Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Business

    Trump finds unexpected ally in auto union leader over tariffs

    UAW President Shawn Fain showed support for President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which include 25% levies on automobiles and supporting parts.
    The union leader is one of the only high-profile supporters of the trade policy in the auto industry.
    “Tariffs aren’t the end solution, but they are a huge factor in creating, fixing the problem,” Fain said.

    United Automobile Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain speaks on the first day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois, on August 19, 2024. 
    Mandel Ngan | AFP | Getty Images

    DETROIT — The head of the United Auto Workers has become an unexpected ally for President Donald Trump’s plans for North American tariffs.
    UAW President Shawn Fain, who was boisterous about his disdain for Trump during the president’s campaign, is openly voicing approval of the tariffs, which include 25% levies on automobiles and supporting parts.

    “Tariffs are an attempt to stop the bleeding from the hemorrhaging of jobs in America for the last 33 years,” Fain said Sunday on ABC News’ “This Week,” referring to the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992. “Tariffs aren’t the end solution, but they are a huge factor in creating, fixing the problem.”

    Read more CNBC tariffs coverage

    Tariffs for auto companies that currently meet standards under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, are paused until April 2, following Trump speaking with leaders from General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis.
    The April 2 delay, which occurred a day after implementation of broader 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, aligns with other Trump-initiated automotive tariffs for vehicles and parts being imported from outside of North America.
    Fain on Sunday said he had not spoken directly to Trump, but “has been working with his team.”
    Fain’s comments follow the union releasing a statement supporting the tariffs earlier in the week, saying it’s up to companies to handle any additional costs that may occur.

    The union, which had endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris, said it’s in “active negotiations with the Trump administration about their plans to end the free trade disaster.”
    “We are glad to see an American president take aggressive action on ending the free trade disaster that has dropped like a bomb on the working class,” the union said Tuesday. “There’s been a lot of talk of these tariffs ‘disrupting’ the economy. But if corporate America chooses to price-gouge the American consumer or attack the American worker because they don’t want to pay their fair share, corporate America bears the blame for that decision.”
    Fain is one of the only high-profile supporters of Trump’s tariffs among automotive leaders. Auto executives as well as trade associations supporting automakers have described the tariffs as adding unnecessary chaos and additional costs to the industry.
    “President Trump has talked a lot about making our U.S. auto industry stronger, bringing more production here, more innovation in the U.S., and if his administration can achieve that, it would be one of … the most signature accomplishments,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said last month. “So far what we’re seeing is a lot of cost, and a lot of chaos.”
    Fain has previously condemned the North American Free Trade Agreement — which has been superseded by Trump’s USMCA trade deal since 2020 — saying such trade agreements have caused the country to lose jobs and manufacturing.
    Fain and Trump have been at odds and publicly trading remarks since the union leader was elected in 2023. Trump called for Fain to be fired during a speech last year at the Republican National Convention.
    Fain has regularly called Trump a “scab” and billionaire who doesn’t care about American workers, but his comments Sunday on Trump show his stance may have softened.
    “The election is over. Donald Trump is the president, and we want to get to work to fix the problems that are wrong with this country, with our economy,” Fain said. “And the American people expect that. They expect leaders to stand up and lead. They don’t expect us to sit back.”
    The UAW remains under a federal monitorship following a yearslong investigation into the union involving embezzlement, bribery and other charges ahead of Fain’s election. That probe resulted in several convictions of union leaders and Fiat Chrysler executives, including two past union presidents.
    Federal monitor Neil Barofsky last year disclosed an investigation into Fain as well as other union leaders, accusing them of obstructing the probe and interfering with access to information.
    In January, the monitor’s office said it would provide further updates on its investigative activities in a subsequent report. More

  • 188 Shares179 Views

    in Finance

    Tariffs are ‘lose-lose’ for U.S. jobs and industry, economist says: ‘There are no winners here’

    President Donald Trump has pursued an economic agenda of broad tariffs on U.S. trading partners, including Canada, China and Mexico.
    Tariffs aim to protect targeted domestic industries.
    They end up costing U.S. jobs on a net basis, after accounting for retaliation and higher production costs for many businesses, economists said.

    President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025.
    Mandel Ngan-Pool/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump has spoken of tariffs as a job-creating behemoth.
    Tariffs will “create jobs like we have never seen before,” Trump said Tuesday during a joint session of Congress.

    Economists disagree.
    In fact, the tariff policies Trump has pursued since taking office would likely have the opposite effect, they said.
    “It costs American jobs,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s.
    He categorized tariffs imposed broadly as a “lose-lose.”
    “There are no winners here in the trade war we’re seemingly being engulfed in,” Zandi said. 

    A barrage of tariffs

    The Trump administration has announced a barrage of tariffs since Inauguration Day.
    Trump has imposed an additional duty of 20% on all imports from China. He put 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, the U.S.’ two biggest trade partners. (Just days after those took effect, the president delayed levies on some products for a month.)
    Tariffs of 25% on steel and aluminum are set to take effect Wednesday, while duties on copper and lumber and reciprocal tariffs on all U.S. trade partners could be coming in the not-too-distant future.
    There’s a deceptively simple logic to the protective power of such economic policy.
    Tariffs generally aim to help U.S. companies compete more effectively with foreign competitors, by making it more expensive for companies to source products from overseas. U.S. products look more favorable, thereby lending support to domestic industry and jobs.

    Workers pour molten steel at a machinery manufacturing company which produces for export in Hangzhou, in China’s eastern Zhejiang province on March 5, 2025.
    AFP via Getty Images

    There’s some evidence of such benefits for targeted industries.
    For example, steel tariffs during Trump’s first term reduced imports of steel from other nations by 24%, on average, over 2018 to 2021, according to a 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission. They also raised U.S. steel prices and domestic production by about 2% each, the report said.
    New steel tariffs set to take effect March 12 would also “likely boost” steel prices, Shannon O’Neil and Julia Huesa, researchers at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in February.
    Higher prices would likely benefit U.S. producers and add jobs to the steel industry’s current headcount, around 140,000, they said.

    Tariffs have ‘collateral damage’

    While tariffs’ protection may “relieve” struggling U.S. industries, it comes with a cost, Lydia Cox, an assistant economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and international trade expert, wrote in a 2022 paper.
    Tariffs create higher input costs for other industries, making them “vulnerable” to foreign competition, Cox wrote.
    These spillover effects hurt other sectors of the economy, ultimately costing jobs, economists said.  
    Take steel, for example.
    Steel tariffs raise production costs for the manufacturing sector and other steel-intensive U.S. industries, like automobiles, farming machinery, household appliances, construction and oil drilling, O’Neil and Huesa wrote.

    Cox studied the effects of steel tariffs imposed by former president George W. Bush in 2002-03, and found they were responsible for 168,000 fewer jobs per year in steel-using industries, on average — more jobs than there are in the entire steel sector.
    Tariffs are a “pretty blunt instrument,” said Cox during a recent webinar for the Harvard Kennedy School.
    They create “a lot of collateral damage,” she added.

    Why tariffs are a ‘tax on exports’

    Trucks head to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Canada and Detroit, Michigan on March 4, 2025.
    Bill Pugliano | Getty Images

    Such damage includes retaliatory tariffs imposed by other nations, which make it pricier for U.S.-based exporters to sell their goods abroad, economists said.
    Tariffs imposed during Trump’s first-term — on products like washing machines, steel and aluminum — hit $290 billion of U.S. imports with an average 24% tariff by August 2019, according to a 2020 paper published by the U.S. Federal Reserve. Those levies ultimately translated to a 2% tariff on all U.S. exports after accounting for foreign retaliation, it found.
    “A tax on imports is effectively a tax on exports,” Erica York, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, wrote last year for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
    More from Personal Finance:Medicaid cuts may include work requirementsDOGE layoffs may ‘overwhelm’ unemployment systemWho benefits from Trump tax cuts?
    Damage to the U.S. economy from those first-term Trump tariffs “clearly” amounted to “many times” more than the wages of newly created jobs, economists Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, and Phil Gramm, a former U.S. senator (R-Texas), wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.
    (President Joe Biden kept most of Trump’s tariffs in place.)
    U.S. trade partners have already begun fighting back against Trump’s recent tranche of tariffs.
    China put tariffs of up to 15% on many U.S. agricultural goods — which are the largest U.S. exports to China — starting Monday. Canada also put $21 billion of retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods like orange juice, peanut butter, coffee, appliances, footwear, cosmetics, motorcycles and paper products.
    President Trump alluded to the potential economic pain of his tariff policies during his address to Congress.
    “There will be a little disturbance, but we are okay with that,” he said. “It won’t be much.”

    While many economists don’t yet forecast a U.S. recession, Trump in a Fox News interview on Sunday didn’t rule out the possibility of a downturn as tariffs take effect — though he said the economy would benefit in the long term. If a recession were to happen, it would weigh on protected sectors, too, economists said.
    Voters elected President Trump with a mandate to institute an economic agenda that includes tariffs, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, said in an e-mailed statement.
    “Tariffs played a key role in the industrial ascent of the United States stretching back to the 1800s through William McKinley’s presidency,” Desai said.

    ‘Disappointing results’ of Trump-era tariff policies

    There is a historical precedent for the trade war that’s breaking out: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which triggered a reduction in exports and failed to boost agricultural prices for the farmers it sought to protect, Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, wrote in a 2024 paper.
    Economists also believe the Smoot-Hawley tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.
    While a nearly century-old economic policy doesn’t necessarily point to what will happen in the modern era, protectionist policies from the post-2017 years have — like Smoot-Hawley — “had disappointing results,” Strain wrote.
    Evidence from recent years suggests protectionism may actually hurt the workers it seeks to help, Strain said.

    For example, Trump’s first-term tariffs reduced total manufacturing employment by a net 2.7%, Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, economists at the Federal Reserve Board, wrote in 2024. That’s after accounting for a 0.4% boost to employment in manufacturing jobs protected by tariffs, they found.
    The 2018-19 trade war “failed to revive domestic manufacturing” and actually reduced jobs in the broad manufacturing sector, Strain wrote.
    The share of U.S. employment coming from manufacturing jobs has been falling since the end of World War II, largely because technological advances have increased workers’ productivity, Strain said. It would be more helpful to direct economic policy toward connecting workers to jobs of the future, he said.
    “Trade — like technological advances — is disruptive, but attempts to entomb the U.S. economy in amber are not a helpful response,” he wrote. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Finance

    Here’s why banks don’t want the CFPB to disappear

    For years, American financial companies have fought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the courts and media.
    Now, with the CFPB on life support after the Trump administration issued a stop-work order and shuttered its headquarters, the agency finds itself with an unlikely ally: the same banks that reliably complained about its rules and enforcement actions.
    If the Trump administration succeeds in reducing the CFPB to a shell of its former self, banks would suddenly find themselves competing with non-bank financial players, including big tech and fintech firms with far less federal scrutiny than FDIC-backed institutions.
    “Payment apps like PayPal, Stripe, Cash App, those sorts of things, they would get close to a free ride at the federal level,” said David Silberman, a veteran banking attorney.

    Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, leaves the U.S. Capitol after a meeting with Republican members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on the issue of debanking on Thursday, February 13, 2025. 
    Tom Williams | Cq-roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

    For years, American financial companies have fought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the chief U.S. consumer finance watchdog — in the courts and media, portraying the agency as illegitimate and as unfairly targeting industry players.
    Now, with the CFPB on life support after the Trump administration issued a stop-work order and shuttered its headquarters, the agency finds itself with an unlikely ally: the same banks that reliably complained about its rules and enforcement actions under former director Rohit Chopra.

    That’s because if the Trump administration succeeds in reducing the CFPB to a shell of its former self, banks would find themselves competing directly with non-bank financial players, from big tech and fintech firms to mortgage, auto and payday lenders, that enjoy far less federal scrutiny than FDIC-backed institutions.
    “The CFPB is the only federal agency that supervises non-depository institutions, so that would go away,” said David Silberman, a veteran banking attorney who lectures at Yale Law School. “Payment apps like PayPal, Stripe, Cash App, those sorts of things, they would get close to a free ride at the federal level.”
    The shift could wind the clock back to a pre-2008 environment, where it was largely left to state officials to prevent consumers from being ripped off by non-bank providers. The CFPB was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis that was caused by irresponsible lending.
    But since then, digital players have made significant inroads by offering banking services via mobile phone apps. Fintechs led by PayPal and Chime had roughly as many new accounts last year as all large and regional banks combined, according to data from Cornerstone Advisors.

    “If you’re the big banks, you certainly don’t want a world in which the non-banks have much greater degrees of freedom and much less regulatory oversight than the banks do,” Silberman said.

    Keep the exams

    The CFPB and its employees are in limbo after acting Director Russell Vought took over last month, issuing a flurry of directives to the agency’s then 1,700 staffers. Working with operatives from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Vought quickly laid off about 200 workers, reportedly took steps to end the agency’s building lease and canceled reams of contracts required for legally-mandated duties.
    In internal emails released Friday, CFPB Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez detailed plans to remove roughly 800 supervision and enforcement workers.
    Senior executives at the CFPB shared plans for more layoffs that would leave the agency with just five employees, CNBC has reported. That would kneecap the agency’s ability to carry out its supervision and enforcement duties.
    That appears to go beyond what even the Consumer Bankers Association, a frequent CFPB critic, would want. The CBA, which represents the country’s biggest retail banks, has sued the CFPB in the past year to scuttle rules limiting overdraft and credit card late fees. More recently, it noted the CFPB’s role in keeping a level playing field among market participants.
    “We believe that new leadership understands the need for examinations for large banks to continue, given the intersections with prudential regulatory examinations,” said Lindsey Johnson, president of the CBA, in a statement provided to CNBC. “Importantly, the CFPB is the sole examiner of non-bank financial institutions.”
    Vought’s plans to hobble the agency were halted by a federal judge, who is now considering the merits of a lawsuit brought by a CFPB union asking for a preliminary injunction.
    A hearing where Martinez is scheduled to testify is set for Monday.

    ‘Good luck’

    In the meantime, bank executives have gone from antagonists of the CFPB to among those concerned it will disappear.
    At a late October bankers convention in New York, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon encouraged his peers to “fight back” against regulators. A few months before that, the bank said that it could sue the CFPB over its investigation into peer-to-peer payments network Zelle.
    “We are suing our regulators over and over and over because things are becoming unfair and unjust, and they are hurting companies, a lot of these rules are hurting lower-paid individuals,” Dimon said at the convention.
    Now, there’s growing consensus that an initial push to “delete” the CFPB is a mistake. Besides increasing the threat posed from non-banks, current rules from the CFPB would still be on the books, but nobody would be around to update them as the industry evolves.
    Small banks and credit unions would be even more disadvantaged than their larger peers if the CFPB were to go away, industry advocates say, since they were never regulated by the agency and would face the same regulatory scrutiny as before.
    “The conventional wisdom is not right that banks just want the CFPB to go away, or that banks want regulator consolidation,” said an executive at a major U.S. bank who declined to be identified speaking about the Trump administration. “They want thoughtful policies that will support economic growth and maintain safety and soundness.”
    A senior CFPB lawyer who lost his position in recent weeks said that the industry’s alignment with Republicans may have backfired.
    “They’re about to live in a world in which the entire non-bank financial services industry is unregulated every day, while they are overseen by the Federal Reserve, FDIC and OCC,” the lawyer said. “It’s a world where Apple, PayPal, Cash App and X run wild for four years. Good luck.” More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Finance

    Does Trump really want a weaker dollar?

    “A strong dollar is in our national interest.” The simple message from Robert Rubin, who became treasury secretary in 1994, marked a turning point. For decades, American policymakers had complained about how the weak currencies of their country’s trading partners had made life difficult for domestic manufacturers. Since then, they have either repeated Mr Rubin’s maxim, or avoided discussing the appropriate level for the greenback altogether. More

  • 100 Shares129 Views

    in Finance

    Investors think the Russia-Ukraine war will end soon

    War and peace are notoriously difficult to price. Just now they are even harder to ignore. Three years ago Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent a wave of disruption through financial markets, yanking up commodity prices, choking off gas supplies and fuelling inflation. As the conflict ground on, that wave dissipated. Now America is attempting to force a resolution to the war, investors must try to gauge the consequences of its success or failure. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    RFK Jr. could further deter childhood vaccinations as rates fall in the U.S.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s new top health official, could further erode already falling U.S. vaccination rates against once-common childhood diseases, health policy experts said.
    Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, now leads the Department of Health and Human Services and wields enormous power over the federal agencies that regulate vaccines and set shot recommendations. 
    Some health policy experts said his early moves as HHS Secretary are concerning and suggest that he could undermine immunizations in less direct ways. 

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, on the day he is sworn in as secretary of Health and Human Service in Washington, D.C., U.S., Feb. 13, 2025. 
    Nathan Howard | Reuters

    The nation’s new top health official could further erode already falling U.S. vaccination rates against once-common childhood diseases, a development that comes as a growing measles outbreak has led to the first U.S. death from the disease in a decade.
    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent vaccine skeptic, now leads the Department of Health and Human Services and wields enormous power over the federal agencies that regulate vaccines and set shot recommendations. 

    Kennedy tried to distance himself from his previous views during his Senate confirmation hearings, claiming that he isn’t “anti-vaccine” and would not make it “difficult or discourage people from taking” routine shots for measles and polio. 
    But some health policy experts said his early moves as HHS Secretary are concerning and suggest that he could undermine immunizations in other, less direct ways, which could increase the risk of children catching preventable diseases.
    “The steps that he’s taken so far seem to be in line with his views of skepticism about vaccines and their safety, of wanting to allow for parents to not get their children vaccinated. It’s all things he’s championed,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF. “There might be more dominoes to fall coming.”
    Kennedy has said he will review the childhood vaccination schedule, and is reportedly preparing to remove and replace members of external committees that advise the government on vaccine approvals and other key public health decisions, among other efforts. Some experts said he could also amplify data highlighting the risks of vaccines, promote unfounded claims about shots and undermine legal protections for vaccine makers. 
    If rates drop even more, there could be major consequences, such as renewed outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses in certain communities.

    “Within the next couple of years, we could see major drops in childhood vaccination rates,” Lawrence Gostin, professor of public health law at Georgetown University, told CNBC. “He has all the powers he needs to sow public distrust in vaccines. He has a history of doing that and he has a desire to do it.”
    “This could lead to significant outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases throughout America, with the disproportionate impact on red states that President Trump carried in the 2024 election,” Gostin added. 
    Kennedy has a long track record of making misleading and false statements about the safety of shots. He has claimed they are linked to autism despite decades of studies that debunk that association. Kennedy is also the founder of the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, the most well-funded anti-vaccine organization in the U.S. In a government ethics agreement in January, he said he stopped serving as chairman or chief legal counsel for the organization as of December.
    But vaccines have saved the lives of more than 1.1 million children in the U.S. and saved Americans $540 billion in direct health-care costs over the last three decades, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research released in August.
    States and local jurisdictions set vaccine requirements for school children, but the federal government has a longstanding system for approving and recommending shots for the public. That includes creating the childhood vaccination schedule, which recommends when children should receive certain shots. It’s used by states, pediatricians and parents. 
    The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

    Why have childhood vaccination rates fallen?

    Childhood vaccinations and the state requirements in place for them have been “one of the greatest public health success stories” in the U.S., allowing the country to eliminate many diseases that people once feared, such as polio, according to William Moss, professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
    Rates stayed relatively steady for nearly a decade before the Covid pandemic, as about 95% of kindergarten children were up to date with all state required vaccines, Moss said. That includes separate shots for polio and varicella, a vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella – called MMR – as well as a jab that protects against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.
    But the share of kindergarten children who are up to date on their vaccinations has dipped since the pandemic, according to data collected and aggregated annually by the CDC from state and local immunization programs. Less than 93% of kindergarteners had received all state required vaccines in the 2023-2024 school year, data shows.
    Exemptions from school vaccination requirements, particularly non-medical exemptions, have also increased, according to the CDC. The share of U.S. children claiming an exemption from one or more shots rose from 2.5% in the 2019-2020 school year to 3.3% in the 2023-2024 school year, the highest national exemption rate to date. Nearly all of that increase was driven by non-medical exemptions, such as religious or personal belief reasons.

    That decrease appears consistent with the public’s perception of childhood immunizations. A Gallup survey released in August found only 40% of Americans said they considered childhood vaccines extremely important, down from 58% in 2019 and 64% in 2001. 
    The overall decline is fueled in part by vaccine skepticism, a trend that “certainly existed far before the pandemic,” KFF’s Michaud said.
    Vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaccine movement have been around globally for decades. They are often intertwined with political, moral and spiritual ideas around the rights of an individual versus the community, the limits of government power over bodily autonomy, mistrust of medical institutions and misinformation about shot safety and efficacy. 
    The politicization of the pandemic only fueled more doubts about vaccinations. 
    It created a partisan divide on the public’s acceptance of the Covid vaccine, according to Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on infectious diseases. Social media and public figures amplified misinformation about Covid jabs, and some of those “falsehoods about Covid shots spilled over to an extent to other types of vaccinations,” he said. 
    “There was a very precipitous drop [in vaccination rates] right when the pandemic hit, in those first few months afterwards,” O’Leary said. “And we never really completely caught up.” 
    O’Leary noted that the vast majority of parents on both sides of the political spectrum continue to vaccinate their kids. 
    Still, surveys suggest that the partisan division on immunizations has deepened in recent years. In 2024, 63% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said childhood vaccinations were “extremely important,” compared to just 26% of Republicans and GOP leaners, according to the August Gallup survey. 
    Five years earlier, enthusiasm was just slightly higher among the Democratic group at 67%, and double among Republican respondents at 52%. 
    There are “certainly political ideologies that are driving vaccine policy in certain areas of the country,” which has a “clear downstream impact on vaccination levels,” said Dr. Neil Maniar, a public health professor at Northeastern University. 

    Over three-quarters of U.S. states, or 39, had vaccination rates for the MMR shot below the “Healthy People 2030” target rate of 95% during the 2023-2024 school year. That refers to the level needed to prevent community transmission of measles, a highly contagious and deadly virus. 
    The data means that roughly 280,000 school children were unvaccinated and unprotected against measles during that school year, according to the CDC. MMR vaccination rates among kindergarteners vary across states, ranging from a low of around 80% in Idaho to a high of more than 98% in West Virginia. 

    Moss noted that clusters of unvaccinated people within a specific community increase the risk of disease outbreak. 
    “That’s where you’re going to get these larger outbreaks like we’re seeing in Texas right now with measles,” Moss said. 
    A child who wasn’t vaccinated died in the outbreak in rural West Texas, state officials said in late February, the first U.S. death from the disease since 2015. The childhood vaccination rate for measles in Gaines County, the epicenter of the current outbreak in Texas, is just below 82%.
    A second patient, an unvaccinated adult in New Mexico, tested positive for measles after death, state officials said Thursday.
    Kennedy last week said shots protect communities from measles, but emphasized that the decision to vaccinate “is a personal one.” He also pushed unconventional treatment regimens for measles, including cod liver oil, which is rich in vitamin A. 

    Kennedy could target vaccine advisory panels

    Kennedy’s HHS already appears to be targeting a key part of U.S. vaccine policy: external advisors to the government health agencies that approve shots and set recommendations for them. 
    The government postponed a meeting of vaccine advisors to the CDC and a separate meeting of advisors to the Food and Drug Administration, the latter of which is crucial to determining the flu strains in next season’s shots. It is unclear why the meetings were canceled or when they will be rescheduled.

    FILE PHOTO: The headquarters of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seen in Silver Spring, Maryland November 4, 2009. 
    Jason Reed | Reuters

    One “clear step” Kennedy can also take to undermine vaccinations is removing members of those advisory panels that shape the government’s shot recommendations, including which jabs are covered at no cost by different types of insurance, according to Georgetown’s Gostin. 
    Several reports have said Kennedy plans to replace members whom he perceives to have “conflicts of interest,” though it is unclear how many people will be outed or when. 
    Gostin called conflicts of interest one of Kennedy’s “code words” for “simply purging hard working, experienced scientists from advisory committees and replacing them with those that are more skeptical of shots.” All HHS agencies and their advisory panels have rigorous policies for conflicts of interest, and there have been no related issues for years, he noted. 
    Kennedy’s shake-up of advisory committees could produce “bogus recommendations” that highlight the harms rather than the benefits of shots, according to Gostin. He said those recommendations could influence governors, legislatures and school boards in red states, which could adopt policies that reduce childhood immunizations and “create wide-open opt outs of shots.” 
    Those recommendations could also create greater distrust in the CDC and Trump administration among scientists and public health experts, including Gostin himself, he said.

    Sherry Andrews prepares a MMR vaccine at the City of Lubbock Heath Department in Lubbock, Texas, U.S. Feb. 27, 2025. 
    Annie Rice | Reuters

    “It will have a longer-term corrosive effect on the value of science in America, which is already under severe attack,” he said. 
    Kennedy is also reviewing the childhood immunization schedule. Experts said that could lead to removing recommendations for certain vaccines or changing their suggested use from “routine” – when the default approach is to vaccinate – to more of an individual choice guided by discussions with a health-care provider. 
    The hope is that officials on the state and local level influence policy or implement practices to drive higher vaccination rates, said Northeastern’s Maniar. State and local governments may need to “expand the work they do” in some cases to “make up lost ground” and advocate for vaccinations, he added.

    Cherry-picking data

    Kennedy could also cherry-pick data, studies and any other information about vaccines that “create the misleading impression that shots aren’t safe and cause severe side effects,” according to Gostin. He said Kennedy could include them in official government announcements to undermine the public’s faith in shots. 
    On the campaign trail, Kennedy said he wanted to “restore the transparency” around vaccine safety data and records that he accused HHS officials of hiding. Gostin called transparency another “code word” for “highlighting dubious scientific studies.” 
    He added that Kennedy’s wording suggests that the government’s existing vaccine information is not transparent, when databases recording adverse events and immunization rates have long been fully open to the public. 

    Antonio Perez | Chicago Tribune | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

    Kennedy is reportedly shelving promotions for a variety of shots, including a campaign touting seasonal flu jabs. He wanted the CDC’s advertisements to promote the idea of “informed consent” in vaccine decision-making instead, STAT News reported in February. That refers to giving patients important information, including possible risks or benefits of a medical treatment, such as adverse events associated with shots. 
    Experts have said while informed consent is important, shifting the framing of advertisements for shots that the CDC has long recommended to focus more on the potential risks could undermine people’s willingness to get vaccinated.
    “When a parent exercises informed consent not to have their child immunized with measles, it certainly puts that child at risk, but it puts every child in that school with them at risk,” Gostin said. 
    Kennedy would need approval from Congress to change the existing legal liability protections in place for vaccine makers, but he could still undermine them in other ways, experts said. HHS’ National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program currently pays patients injured by standard childhood vaccines and shields drugmakers from litigation. 
    As HHS secretary, Kennedy can remove or add to the list of vaccines and injuries included and covered by that program, Michaud said. Any changes to the list could change some liability protections for vaccine makers, potentially spurring a wave of litigation over alleged injuries from the shots, he added.  More

  • 288 Shares199 Views

    in Finance

    ‘We don’t believe in the velvet rope:’ One money manager is giving retail investors access to private credit. But is it worth it?

    They’re generally reserved for the ultrawealthy and financial institutions.
    But the exchange-traded fund industry is looking to give retail investors more access to alternative investments including private credit.

    BondBloxx’s Joanna Gallegos thinks it’s a great idea despite the asset class’ reputation for charging high fees and academic research that have shown sluggish returns. Her firm launched the BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) about three months ago.
    “We don’t believe in the velvet rope. We believe in connecting markets,” the firm’s co-founder and chief operating officer told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “People have not had access to it. It makes sense in a portfolio. People should have access to … a power tool like that in their portfolio.”
    The fund invests around 80% of its holdings in private credit collateralized loan obligations, according to the BondBloxx website. Since its Dec. 3 debut, Gallegos’ fund is up 1%.
    While the S&P 500 and tech-heavy Nasdaq just saw their worst weekly performances since last September, the BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF closed virtually flat.

    Stock chart icon

    BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF Performance

    Gallegos, who’s the former head of global ETF strategy at J.P. Morgan Asset Management, thinks criticism surrounding alternative investment ETFs will fade.

    “We heard the same push back [on] high-yield ETFs: ‘Oh, you can’t price that. It’s too expensive,”‘ she said. “Then, the ETF connected that market in a way that allowed investors to participate, [and] drove the prices down in the category in terms of distributed funds.”

    ‘Most people don’t need it’

    But Strategas Securities’ Todd Sohn contends the so-called velvet rope isn’t worth going through. He said skeptical access to alternative investments will provide meaningful benefits to retail investors.
    “Most people don’t need it,” the firm’s managing director of ETF and technical strategy said. “If you have a diversified portfolio of five low-cost ETFs, you’re pretty good, right?”

    Disclaimer More

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in Business

    Goodyear Tire’s transformation plan is underway — in the sky and on the ground

    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is facing a rapidly changing business with new technologies and increased competition from low-cost countries such as China.
    The question now is if the 127-year-old company can transform itself to be more efficient, profitable and competitive.
    Hype is building on Wall Street for Goodyear, but many investors remain on the sidelines waiting to see if the company’s recent efforts will pay off.

    A Goodyear blimp flies 
    Goodyear 

    AKRON, Ohio — Does the Goodyear blimp sell tires?
    That was one question veteran auto executive Mark Stewart had when he started as CEO of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. a little more than a year ago, seeking to lead a transformation plan for the quintessential American company.

    For a century, Goodyear Tire has used more than 300 helium-filled airships to tout its brand. Stewart wanted to ensure consumers connected the blimps to the company’s products and services, which it has increasingly done as Goodyear celebrates the 100-year anniversary of its first blimp, called Pilgrim, in 1925.
    “The answer is yes it can, and yes it does,” Stewart told CNBC during an interview at the company’s headquarters. “It really is about using one of our most powerful marketing icon pieces, the blimp, both here as well as in Europe, to in fact sell tires.”
    The blimp question was an easy one to answer compared with the rest of the challenges Stewart, who has become known for transformation plans, has tackled since joining the company in January 2024.

    Goodyear CEO Mark Stewart speaks as Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford look on during an announcement at the Goodyear Canada Inc tire production plant in Napanee, Ontario, Canada August 12, 2024. 
    Cole Burston | Reuters

    Much like automakers and related suppliers, Goodyear’s business is rapidly changing with new technologies, increased competition from low-cost countries such as China and investor skepticism on whether a legacy company can transform itself to be more efficient, profitable and competitive.
    Goodyear’s answer, which was prompted by activist investor Elliott Investment Management revealing a stake in the company in 2023, is “Goodyear Forward” — a two-year transformation plan that ends in December.

    The plan includes doubling operating income margin to 10%, enacting top-line and cost reductions of $1.5 billion, and bringing in gross proceeds of $2 billion in business asset sales. It’s also reducing its debt load by $1.5 billion, net of approximately $1.1 billion for restructuring.
    To assist, the company is investing in and deploying artificial intelligence technologies and 3D-printing for things such as tread teeth, as well as using simulation to speed development and production of its products.
    Roughly halfway through the initial plan, Stewart said Goodyear is ahead of schedule for its benchmarks, including upping the cuts by $200 million. But investors remain skeptical amid geopolitical uncertainty such as tariffs and a disbelief in the longevity, or “stickiness” in tire terminology, of the changes.

    Pilgrim, Goodyear’s first branded public relations airship, took its first flight June 3, 1925.

    Stewart believes Goodyear is at a “show me” period with investors, which he plans to continue to deliver on as the company has reported five consecutive quarters of margin growth and its best retail performance in more than 20 years.
    “We’re continuing to execute, and I think we’re doing a better job of communicating in terms of our single and double hit wins as we go through the Goodyear Forward, and structurally changing the business,” said Stewart, whose father worked at an Alabama plant for Goodyear’s recently sold Dunlop brand. “It’s continuing to stack those up.”
    Shares of Goodyear received a 17% boost after the company reported its 2024 and fourth-quarter results. But shares of the company are down 30.3% since the plan’s announcement, and 33.4% since Stewart became CEO.
    A spokesperson for Elliott, which has taken board seats at companies including Southwest Airlines and eBay, declined to comment on Goodyear. Goodyear reached a cooperation agreement with Elliott, which FactSet reports retains a roughly 9% stake in the company, that included adding three directors to its board.
    Stewart succeeded Goodyear CEO Richard Kramer, who retired after 14 years leading the company.

    Goodyear blimps

    What started out as a new emerging aeronautics business for Goodyear in 1910 has grown into a cultural icon as the company’s Goodyear blimps have flown over major sporting events and historical landmarks.
    The first Goodyear blimp, called Pilgrim, took flight in 1925 from a hangar the company continues to use near Akron, Ohio.
    Goodyear has built more than 300 blimps, also known as airships, including over 200 for the U.S. Navy to patrol oceans during World War II.
    There have been five major generation changes of the blimps, according to Gerald Hissem, a chief pilot who has flown Goodyear blimps for 27 years.
    “The technology really has advanced,” he told CNBC during a tour of the company’s hangar in Ohio. “It’s totally different flying.”
    Today’s airship debuted in 2014 and feature a “fly-by-wire” system that eliminate many physical parts, according to Hissem. They were designed by Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH in Germany to Goodyear’s specifications, followed by a joint team constructing them in the U.S.
    The blimps are powered by three four-cylinder engines — left, right and back — that are each capable of 200 horsepower. They can travel at speeds of up to 73 miles per hour. Other blimp facts include:
    Airship bases: Pompano Beach, Florida; Carson, California; Suffield, Ohio; and Essen, Germany.
    Names: America, Columbia, Defender, Eagle, Enterprise, Europa, Mayflower, Pilgrim, Rainbow, Ranger, Reliance, Resolute, Spirit of Akron, Spirit of Goodyear, Volunteer.
    Longest flight? In March 1957, an airship called Snow Bird went 11 consecutive days in flight. It flew from Weymouth, Massachusetts, to Europe, Africa and Key West, Florida, without refueling or landing.
    Want to ride? Goodyear’s current blimps have a bathroom, room for two pilots and typically six to eight passengers. To be a blimp passenger is by invitation only, but the company also donates “ride certificates,” largely for nonprofit causes.

    ‘Forward’ progress

    Goodyear is well on its way to achieving its plan, but its success is not guaranteed. In addition to achieving its own targets, it’s unclear how changing regulations such as President Donald Trump’s tariffs will impact the tire company’s business.
    Stewart, prior to the implementation and then delay of 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for automakers and suppliers, declined to go into detail on Goodyear’s preparation and potential contingency plans for such tariffs on North American operations as well as other countries.
    “We’re running all the scenarios with that right now,” Stewart said. “And bottom line is we’ll continue to add projects into Goodyear Forward to keep marching on our journey.”
    Goodyear has built up an international business from its humble beginnings 127 years ago in Akron, Ohio. The company employs about 68,000 people and manufactures its products in 53 facilities in 20 countries, with major operations in North and South America, Asia-Pacific and Europe.
    Its manufacturing operations in the Americas, which represented roughly half of its tire sales in 2024, include making tires in eight plants in the U.S., two plants in both Canada and Mexico and a plant each in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru.

    Stock chart icon

    Goodyear’s stock in 2025.

    The Goodyear Forward plan reaches across the operations, aiming to achieve the goals through a mix of cost cutting, headcount reductions and making the business more efficient through new processes and technologies.
    In addition to those targets, Stewart also has set priorities to re-establish focus on its retail business, increase fleet business, including telematics, and ink high-profile business deals such as Goodyear’s first launch in decades on a Ferrari sports car.
    “Goodyear Forward is just getting embedded into our DNA,” Stewart said. “What’s next for us is we are going to get aggressive about growth in retail and service. We are getting aggressive in growth in the high-end [tires].”

    Evolving business

    Tires — Goodyear’s main business — seem simple. Rubber is made into different shapes and treads, put on wheels and then put on a vehicle. They’re literally where the rubber meets the road.
    But the process, material chemistry and production of tires continue to evolve. Goodyear has expanded its top-tier products to include massive tires for off-road vehicles such as the Jeep Wrangler and Ford Bronco, as well as the Tesla Cybertruck and large SUVs that feature 22-inch or 24-inch wheels such as the Cadillac Escalade.
    Such businesses are highly profitable for the company, which is investing an unspecified amount into a facility in Oklahoma to expand production by 10 million units annually and modernize the plant.

    A Goodyear employee works at a machine inside the company’s racing tire production facility at its headquarters in Akron, Ohio on Feb. 27, 2025.
    Michael Wayland / CNBC

    “We will ensure we’re running at the optimal level of output and efficiency, and we’re running the products that will yield the highest opportunities for profitability this year,” Stewart said last month on the company’s quarterly call.
    In Asia–Pacific, where its newest plants are located, the company has been able to capitalize faster on such business. It increased its segment operating income by 37% last year to $277 million, with an operating margin of 11.4% — a juxtaposition from Western automakers with escalading problems in the region, specifically China.
    While its Asia–Pacific business is a tailwind at the moment, products from competitors and nearby nations are not. Similarly to how Chinese automakers have expanded outside their own country, tire manufacturers such as Sumitomo and Yokohama have been increasingly exporting products.
    Tires from that region have undercut Goodyear, as companies rushed to purchase them ahead of potential tariffs. Low-end imports outperformed the U.S. industry last year and grew 11%, CFO Christina Zamarro said during the company’s quarterly earnings call.

    Racing tires displayed inside the factory floors of Goodyear’s headquarters in Akron, Ohio on Feb. 27, 2025.
    Michael Wayland / CNBC

    The company said low-cost imported tires are largely sourced from Southeast Asia, including from a number of countries that are either not subject to antidumping or countervailing duty tariffs.
    “As we look at the top line this past year, we’ve seen growth in the low-end imports impacting the consumer replacement industry in the U.S., Europe, as well Brazil,” Stewart told investors. “The inflows at the low-end of the market over the last two years are unprecedented.”
    Goodyear’s the last major U.S. tire company: Its largest competitors globally are France-based Michelin; Bridgestone Corp., which is a subsidiary of a Japanese-based company; and German-based Continental.

    From wooden floors to tireless testing

    At Goodyear’s headquarters, three floors of a historic building for the company that was built in 1916 continue to produce racing tires, most notably for NHRA professional classes and the top three series for NASCAR.
    The processes in this facility are traditional, with a lot of human interaction compared to newer plants with more automation like the company has at facilities in Luxembourg and China, and is expanding to the U.S.
    Down the road from the factory, which features wood floors similar to those in the factory in Detroit where Henry Ford started building the Model T in 1900s, is a different Goodyear.

    Goodyear’s VI-grade DiM250 Dynamic Driving Simulator in Akron, Ohio. 

    Walking into the nondescript building in the shadow of the headquarters is a glimpse into the future Stewart wants for the company.
    In the building is Goodyear’s simulation machine, a multimillion investment that promises to cut research and development costs and time, while improving product profits.
    To be clear, no actual tires are used in the simulator and the “vehicle” cockpits — a hatchback and a pickup truck — are held up by hydraulics, surround by 270 degrees of screens.
    “The goal is to be able to evaluate and test tire designs and theories virtually before ever having to spend the money to build a mold or build the tire,” said Patrick Renz, a senior engineer at Goodyear. “We’re really using this now to win [automaker business].”
    Goodyear has worked with many of the major automakers on such virtual development, including Ferrari, according to Renz. He said the earlier in the development Goodyear can work with a company, the more impactful the virtual testing can be.

    Concept tires displayed at Goodyear’s “Innovation Center” at its headquarters in Akron, Ohio on Feb. 27, 2025.

    Mahesh Kavaturu, Goodyear senior director of global performance and simulation technology, said such simulations, as well as AI, aim to transform Goodyear’s processes.
    “We actually have a lot of capabilities on physical tire testing, and now we are getting into artificial intelligence, machine learning,” he told CNBC in the company’s “Innovation Center” that includes conceptual and unique products made by the company such as airless tires. “In Goodyear, [AI] is not a buzz word.”
    On Wall Street, hype is building for Goodyear, but many investors remain on the sidelines waiting to see if the company’s recent efforts under Goodyear Forward can be ingrained in the company as much as its blimps.
    Goodyear’s stock is rated overweight with a target price of $11.47 a share, according to nine analysts compiled by FactSet.
    “The company has reported inconsistent levels of profit growth over the past several years. But, we believe that an inflection point developed with the reporting of fourth quarter 2024 results, which were much better than we expected,” Argus analyst Bill Selesky said in a Feb. 14 investor note upgrading Goodyear to buy. More