Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Business

    FTC sues drug middlemen for allegedly inflating insulin prices

    The Federal Trade Commission on Friday sued three large U.S. health companies that negotiate insulin prices, arguing the drug middlemen boost their profits while “artificially” inflating costs for patients. 
    The suit targets the three biggest so-called pharmacy benefit managers, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum Rx, CVS Health’s Caremark and Cigna’s Express Scripts, and their affiliated group purchasing organizations.
    The FTC may also recommend suing insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk in the future.

    Lina Khan, Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee at the Rayburn House Office Building on May 15, 2024 in Washington, DC. 
    Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    The Federal Trade Commission on Friday sued three large U.S. health companies that negotiate insulin prices, arguing the drug middlemen use practices that boost their profits while “artificially” inflating costs for patients. 
    The suit targets the three biggest so-called pharmacy benefit managers, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum Rx, CVS Health’s Caremark and Cigna’s Express Scripts. All are owned by or connected to health insurers and collectively administer about 80% of the nation’s prescriptions, according to the FTC. 

    The FTC’s lawsuit also includes each PBM’s affiliated group purchasing organization, which brokers drug purchases for hospitals and other health-care providers. The agency said it could recommend suing drugmakers Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk in the future as well over their role in driving up list prices for their insulin products.
    A UnitedHealth spokesperson said the suit “demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how drug pricing works, noting that Optum RX has “aggressively and successfully” negotiated with drug manufacturers.
    A CVS spokesperson said Caremark is “proud of the work” it has done to make insulin more affordable for Americans, adding that “to suggest anything else, as the FTC did today, is simply wrong.”
    And, a spokesperson for Express Scripts said the suit “continues a troubling pattern from the FTC of unsubstantiated and ideologically-driven attacks” on PBMs. It comes three days after Express Scripts sued the FTC, demanding that the agency retract its allegedly “defamatory” July report that claimed that the PBM industry is hiking drug prices.
    PBMs sit at the center of the drug supply chain in the U.S. They negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers on behalf of insurers, large employers and federal health plans. They also create lists of medications, or formularies, that are covered by insurance and reimburse pharmacies for prescriptions. The FTC has been investigating PBMs since 2022. 

    The agency’s suit argues that the three PBMs have created a “perverse” drug rebate system that prioritizes high rebates from drugmakers, which leads to “artificially inflated insulin list prices.” It also alleges that PBMs favor those high-list-price insulins even when more affordable insulins with lower list prices become available. 
    The FTC is filing its complaint through its so-called administrative process, which initiates a proceeding before an administrative judge who would hear the case.
    “Millions of Americans with diabetes need insulin to survive, yet for many of these vulnerable patients, their insulin drug costs have skyrocketed over the past decade thanks in part to powerful PBMs and their greed,” Rahul Rao, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. 
    “The FTC’s administrative action seeks to put an end to the Big Three PBMs’ exploitative conduct and marks an important step in fixing a broken system—a fix that could ripple beyond the insulin market and restore healthy competition to drive down drug prices for consumers,” Rao continued. 
    Roughly 8 million Americans with diabetes rely on insulin to survive, and many have been forced to ration the treatment due to high prices, according to the FTC.
    President Joe Biden’s signature Inflation Reduction Act has capped insulin prices for Medicare beneficiaries at $35 per month. That policy currently does not extend to patients with private insurance.
    The Biden administration and Congress have ramped up pressure on PBMs, seeking to increase transparency into their operations as many Americans struggle to afford prescription drugs. On average, Americans pay two to three times more than patients in other developed nations for prescription drugs, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

    More CNBC health coverage

    The FTC said it remains “deeply troubled” by the role insulin manufacturers play in higher list prices, arguing that they inflate prices in response to PBMs’ demands for higher rebates. Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk control roughly 90% of the U.S. insulin market.
    For example, Eli Lilly’s Humalog insulin had a list price of $274 in 2017, a more than 1,200% increase from its $21 list price in 1999, according to the FTC.
    The FTC said all drugmakers should “be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns.”
    An Eli Lilly spokesperson said the FTC’s suit concerns “aspects of the U.S. health care system that we have long been advocating to reform.” They added that the company last year became the first to cap out-of-pocket costs for all of its insulins at $35 per month for people with private insurance. Eli Lilly also cut some insulin list prices by up to 70%.
    Sanofi last year announced a similar $35 monthly price cap for its most commonly prescribed insulin. Novo Nordisk last year also said it would slash the list prices of some of its popular insulins by up to 75%.
    A spokesperson for Sanofi said the company has not seen and will not comment on the FTC’s complaint against PBMs. But the French drugmaker agrees with the FTC’s claim that PBMs have “leveraged their position as powerful industry middlemen and have exploited rebates…to benefit themselves while increasing costs for patients and payers at the same time.”
    A Novo Nordisk spokesperson said the company is “committed to ensuring patients have affordable access to their medicines, including insulin.” Novo Nordisk does not control the prices patients pay at the pharmacy in the “complex U.S. healthcare system,” the spokesperson noted, pointing to the company’s insulin savings card programs.
    Correction: This story has been updated to correct a quote from the FTC.

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Finance

    401(k) savers can access one of the ‘rare guarantees’ in investing, CFP says

    A 401(k) match is often considered free money.
    Most employers offering a 401(k) plan make a matching contribution on workers’ savings.
    Workers may need to stay at the company for a certain number of years before the match is fully theirs, however.

    Nitat Termmee | Moment | Getty Images

    There are few certainties when it comes to investing.
    The stock market can seem to gyrate with little rhyme or reason, guided up or down by unpredictable news cycles and fickle investor sentiment. Average stock returns have historically trended up over long time periods, but their trajectory is hardly assured on a daily, monthly or annual basis. As the common investment disclosure goes, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

    Yet, according to financial advisors, there is an outlier in the realm of investing: the 401(k) match.
    The basic concept of a 401(k) match is that an employer will make a matching contribution on workers’ retirement savings, up to a cap. Advisors often refer to a match as free money.

    For example, if a worker contributes 3% or more of their annual salary to a 401(k) plan, the employer might add another 3% to the worker’s account.
    In this example — a dollar-for-dollar match up to 3% — the investor would be doubling their money, the equivalent of a 100% profit.
    A match is “one of the rare guarantees on an investment that we have,” said Kamila Elliott, a certified financial planner and co-founder of Collective Wealth Partners, based in Atlanta.

    “If you were in Vegas and every time you put $1 in [the slot machine] you got $2 out, you’d probably be sitting at that slot machine for a mighty long time,” said Elliott, a member of CNBC’s Advisor Council.
    However, that money can come with certain requirements like a minimum worker tenure, more formally known as a “vesting” schedule.

    Most 401(k) plans have a match

    About 80% of 401(k) plans offer a matching contribution, according to a 2023 survey by the Plan Sponsor Council of America.
    Employers can use a variety of formulas that determine what their respective workers will receive.

    The most common formula is a 50-cent match for every dollar a worker contributes, up to 6%, according to the PSCA. In other words, a worker who saves 6% of their pay would get another 3% in the form of a company match, for a total of 9% in their 401(k).
    “Where else can you get a guaranteed return of more than 50% on an investment? Nowhere,” according to Vanguard, a 401(k) administrator and money manager.
    More from Personal Finance:The ‘billion-dollar blind spot’ of 401(k)-to-IRA rolloversPlanning delayed retirement may not prevent poor savingsHow high earners can funnel money to a Roth IRA
    Consider this example of the value of an employer match, from financial firm Empower: Let’s say there are two workers, each with a $65,000 annual salary and eligible for a dollar-for-dollar employer 401(k) match up to 5% of pay.
    One contributes 2% to their 401(k), qualifying them for a partial match, while the other saves 5% and gets the full match. The former worker would have saved roughly $433,000 after 40 years. The latter would have a nest egg of about $1.1 million. (This example assumes a 6% average annual investment return.)
    Financial advisors generally recommend people who have access to a 401(k) aim to save at least 15% of their annual salary, factoring in both worker and company contributions.

    Keeping the match isn’t guaranteed, however

    That so-called free money may come with some strings attached, however.
    For example, so-called “vesting” requirements may mean workers have to stay at a company for a few years before the money is fully theirs.

    About 60% of companies require tenure of anywhere from two to six years before they can leave the company with their full match intact, according to the PSCA. Workers who leave before that time period may forfeit some or all their match.
    The remainder have “immediate” vesting, meaning there is no such limitation. The money is theirs right away. More

  • 200 Shares159 Views

    in Finance

    Pesky medical bill? Many people don’t take a key step to manage that debt, study finds

    Many people don’t dispute potential errors on their medical bills because they feel it’s ineffective.
    However, calling a health provider to address a financial concern can, for example, help correct, reduce or eliminate one’s bill, according to a University of Southern California study.
    Doing nothing and avoiding payment may result in late fees and interest, debt collection, lawsuits, garnishments, and lower credit scores.

    Getty Images

    Consumers may feel their medical bills are unyielding, inflexible, set in stone. But that’s not always true: A new study shows patients can often reap financial benefits by disputing charges that seem erroneous or by negotiating for financial relief.
    Of consumers who don’t reach out to question a medical bill, 86% said it’s because they didn’t think it would make a difference — but “the experiences of those who did reach out provide evidence to the contrary,” according to a new University of Southern California study.

    About 26% of people who called because they disagreed with a charge or couldn’t afford to pay it got their medical bill corrected after the outreach, according to the study, published in August. Roughly 15% got a price reduction, 8% got financial assistance and 7% saw their bills canceled outright.

    “Of the people who did reach out, most of them got some recourse through self-advocacy,” said report co-author Erin Duffy, a research scientist at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.
    Researchers polled 1,135 U.S. adults from Aug. 14 to Oct. 14, 2023.
    About 1 out of 5 respondents reported receiving a medical bill with which they disagreed or could not afford within the prior 12 months. About 62% of them contacted the billing office to address the concern.
    More from Personal Finance:When to refinance your loan as interest rates fallWhy working longer isn’t a good retirement planStocks often drop in September — but many shouldn’t care

    “If you can’t afford to pay something, or [if a bill] doesn’t seem right or match what your care experience was, you should call and ask questions about that,” Duffy said.
    Savings can extend into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, depending on factors like a patient’s health insurance and the type of medical visit or procedure, said Carolyn McClanahan, a physician and certified financial planner based in Jacksonville, Florida.

    Bills ‘go all over the place’

    Viktorcvetkovic | Getty

    A 2023 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of medical bills for adults age 65 and older found that patients “face a complex billing system with a high likelihood of errors and inaccurate bills.” Often, inaccurate bills result from erroneous insurance claims and occur more frequently among consumers with multiple sources of insurance, the CFPB said.
    Common errors included missing or invalid claim data, authorization and precertification issues, missing medical documentation, incorrect billing codes, and untimely filing of claims, the report found. Such mistakes contributed to the “rejection of claims that would otherwise be paid,” it said.
    “[Bills] go all over the place,” said McClanahan, founder of Life Planning Partners and a member of CNBC’s Advisor Council. “And there’s no transparency or rhyme or reason for how [providers] decide to charge.”

    Doing nothing and avoiding payment of medical bills is likely not a good course of action: It could have negative financial consequences, such as late fees and interest, debt collection, lawsuits, garnishments, and lower credit scores, according to a separate CFPB resource.
    “If something seems egregious, question it,” McClanahan said.

    How to manage medical bills

    Consumers should ask upfront what a medical visit or procedure will cost, or inquire what the estimated cost will be, she said.
    Sometimes, consumers will pay “a heck of a lot less” if they pay in cash rather than via insurance, McClanahan said. However, cutting a check could have other consequences like the sum not counting toward one’s annual deductible, she added.
    If you feel you were overcharged, request an itemized bill from the provider or hospital, and look for errors or duplicate charges, according to PatientRightsAdvocate.org. Research the fair market price for a service and use that information to negotiate, the nonprofit group said.

    If something seems egregious, question it.

    Carolyn McClanahan
    physician and certified financial planner based in Jacksonville, Florida

    The phone number for your medical provider’s accounting or billing office will be on your billing statement, the CFPB said.
    Here are three other questions to consider asking about your itemized bill, according to the regulator:

    Do charges reflect the services you received?
    If you have insurance, do the bills reflect the payment by your insurance and reflect what the provider understood would be covered?
    Do any of the charges indicate a service was “out-of-network” when it wasn’t?

    When calling a provider about a medical bill, keep a journal about the communication, McClanahan said. Write people’s names and what was discussed, and get a commitment of when you’ll hear back.

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Business

    Family offices are the most bullish they’ve been in years, survey says

    Nearly all family offices, 97%, expect positive returns this year, and nearly half expect double-digit gains, according to Citi Private Bank’s 2024 Global Family Office Survey.
    Nearly half of family offices surveyed say they plan to increase their allocation to direct private equity in the next 12 months, the largest share for any investment category.
    The survey is the latest sign that family offices — the private investment arms of wealthy families — are starting to make more aggressive bets on market and valuation growth.

    Vm | E+ | Getty Images

    A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.
    Family offices are the most bullish they’ve been in years, putting their cash to work in stocks and alternatives as the Fed starts to cut interest rates, according to a new survey.

    Nearly all family offices, 97%, expect positive returns this year, and nearly half expect double-digit gains, according to Citi Private Bank’s 2024 Global Family Office Survey.
    “This is the most optimistic outlook we’ve seen,” said Hannes Hofmann, head of the family office group at Citi Private Bank, which has been conducting the survey for five years. “What we’re clearly seeing is an increase in risk appetite.”

    Get Inside Wealth directly to your inbox

    The survey is the latest sign that family offices — the private investment arms of wealthy families — are emerging from two years of hoarding cash and bracing for recession to start making more aggressive bets on market and valuation growth.
    They especially like private equity. Nearly half, 47%, of family offices surveyed say they plan to increase their allocation to direct private equity in the next 12 months, the largest share for any investment category. Only 11% plan to reduce their PE holdings. Private equity funds ranked second, with 41% planning to increase their allocation.
    With interest rates heading down, family offices are also regaining their appetite for stocks. More than a third, 39%, of family offices plan to increase their allocation to developed-market equities, mainly the U.S., while only 9% plan to trim their equity exposure. That comes after 43% of family offices increased their exposure to public stocks last year.

    Public equities remain their largest holding by major asset class, with stocks making up 28% of their typical portfolio — up from 22% last year, according to the survey.

    “Family offices are taking money out of cash, and they’ve put money into public equities, private equity, direct investments and also fixed income,” Hofmann said. “But primarily it’s going into risk-on investing. That is a very significant development.”
    Fixed income has become another favorite of family offices, as rates start to decline. Half of family offices surveyed added to their fixed-income exposure last year — the largest of any category — and a third plan to add even more to their fixed-income holdings this year.
    With the S&P 500 up nearly 20% so far this year, family offices are looking for 2024 to end with strong returns. Nearly half, 43%, expect returns of more than 10% this year. More than 1 in 10 large family offices — those with over $500 million in assets — are banking on returns of more than 15% this year.
    There are risks to their optimism, of course. When asked about their near-term worries about the economy and financial markets, more than half cited the path of interest rates. Relations between the U.S. and China ranked as their second-biggest worry, and market overvaluation ranked third. The survey marked the first time since 2021 that inflation wasn’t the top worry for the family offices surveyed, according to Citi.
    One of the big differences that sets family offices apart from other individual investors is their appetite for alternatives. Private equity, venture capital, real estate and hedge funds now account for 40% of the portfolios of the family offices surveyed. That number is likely to keep growing, especially as more family offices make direct investments in private companies.
    “It’s a significant allocation that shows family offices are asset allocators who are long-term investors, highly sophisticated and taking a long-term view,” Hofmann said.
    One of the biggest themes for their private investments is artificial intelligence. The family offices of Jeff Bezos and Bernard Arnault have both made investments in AI startups, and repeated surveys show AI is the No. 1 investment theme for family offices this year. More than half of family offices surveyed by Citi have exposure to AI in their portfolios through public equities, private equity funds or direct private equity. Another 26% of family offices are considering adding to their AI investments.
    Hoffman said AI has already proven to be different from previous investment innovations such as crypto, and environmental, social and governance, or ESG. Only 17% of family offices are invested in digital assets, while a vast majority say they’re not interested.
    “AI is a theme that people are interested in and they’re putting real money into it,” Hofmann said. “With crypto people were interested in it, but at best, they put some play money into it. With ESG, we’re finding a lot of people are saying they’re interested in it, but a much smaller percentage of family offices are actually really putting money into it.” More

  • 225 Shares109 Views

    in Finance

    American Airlines in talks to pick Citigroup over rival bank Barclays for crucial credit card deal, sources say

    American Airlines is in talks to make Citigroup its exclusive credit card partner, dropping rival issuer Barclays from a partnership that dates back to the airline’s 2013 takeover of US Airways, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations.
    American has been working with banks and card networks on a new long-term deal for months, hoping to consolidate its business with a single player to boost the revenue haul from its cards, said the people.
    Airlines make billions from their loyalty programs and co-brand credit card deals.

    An American Airlines’ Embraer E175LR (front), an American Airlines’ Boeing 737 (C) and an American Airlines’ Boeing 737 are seen parked at LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New York on May 24, 2024. 
    Charly Triballeau | AFP | Getty Images

    American Airlines is in talks to make Citigroup its exclusive credit card partner, dropping rival issuer Barclays from a partnership that dates back to the airline’s 2013 takeover of US Airways, said people with knowledge of the negotiations.
    American has been working with banks and card networks on a new long-term deal for months with the aim of consolidating its business with a single issuer to boost the revenue haul from its loyalty program, according to the people.

    Talks are ongoing, and the timing of an agreement, which would be subject to regulatory approval, is unknown, said the people, who declined to be identified speaking about a confidential process.
    Banks’ co-brand deals with airlines, retailers and hotel chains are some of the most hotly contested negotiations in the industry. While they give the issuing bank a captive audience of millions of loyal customers who spend billions of dollars a year, the details of the arrangements can make a huge difference in how profitable it is for either party.
    Big brands have been driving harder bargains in recent years, demanding a bigger slice of revenue from interest and fees, for example. Meanwhile, banks have been pushing back or exiting the space entirely, saying that rising card losses, scrutiny from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and higher capital costs make for tight margins.
    Airlines rely on card programs to help them stay afloat, earning billions of dollars a year from banks in exchange for miles that customers earn when they use their cards. Those partnerships were crucial during the pandemic, when travel demand dried up but consumers kept spending and earning miles on their cards. Carriers have said growth in card spending has far exceeded that of passenger revenue in recent years.
    While it says it has the largest loyalty program, American was out-earned by Delta there, which made nearly $7 billion in payments from its American Express card partnership last year, compared with $5.2 billion for American.

    “We continue to work with all of our partners, including our co-branded credit card partners, to explore opportunities to improve the products and services we provide our mutual customers and bring even more value to the AAdvantage program,” American said in a statement.

    Delays, regulatory risk

    It’s still possible that objections from U.S. regulators, including the Department of Transportation, could further delay or even scuttle a contract between American Airlines and Citigroup, leaving the current arrangement that includes Barclays intact, according to one of the people familiar with the process.
    If the deal between American and Citigroup is consummated, it would end an unusual partnership in the credit card world.
    Most brands settle with a single issuer, but when American merged with US Airways in 2013, it kept longtime issuer Citigroup on board and added US Airways’ card partner Barclays.
    American renewed both relationships in 2016, giving each bank specific channels to market their cards. Citi was allowed to pitch its cards online, via direct mail and airport lounges, while Barclays was relegated to on-flight solicitations.

    ‘Actively working’

    When the relationship came up for renewal again in the past year, Citigroup had good footing to prevail over the smaller Barclays.
    Run by CEO Jane Fraser since 2021, Citigroup has the more profitable side of the AA business; their customers tend to spend far more and have lower default rates than Barclays customers, one of the people said.
    Any renewal contract is likely to be seven to 10 years in length, which would give Citigroup time to recoup the costs of porting over Barclays customers and other investments it would need to make, this person said. Banks tend to earn most of the money from these arrangements in the back half of the deals.
    With this and other large partnerships, Fraser has been pushing Citigroup to aim bigger in a bid to improve the profitability of the card business, said the people familiar.  
    “We are always actively working with our partners, including American Airlines, to look for ways to jointly enhance customer products and drive shared value and growth,” a Citigroup spokesperson told CNBC.
    Meanwhile, Barclays executives told investors earlier this year that they aimed to diversify their co-branded card portfolio away from airlines, for instance, through added partnerships with retailers and tech companies.
    Barclays declined to comment for this article. More

  • 188 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Panthers-Raiders game marks a first for the NFL with two women presidents at the helm

    The Panthers-Raiders game on Sunday marks the first time two female presidents will go head-to-head in professional football.
    Carolina Panthers President Kristi Coleman and Las Vegas Raiders President Sandra Douglass Morgan are the only two female presidents out of the NFL’s 32 teams.
    The NFL has made a big push in recent years to increase gender diversity among its ranks.

    Las Vegas Raiders President Sandra Douglass Morgan & Carolina Panthers President, Kristi Coleman.
    Getty Images (L) | AP (R)

    When the Carolina Panthers take on the Las Vegas Raiders on Sunday, it will mark a historic first for the National Football League.
    The game is the first time two female presidents will go head-to-head in professional football. The two executives represent a small, but growing class of women in the front office at the NFL, and they are the only two female presidents out of the league’s 32 teams.

    “I’m really proud of this moment,” Carolina Panthers President Kristi Coleman told CNBC ahead of the game. “It shows you can be anything, as long as you do a good job.”

    Carolina Panthers Owner David Tepper (C) and President Kristi Coleman listen to Dave Canales speak with the media during the Carolina Panthers Head Coach introduction at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Feb. 1, 2024.
    David Jensen | Getty Images

    Coleman, who has a finance background, was named team president of the Panthers in February 2022 after previously serving as vice president and chief financial officer of Tepper Sports & Entertainment. Hedge fund founder David Tepper owns the Panthers.
    Sandra Douglass Morgan was named Raiders president by owner Mark Davis in July 2022 after more than two decades in the gaming, legal and corporate sector.
    Douglass Morgan said the moment is not lost on her.
    “We want to celebrate the fact that these are new groundbreaking moments, but at the same time, we’re doing our job, just like every other president in the league, and making sure that we’re handling the day-to-day business operations,” Douglass Morgan said.

    The NFL has made a big push in recent years to increase gender diversity among its ranks.
    Last year, women made up 42.5% of employees in the NFL League Office, an all-time high and “a significant improvement from a decade ago when only 29.3 percent of women held these positions,” according to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida.
    The league says it has 243 women in front office positions.
    On the field, the numbers are also growing.
    The NFL says 22 women currently hold full-time coaching positions in the NFL. The league says that is a record for any male professional sports league and an increase of 187% over the past five years.
    As part of growing and developing that pipeline of women, the NFL holds an annual Women’s Forum. Since its inception in 2017, more than 400 women have gone through the program with upward of 250 opportunities emerging for women at all levels of football, according to the league.
    Douglass Morgan said women’s interest in the NFL has been on the uptick for years and that hiring a more diverse employee base is critical to connecting with those new fans.
    “As our fans become more diverse, I think our employee base should be as well,” she said.
    As the league looks to flag football as another growth avenue for the sport, Coleman and Douglass Morgan say it is another pipeline for women to get involved in the game.
    Today, the NFL’s flag football program has more than 700,000 participants and provides a pathway for women to play in college.

    Sandra Douglass Morgan (L) and owner and managing general partner Mark Davis of the Las Vegas Raiders pose with a jersey after a news conference introducing Douglass Morgan as the new president of the Raiders, at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas on July 7, 2022.
    Ethan Miller | Getty Images

    Both Douglass Morgan and Coleman say their teams’ owners have gone above and beyond to make them feel welcome in the league.
    “Mark Davis has always said, ‘Sandra, I don’t care if you’re white, Black, whatever, I hired you because you’re the best person for this job. You’re the best person to lead the Raiders,'” Douglass Morgan told CNBC.
    To women looking to break into male-dominated sports leagues, both executives say be confident in your ability to learn new things and don’t be afraid to bet on yourself.
    “You need to do your job, the job you have, and you need to do it well so people can picture you in the next job. And then I’d say, you need to be kind and also believe in yourself,” said Coleman.
    “Don’t let them see you sweat,” Douglass Morgan said. “When you’re only two of 32, you know, we may be under more scrutiny because we are in the minority here. Make sure you have a good group of people around you to support you through any of the guaranteed challenges that are going to be in your way.”

    Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Finance

    Huawei’s trifold phone is proving popular among Apple iPhone fans in Beijing

    Many Apple iPhone users in China are just as interested in Huawei’s pricier trifold phone, CNBC found during spot checks at stores Friday, the day the iPhone 16 and Mate XT launched in the country.
    Out of 10 people CNBC talked to, eight said they are interested in both the new Huawei and Apple phones.
    People in Beijing lined up as early as 5:30 a.m. to get the new iPhone when doors opened at 8 a.m.
    But there were no lines outside Huawei’s store, which started delivering the new phones at 10:08 a.m. to people who had reserved the trifold device.

    Pictured here is an Apple flagship store in Beijing, China, on the day of the iPhone 16 launch on Sept. 20, 2024.
    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    BEIJING — Many of Apple’s affluent iPhone users in China are just as interested in Huawei’s pricier trifold phone, CNBC found during spot checks at stores Friday, the day the iPhone 16 and Mate XT launched in the country.
    Out of 10 people CNBC talked to on Friday, eight said they are interested in both the new Huawei and Apple phones. CNBC talked to five individuals at each company’s store during a workday morning.

    Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei has sought to rebuild its smartphone business after U.S. sanctions in 2019. Huawei ranked fourth by China smartphone market share in the second quarter, according to Canalys.
    U.S.-based Apple dropped out of the top five, giving domestic players the top five spots for the first time, the data showed.
    The iPhone 16 Pro Max starts at $1,199, and the iPhone 16 at $799. Huawei’s trifold Mate XT starts at the equivalent of more than $2,800.

    The price gap was even more apparent on online platforms selling secondhand goods.
    The Huawei Mate XT was selling for 50,000 yuan to 60,000 yuan ($7,100 to $8,520) on second-hand shopping platform Xianyu as of 1 p.m. Friday afternoon. The Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max was selling for 10,500 yuan to 16,300 yuan, the site showed.

    Earlier in the day, the listed resale Mate XT price was 19,000 yuan, while the Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max was selling for 9,999 yuan, the site showed.

    No lines outside Huawei stores

    People in Beijing lined up as early as 5:30 a.m. to get the new iPhone when doors opened at 8 a.m.
    But there were no lines outside Huawei stores in Beijing and Hefei, a smaller city west of Shanghai. The Chinese company started delivering the new phones at 10:08 a.m. to people who had reserved the trifold device.
    During the 1 hour and 20 minutes that CNBC was at the Huawei store, a couple dozen people went to the second floor to an area reserved for Mate XT buyers.
    It was not clear if all of them purchased the device. Many were people buying for resale purposes.
    Huawei’s website on Friday showed it had halted sales, and planned to resume them at 10:08 a.m. on Saturday. The page said the company planned to complete deliveries by Sept. 30.
    The first person CNBC talked to at the Huawei store arrived at 10 a.m. just to try out the trifold phone. The individual, surnamed Yang, declined to share his first name due to concerns about speaking with foreign media.
    He said if he buys the trifold Mate XT, he plans to try it out for a few days before deciding whether to keep it, give it to a friend, or sell it. Yang expected the device could sell for 2,000 yuan more than the list price.
    Yang also said he uses an iPhone, and was interested in trying Huawei’s new trifold features because Apple wasn’t offering much that he felt was new.
    Even the first person in line at the Apple store, Wang, said he also wanted to get the Huawei trifold phone, but hadn’t gotten a text message yet saying his device was ready to pick up.
    He said he bought the iPhone 16 because he heard its battery lasted longer, but was willing to wait for the iPhone 17 for any artificial intelligence features.
    — CNBC’s Sonia Heng contributed to this report. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Business

    Nike CEO John Donahoe is out, replaced by company veteran Elliott Hill

    Nike CEO John Donahoe is retiring from his position and company veteran Elliott Hill is returning to take the top job.
    Donahoe is slated to step down on Oct. 13 but will remain on as an advisor through the end of January.
    Hill worked at Nike for 32 years before retiring in 2020.

    John Donahoe, CEO of Nike, attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media and Technology Conference at the Sun Valley Resort in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 10, 2024.
    Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

    Nike on Thursday announced that its CEO John Donahoe is stepping down and company veteran Elliott Hill is coming out of retirement to take the helm of the sneaker giant.
    Donahoe, who has been Nike’s CEO since Jan. 2020, will retire from his position on Oct. 13. Hill is slated to take over on the following day. Donahoe will stay on as an advisor through the end of January.

    Shares climbed 8% in extended trading Thursday. As of the close, shares are down more than 25% this year.
    “I am excited to welcome Elliott back to Nike. Given our needs for the future, the past performance of the business, and after conducting a thoughtful succession process, the Board concluded it was clear Elliott’s global expertise, leadership style, and deep understanding of our industry and partners, paired with his passion for sport, our brands, products, consumers, athletes, and employees, make him the right person to lead Nike’s next stage of growth,” said Mark Parker, Nike’s executive chairman.
    Nike is in the midst of a broader restructuring after it shifted its strategy to sell directly to consumers. Critics say in the process of building out sales at Nike’s own stores and website, it lost sight of innovation and failed to churn out the types of groundbreaking sneakers the company was known for.
    In late June when it reported fiscal fourth quarter results, Nike warned that it was expected sales to drop 10% during its current quarter, citing soft demand in China and “uneven” consumer trends across the globe.
    The outlook was far worse than the 3.2% decline that analysts had expected. 

    Following the rough report, Nike had its worst trading day in history and some analysts speculated that Donahoe would soon be pushed out in favor of a new CEO. At the time, Nike co-founder Phil Knight said the company was standing by Donahoe’s side and the executive had his “unwavering confidence and full support.”
    But on Thursday, Knight said in a statement that he is excited to welcome Hill back to the team.
    “Leadership changes are never easy, they test you, they challenge you, but this transition has been handled with remarkable thoughtfulness and an unwavering commitment to Nike,” said Knight. “Looking forward, I couldn’t be more excited to welcome Elliott back to the team. His experience, understanding of Nike and leadership is exactly what’s needed at this moment. We’ve got a lot of work to do but I’m looking forward to seeing Nike back on its pace.”
    In a statement, Donahoe said it “became clear that now was the time to make a leadership change.”
    “Elliott is the right person. I look forward to seeing Nike and Elliott’s future successes,” he said.

    Incoming NIKE, Inc. President & CEO Elliott Hill
    Courtesy: Nike

    Hill, who is currently based in Austin, started at Nike as an intern in the 1980s and first became interested in the company after writing a paper about it for his marketing class in graduate school, according to an interview he gave in 2020.
    Over the course of 32 years, Hill worked his way up the chain before becoming president of the company’s consumer and marketplace division where he was resposible for leading all commercial and marketing operations for Nike and Jordan Brand. He was known to be well-liked among employees before retiring in 2020, people close to him told CNBC.
    “Nike has always been a core part of who I am, and I’m ready to help lead it to an even brighter future,” Hill said in a statement. “I’m eager to reconnect with the many employees and trusted partners I’ve worked with over the years, and just as excited to build new, impactful relationships that will move us ahead. Together with our talented teams, I look forward to delivering bold, innovative products, that set us apart in the marketplace and captivate consumers for years to come.”
    As Nike goes through its current rough patch, it’s trying to get back to the fundamentals that had long defined the business and made it the market leader in sneakers and athletic apparel. In contrast to Nike’s previous leaders, Donahoe was not a retailer and he’d previously helmed companies like eBay and the consulting firm Bain & Company. He was appointed in part for his digital chops so he could help lead Nike through its direct selling strategy, which involved building out robust e-commerce operations and data gathering efforts.
    Under Donahoe’s tenure, Nike grew annual sales from $39.1 billion in fiscal 2019 to $51.4 billion in fiscal 2024. During Covid, online sales were booming and the strategy to transform Nike from a brand into a retailer seemed to be working — until the pandemic started to end. As Nike worked to cut off its wholesale partners, it paved the way for a slew of upstart competitors such as On Running and Hoka to take over that crucial shelf space and take market share.
    Earlier this year, Donahoe acknowledged that Nike went too far in its efforts to move away from its wholesale partners and said the company was in the process of fixing it. In December, it also announced a broad restructuring plan to reduce costs by about $2 billion over the next three years. It later said it would shed 2% of its workforce, or more than 1,500 jobs, so it could invest in its growth areas, such as running, the women’s category and the Jordan brand.
    Jessica Ramirez, senior research analyst at Jane Hali & Associates, said Hill’s appointment is a positive for Nike because of his deep understanding of the company’s culture, which she said is struggling from a morale slump.
    “He is up against a tough environment in terms of morale at the company, rebuilding some of that culture that the company has lost,” said Ramirez. “He does have quite some work to do across various teams but I think that’s what needs to be the focus, its culture and therefore, enabling the ability to have better products and newness.” More