflating drug prices and not passing on all the discounts they negotiate to consumers.

    CNBC Health & Science

    Read CNBC’s latest global health coverage:

    The Health and Human Services Department estimates that 17% of patients using insulin in 2021 had to ration the drug due to high costs.
    About 19% of insulin users with private insurance rationed the drug, and 29% of the uninsured who use insulin did so, according to HHS.
    The decision by the drugmakers to slash insulin prices came a month after President Joe Biden called in his State of the Union address for Congress to cap insulin prices at $35 per month.
    Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act introduced that cap for people on Medicare, the government-run health coverage program for primarily senior citizens, but the law did not include people with private insurance.
    More than 2 million patients with diabetes who take insulin are privately insured, according to HHS.
    And about 150,000 patients who take insulin do not have insurance, the department says.
    On Thursday, two senators, Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced bipartisan legislation that would require private health insurance to cap prices at $35 per month for one of each insulin type and dosage form. The bill includes other measures to reduce prices.
    Insulin types include rapid, short, intermediate and long acting, as well as pre-mixed. Dosage forms include vials, pens and inhalers. More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Business

    NFL suspends five players for violating gambling policy

    Four of the suspended players were from the Detroit Lions, which released the two players on its roster who were suspended indefinitely.
    Shaka Toney of the Washington Commanders was also suspended indefinitely.
    The NFL’s policy bars anyone in the league from engaging in any kind of gambling in league facilities or venues.

    Nick Laham | Getty Images

    Five NFL players have been suspended for violating the National Football League’s gambling policy, the league announced today.
    The policy bars anyone in the NFL from engaging in any kind of gambling in league facilities or venues, including practice facilities. The league said its review uncovered no evidence that inside information was used.

    No games were compromised as a result of the gambling, the NFL added.
    Three players — Quintez Cephus and C.J. Moore of the Detroit Lions, and Shaka Toney of the Washington Commanders — will be suspended indefinitely, at least until the end of the 2023 season, for betting on NFL games last season.
    Those players will be able to petition for reinstatement at the end of the season.
    Two other Lions athletes — Stanley Berryhill and Jameson Williams — are suspended from playing in the first six regular season games. They will be able to participate in offseason and preseason activities.

    Quintez Cephus #87 of the Detroit Lions catches the ball for a first down during the second quarter against the Minnesota Vikings at U.S. Bank Stadium on October 10, 2021 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)
    Elsa | Getty Images Sport | Getty Images

    The NFL’s crackdown comes as 33 states, including Michigan, and Washington, D.C., have launched legal betting markets since a landmark 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case paved the way for states to offer legal sports wagering.

    Earlier this week, major pro leagues — the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, WNBA, NASCAR and MLS — announced they were joining media companies NBCUniversal and Fox to form a coalition that aims to regulate sports-betting advertising as it floods television, internet and print media.
    Soon after the suspensions were announced, the Detroit Lions said they were releasing Cephus and Moore. According to ESPN, the Lions became aware of the NFL’s investigation “about a month ago.”
    “We are disappointed by the decision making demonstrated by Stanley and Jameson and will work with both players to ensure they understand the severity of these violations and have clarity on the league rules moving forward,” Detroit Lions executive vice president and general manager Brad Holmes said in a statement.
    The Commanders said the team is aware of Toney’s suspension. “We have cooperated fully with the NFL’s investigation since receiving notice and support the league’s findings and actions,” the team said in a statement.

    Shaka Toney #58 of the Washington Commanders stands during the national anthem against the Houston Texans at NRG Stadium on November 20, 2022 in Houston, Texas.
    Cooper Neill | Getty Images Sport | Getty Images

    Toney’s suspension is the latest hit for the Commanders. Last week, the district’s attorney general said the Commanders will pay $625,000 to settle allegations that the organization failed to return fans’ tickets deposits. 
    Former D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, who sued the Commanders last year, alleged that since 1996 the football team has promised to return fans’ security deposits for premium seating but instead pocketed the money and spent it.
    A Commanders spokesperson said in a statement the team hasn’t collected security deposits in more than a decade and has been “actively working to return any remaining deposits since 2014.”
    Disclosure: NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC. More

  • 163 Shares159 Views

    in Finance

    Stocks making the biggest moves midday: CSX, Pool, Procter & Gamble and more

    Tide, a laundry detergent owned by the Procter & Gamble company, is seen on a store shelf on October 20, 2020 in Miami, Florida.
    Joe Raedle | Getty Images

    Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
    CSX – The transportation stock jumped 3.7% after the company’s first-quarter results topped expectations. CSX reported earnings of 48 cents per share for the latest quarter, compared to a Refinitiv estimate of 43 cents per share. Revenue of $3.71 billion also beat Wall Street estimates.

    related investing news

    Pool – Shares of the pool company popped more than 3% after Stephens upgraded the stock to overweight from equal weight. The Wall Street firm said it sees an “attractive entry point” for the stock, calling the company “a best-in-class, high quality compounder.”
    Procter & Gamble – The stock rallied nearly 4% after Procter & Gamble posted earnings and revenue for its fiscal third quarter that beat analysts’ expectations. The consumer goods giant also raised its forecast for organic sales growth for fiscal 2023 to 6% from its earlier forecast of 4% to 5%.
    HCA Healthcare — Shares were up 4.9% after HCA Healthcare reported an earnings and revenue beat for the first quarter. The healthcare services company posted earnings per share of $4.85 and $15.59 billion in revenue. Analysts had expected $4.14 earnings per share and revenue of $15.27 billion, according to FactSet. The company also raised its earnings and revenue guidance for the full year. 
    United Health Services — The stock rose 3.5% after Cantor Fitzgerald initiated an underweight rating. The firm set a price target of $143, implying 5% upside from Thursday’s close price. Shares are flat in 2023 though the stock has declined 8.6% over the past 12 months. 
    W R Berkeley — The insurance holding company’s shares tumbled 9% after its first-quarter earnings fell below analysts’ expectations. W.R. Berkeley posted GAAP earnings of $1.06 per share, while FactSet analysts had anticipated $1.23 earnings per share. The company’s loss ratio of 62.8% came above analysts’ estimates of 60.3%. Shares are down 21.8% year to date. 

    Freeport-McMoRan — Shares of the mining company fell more than 5% Thursday. While its earnings and revenue for the first quarter topped analysts’ expectations, the company saw its mining volumes and supply chains impacted by extreme weather events and protests in Peru. 
    Regions Financial — Shares declined 3% after the company’s quarterly earnings missed analysts’ estimates. Regionals Financial posted 62 cents earnings per share, while analysts had expected 64 cents per share, according to FactSet. Meanwhile, the bank’s revenue of $1.96 billion came in line with estimates. The company reported that its quarter-end deposits fell 2.5% but remained stable in March. 
    Albemarle — Shares fell 6.5% after Chile, which holds the third-largest lithium deposits in the world, announced a new public-private national lithium strategy for production in the country. Albemarle is one of just two lithium operators currently in Chile. 
    SLB — The stock dropped 4.3% despite SLB posting an earnings and revenue beat for the first quarter. Revenue declined 2% quarter over quarter. The company also reported a $265 million drop in free cash flow, while analysts estimated positive free cash flow of $53.4 million, according to FactSet data.
    — CNBC’s Yun Li, Brian Evans and Michelle Fox contributed reporting More