Business

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday offered investors a list of apparel stocks they should consider adding to their shopping lists.
“I’m still bearish on apparel and footwear in general, but if you’re selective, some of these are definitely worth owning,” he said.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday offered investors a list of apparel stocks they should consider adding to their shopping lists.
“I’m still bearish on apparel and footwear in general, but if you’re selective, some of these are definitely worth owning,” he said, adding that investors should wait to buy the stocks until the market becomes oversold.

Here are his picks:

Lululemon
Columbia Sportswear
Deckers
On Holding

Retail stocks have been hit hard this year as inventory gluts, brought on by persistent inflation and a shift in consumer spending habits from goods to experiences, forced companies to offload products at discounted prices.
And while people could cut back on discretionary spending if the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes do send the economy into a recession, consumers seem largely resilient for now, Cramer said, pointing to the third quarter’s stronger-than-expected GDP number. 
“Sure, the Fed’s on the war path … and it’s beginning to bruise a lot of retail, but it hasn’t wrecked all of it,” he said.

Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing

Click here to download Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest smarter.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday advised investors to stay away from enterprise software stocks.
“The odds [are] that these companies simply won’t be able to outlast [Fed Chair] Jay Powell at the blackjack table. They’re going to go bust,” he said.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday advised investors to stay away from software stocks.
“Data has become fool’s gold. Data is iron pyrite. When you hear the word data and you see a loss, I don’t care what kind of growth the company has, I don’t care what kind of software it owns, it is bad,” he said.

Stocks fell on Wednesday after the Federal Reserve reiterated its hawkish stance against inflation.
The central bank also raised interest rates by 75 basis points. The decision comes on the heels of numbers that suggest the jobs market is remaining strong, including the hotter-than-expected private payrolls data for October and the JOLTS report on Tuesday.
Cramer said that despite Wall Street’s hopes that the Fed will wind down its aggressive rate hikes sooner rather than later, it’s unlikely to happen until wage inflation and employment both come down.
He also reiterated that investors should target recession-resistant stocks that can withstand the Fed’s tightening cycle. 
“The odds [are] that these companies simply won’t be able to outlast [Fed Chair] Jay Powell at the blackjack table. They’re going to go bust,” he said.

Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing

Click here to download Jim Cramer’s Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest smarter.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Washington Commanders are valued at $5.6 billion by Forbes.
Snyder isn’t being forced to sell the team, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A sale could value the Commanders as high as $7 billion, the person said.

Washington Commanders owner Dan Snyder has hired Bank of America to explore “potential transactions,” the team said Wednesday.
The NFL team hired the bank to help facilitate a potential sale, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Snyder isn’t being forced to sell the team despite mounting pressure to potentially remove him as an NFL owner, the person said. Snyder and the Commanders are currently being investigated by both the House Oversight Committee and the NFL for sexual harassment and financial misconduct. The NFL’s probe is being led by former Securities and Exchange Chair Mary Jo White.
“Mary Jo White is continuing her review. We have no update on a timeline,” the league said Wednesday.
ESPN reported later Wednesday the alleged financial misconduct is also the subject of a criminal probe by federal prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Team co-owners Dan and Tanya Snyder pose for a photo with current team members and alumni during the announcement of the Washington Football Team’s name change to the Washington Commanders at FedExField on February 02, 2022 in Landover, Maryland.
Rob Carr | Getty Images

A deal for the Commanders could value the team as much as $7 billion, the person said. Forbes valued the team at $5.6 billion in its annual team valuations list, making the franchise the sixth most valuable in the NFL.
The league said Wednesday that any deal would have to go through its finance committee, and would require the approval of 24 of the NFL’s 32 teams.

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said at last month’s NFL owners’ meeting that there was “merit to remove” Snyder as owner of the Commanders.
“It’s something we have to review, we have to look at all the evidence and we have to be thorough and it’s something that has to be given serious consideration,” Irsay said of voting on Snyder’s removal last month.
After Irsay’s comments, the Commanders released a statement saying Snyder wouldn’t sell the team.
“We are confident that, when he has an opportunity to see the actual evidence in this case, Mr. Irsay will conclude that there is no reason for the Snyders to consider selling the franchise. And they won’t,” the statement said.
Snyder has owned the Commanders since 1999. In the last 23 seasons, the Commanders have made the playoffs six times and have yet to advance to a conference title game. Snyder has drawn consistent ire from the Commanders’ fan base for his behavior and the team’s performance.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Paramount Global and former CBS CEO Les Moonves agreed to make additional payments to settle an investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office.
The investigation found a top LAPD officer tipped off Moonves and other CBS executives in 2018, before the sexual assault allegations against Moonves were made public.
Paramount will pay an additional $7.25 million, while Moonves himself will pay $2.5 million.

Leslie ‘Les’ Moonves, president and chief executive officer of CBS Corp.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Paramount Global and former CBS chief Les Moonves agreed to make additional payments to settle an investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s office, which disclosed further allegations involving the Los Angeles Police Department’s role in the matter on Wednesday.
The investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James found that a commanding officer with the LAPD had tipped off the former CBS chief executive and other executives in 2018 about sexual assault allegations before they were made public.

According to a filing from James’ office, the LAPD officer left this voice message for CBS executive Ian Metrose: “I know we haven’t talked in a while. I am a captain at LAPD Hollywood. Somebody walked in the station about a couple hours ago and made allegations against your boss regarding a sexual assault. It’s confidential, as you know, but call me, and I can give you some of the details and let you know what the allegation is before it goes to the media or gets out. So all right talk to you after a while. Bye.”
The findings also allege one of the senior executives sold millions of dollars’ worth of shares based off of the information and before they went public. James said CBS allowed the executive, Gil Schwartz, to sell over 160,000 shares, or more than $8 million worth, six weeks before an article about the allegations against Moonves was published. Schwartz, who wrote books under the pen name Stanley Bing, including “Crazy Bosses: Spotting Them, Serving Them, Surviving Them,” died in 2020.
James said she referred the matter to the California Attorney General’s office. A representative for the LAPD declined to comment. CNBC has reached out to Moonves’ representatives and Metrose, who still works at the company. Paramount declined to comment further on him.
“We are pleased to resolve this matter concerning events from 2018 with the New York Attorney General’s office, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing,” a Paramount spokesperson said Wednesday. “The matter involved alleged misconduct by CBS’s former CEO, who was terminated for cause in 2018, and does not relate in any way to the current company.”

CBS and Viacom merged in 2019, later changing the company’s name to Paramount Global.

The investigation found text messages between the LAPD captain, top-ranking CBS executives and Moonves that revealed the allegations. The captain also worked with executives for several months to prevent the complaint from becoming public, according to the attorney general’s release on Wednesday.
Moonves left CBS in 2018 after allegations of sexual misconduct and cultural problems in the company. Following his exit, the board hired two law firms to investigate the allegations, finding there were ground to fire the executive for cause. Moonves has previously denied the accusations.
As part of filings related to Paramount’s third quarter earnings on Wednesday, the company reported it agreed to pay $7.25 million to shareholders, while Moonves will pay $2.5 million. This is in addition to the $14.25 million earlier paid by Paramount in the settlement.
“CBS and Leslie Moonves’ attempts to silence victims, lie to the public, and mislead investors can only be described as reprehensible,” James said in the Wednesday release. “As a publicly traded company, CBS failed its most basic duty to be honest and transparent with the public and investors.”
The settlement also bars Moonves from serving as an officer or director of a company that does business in New York without first gaining approval from they attorney general’s office.
Paramount said in public filings Wednesday that the company reached a deal with the Investor Protection Bureau of the New York attorney general’s office without admitting wrongdoing or liability.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Women’s Sports Network is an ad-supported streaming service available through Amazon Freevee and Fox Corp.’s FuboTV, as well as smart TVs.
The Women’s National Basketball Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association and U.S. Ski and Snowboard are among the new network’s partners.
There has been a steady rise in viewership numbers for women’s sports including the recent WNBA postseason, yet a recent study shows that women’s sports receive only 5% of media coverage.

A’ja Wilson #22 of the Las Vegas Aces celebrates during the 2022 WNBA championship parade on the Las Vegas Strip on September 20, 2022 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
David Becker | National Basketball Association | Getty Images

Finding women’s sports is about to get easier.
The first-ever network to focus on female athletes, the Women’s Sports Network, launched Wednesday, offering 24/7 streaming of original programming, competitions, documentaries and a daily studio show “Game On.”

The Women’s Sports Network is a free, ad-supported network featured on streaming services including Amazon.com’s Freevee, Fox Corp.’s FuboTV and Tubi, along with smart TVs. The new network comes at a time when investment and viewership numbers for women’s sports are on the rise, yet women only receive a small fraction of media coverage.
“It’s a significant step towards narrowing the gap in media coverage for female athletes, for female sports,” said Angela Ruggiero, CEO and co-founder of Sports Innovation Lab and four-time ice hockey Olympian, who is on the board of advisors for the new network.
The network was first announced back in February by Los Angeles-based Fast Studios.
The Women’s Sports Network has partnerships with the Women’s National Basketball Association, Women’s Football Alliance, Ladies Professional Golf Association, U.S. Ski and Snowboard, Sports Innovation Lab and World Surf League, among others. It plans to broadcast games starting in January.
Fast Studios was founded in 2020 by long-time ad executive Stuart McLean with a focus on ad-supported streaming television services. Fast Studios has also launched streaming networks focused on auto racing and spartan obstacle course competitions.

This past year has seen a steady rise in viewership numbers for women’s sports. The WNBA postseason saw a 22% increase in viewership year over year. Female athletes at the collegiate level are also proving to be winners in the NIL era, garnering deals with brands including Nike now that college athletes can be paid for their name, image and likeness.
Yet women’s sports receive only 5% of media coverage, according to a recent study by the University of Southern California and Purdue University.  
“The Women’s Sports Network is exactly what athletes, fans and sponsors have been asking for,” Mollie Marcoux Samaan, commissioner of the Ladies Professional Golf Association, said in a release announcing the network launch.
According to a study conducted by the National Research Group and Ampere Analysis, 39% of Gen Zers are watching more women’s sports than they were a year ago, along with 29% of millennials. But the study found that the hurdles remain high: 79% of U.S. sports fans still claim to not actively follow women’s sports. Meanwhile, 74% of fans cannot name a single corporate sponsor of any major women’s league.    
“There’s a pent-up demand for women’s sports, but women’s sports typically go under-invested, under-supported, under-viewed, because the ecosystem underneath it hasn’t really been built,” Ruggiero said. “We don’t have enough female writers. We don’t have enough female broadcasters. We don’t have enough female producers. The media ecosystem is still fairly male dominated, and women aren’t getting the ratings,” Ruggiero added.
Traditional networks have put little effort into promoting women’s sports, with the National Research Group and Ampere Analysis finding that U.S. broadcast networks spent 0.2% of media-rights budgets on women’s-only sporting events (excluding events with both men’s and women’s sports such as the Olympics). 
“Every men’s league has had decades of a jumpstart on the traditional women’s leagues,” Ruggiero said. “These women’s sports properties are still fairly early in their lifecycle, and anything early in its lifecycle requires more investment to build the brand, to build the awareness, to build the audience, to build the platform. And it’s on the business side, not just the performance side,” she said. 
The network’s studio show, “Game On,” is hosted by former Harlem Globetrotter and social influencer Crissa Jackson, sports reporter Taylor Felix, sports influencer and former college basketball player Jenna Bandy, and sports reporter and producer Jess Lucero.
—CNBC’s Jessica Golden contributed to this report.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

WWE said a special committee’s probe into alleged misconduct by Vince McMahon has concluded.
“Management is working with the Board of Directors to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee related to the investigation,” the company said.
McMahon, wo retired as CEO this summer, is the top shareholder and can “effectively exercise control over our affairs,” the company said.

Getty Images

World Wrestling Entertainment said Wednesday that a special committee investigating alleged misconduct and secret payments by former CEO Vince McMahon had disbanded.
“The Special Committee investigation is now complete and the Special Committee has been disbanded,” the company said in a securities filing. “Management is working with the Board of Directors to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee related to the investigation.”

McMahon retired in July after WWE said he had paid out nearly $20 million in previously unrecorded expenses. McMahon is still the biggest shareholder in WWE, and his daughter, Stephanie McMahon, is co-CEO.
“Mr. McMahon can effectively exercise control over our affairs,” the company said in Wednesday’s filing.
Almost $15 million were paid to settle sexual misconduct allegations from four women against McMahon over the past 16 years. He paid $5 million to Donald Trump’s now-defunct foundation through donations in 2007 and 2009.
WWE, which has been mentioned as a potential acquisition target, has suggested that the hush money payments are under investigation by other entities.
Shares of the company, which reported an increase in quarterly revenue on Wednesday, have bucked broader market trends this year. The stock is up 57% through Wednesday’s close.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Rarely in recent years has a routine inaugural trip of a head of government been watched with such keen interest at home and abroad. When Germany’s Social Democrat chancellor, Olaf Scholz, travels to Beijing for a one-day visit on November 3rd, he will be the first Western leader to do so since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, was keen to travel together with Mr Scholz, though preferably not right after the country’s paramount leader, Xi Jinping, got himself anointed as president for life. Mr Scholz said nein. He is instead bringing along 12 CEOs of German blue-chip firms, including the bosses of Merck, a drug company, Siemens, an engineering behemoth, and Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker.Over the past two decades the interests of German business have shaped Germany’s China policy to the exclusion of other concerns. Mr Scholz’s corporate retinue suggests that this is still the case, despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which starkly illustrated the dangers of economic dependence (in Germany’s case for Russian fossil fuels) on an autocracy driven by an aggressive ideology. The new consensus in European capitals is that Europe must rethink its business ties to China. Many Germans accept this, too. “The Chinese political system has changed massively in recent years and thus our China policy must also change,” declared Annalena Baerbock, Mr Scholz’s foreign minister from the coalition Greens, on November 1st during a trip to central Asia. Deutschland ag, though, is reluctant to open its eyes to the new reality.The deep commercial links between the two countries certainly complicate matters. Last year China was Germany’s top trading partner for the sixth consecutive year, with combined exports and imports of more than €245bn ($255bn). That is five times the figure in 2005. Germany relies on China for the import of solar panels, computer chips, rare earths and other critical minerals. Sino-German trade also supports more than 1m German jobs directly; millions more are indirectly connected to it. Sino-dependency is not a uniquely German affliction. America, too, trades a lot with its main geopolitical rival. One important difference is that powerful German industries are unusually exposed to the Chinese market. Of Germany’s ten most valuable listed companies, nine derive at least one-tenth of their revenues from China, according to The Economist’s rough estimates, compared with just two of America’s ten biggest companies. In 2021 two in five cars sold globally by Volkswagen Group were bought by Chinese motorists. Many of these rolled off the German carmaker’s Chinese production lines. This is Germany’s second unique circumstance: it has ploughed plenty of money into Chinese factories. Whereas new American foreign direct investments in China accounted for only 2% of America’s total in 2021, for Germany the figure was 14%. Four firms—three carmakers, bmw, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, and basf, a chemicals giant—accounted for one-third of all eu investments in China in the past four years, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. And German firms are doubling down: in the first half of this year German companies invested €10bn in China, more than ever before. basf is in the process of investing $10bn in its Chinese operations.Worries about undermining those business relationship have led to some controversial policy choices at home. In late October Mr Scholz decided to ignore the warnings of six of his ministers, as well as the heads of the domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, and let Cosco, a Chinese state-run shipping company, buy a stake in one of four container terminals in the port of Hamburg. Like his predecessor, Angela Merkel, he has also refused to take sides in the debate over whether Huawei, a Chinese telecoms giant, should be allowed to bid for contracts to build Germany’s 5g networks, perhaps heeding the threat by the Chinese ambassador to Germany in 2019 of “consequences” for German carmakers if Huawei were excluded from the auctions.This kid-glove approach to China is out of step with his Western counterparts. In America China-bashing is a rare bipartisan pursuit. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has been expanding the scope of restrictions on the export of advanced technologies to China introduced by his Republican predecessor and potential future rival, Donald Trump, most recently last month. America also bans Huawei. So do several of Germany’s fellow eu members. As the geopolitical rift between China and the West widens, many Western firms are trying to reduce their exposure to Chinese supply chains and consumers. Apple is shifting some production from China to India and Vietnam, for example. Germany, by contrast, is going “full steam ahead in the wrong direction”, as Jürgen Matthes of the German Economic Institute, a think-tank, puts it.The long halloSome German business leaders publicly pooh-pooh such talk. Martin Brudermüller, chief executive of basf and another of Mr Scholz’s travel companions this week, recently bemoaned all the “China-bashing”. Deep down, though, they must know better. Any lingering hope of “change through trade”, the characteristically German belief that closer commercial ties with liberal democracies will spur political transformation in China just as they did to a degree in the Soviet bloc, has died with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Mr Xi’s authoritarian turn. Indeed, many German companies tacitly acknowledge the heightened China risk by maintaining two independent production systems—one on the Chinese mainland, the other in the rest of the world. That is not enough. Expecting geopolitical tensions between the West and China to go away is naive at best. So is expecting an autocrat like Mr Xi, who makes no bones about wanting to indigenise Chinese industry, to respect all commercial commitments to foreigners. Not cutting all business ties with China is understandable, and perfectly sensible. Deepening them looks reckless. ■ More

Rarely in recent years has a routine inaugural trip of a head of government been watched with such keen interest at home and abroad. When Germany’s Social Democrat chancellor, Olaf Scholz, travels to Beijing for a one-day visit on November 3rd, he will be the first Western leader to do so since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, was keen to travel together with Mr Scholz, though preferably not right after China’s leader, Xi Jinping, got himself anointed as Communist Party chief for a norm-busting third term. Mr Scholz said nein. He is instead taking along 12 CEOs of German blue-chip firms, including the bosses of Merck, a drug company, Siemens, an engineering behemoth, and Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker.Over the past two decades the interests of German business have shaped Germany’s China policy to the exclusion of other concerns. Mr Scholz’s corporate retinue suggests that this is still the case, despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which starkly illustrated the dangers of economic dependence (in Germany’s case for Russian fossil fuels) on an autocracy driven by an aggressive ideology. A new consensus in European capitals is that Europe must rethink its business ties to China. Many Germans accept this, too. “The Chinese political system has changed massively in recent years and thus our China policy must also change,” declared Annalena Baerbock, Mr Scholz’s foreign minister from the Greens party, on November 1st, during a trip to central Asia. Deutschland ag, though, is reluctant to open its eyes to the new reality.The deep commercial links between the two countries certainly complicate matters. Last year China was Germany’s top trading partner for the sixth consecutive year, with combined exports and imports of more than €245bn ($255bn). That is five times the figure in 2005. Germany relies on China for the import of solar panels, computer chips, rare earths and other critical minerals. Sino-German trade also supports more than 1m German jobs directly; millions more are indirectly connected to it. Sino-dependency is not a uniquely German affliction. America, too, trades a lot with its geopolitical rival. One important difference is that powerful German industries are unusually exposed to the Chinese market. Of Germany’s ten most valuable listed companies, nine derive at least one-tenth of their revenues from China, according to The Economist’s rough estimates, compared with two of America’s ten biggest firms. In 2021 two in five cars sold globally by Volkswagen Group were bought by Chinese motorists. Many of these rolled off the German carmaker’s Chinese production lines. This is Germany’s second unique circumstance: it has ploughed plenty of money into Chinese factories. Whereas new American foreign direct investments in China accounted for only 2% of America’s total in 2021, for Germany the figure was 14%. Four firms—three carmakers, bmw, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen, and basf, a chemicals giant—accounted for one-third of all eu investments in China in the past four years, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. And German firms are doubling down: in the first half of this year they invested €10bn in China, more than ever before. basf is in the process of putting another $10bn into its Chinese operations.Worries about undermining those business relationship have led to some controversial policy choices at home. In late October Mr Scholz decided to ignore the warnings of six of his ministers, as well as the heads of the domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, and let Cosco, a Chinese state-run shipping company, buy a stake in one of four container terminals in the port of Hamburg. Like his predecessor, Angela Merkel, he has also refused to take sides in the debate over whether Huawei, a Chinese telecoms giant, should be allowed to bid for contracts to build Germany’s 5g networks, perhaps heeding the threat by the Chinese ambassador to Germany in 2019 of “consequences” for German carmakers if Huawei were excluded from the auctions.This kid-glove approach to China is out of step with his Western counterparts. In America China-bashing is a rare bipartisan pursuit. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has been expanding the scope of restrictions on the export of advanced technologies to China introduced by his Republican predecessor and potential future rival, Donald Trump, most recently last month. America also bans Huawei. So do several of Germany’s fellow eu members. As the geopolitical rift between China and the West widens, many Western firms are trying to reduce their exposure to Chinese supply chains and consumers. Apple is shifting some production from China to India and Vietnam, for example. Germany, by contrast, is going “full steam ahead in the wrong direction”, as Jürgen Matthes of the German Economic Institute, a think-tank, puts it.The long guten TagSome German business leaders publicly pooh-pooh such talk. Martin Brudermüller, chief executive of basf and another of Mr Scholz’s travel companions this week, recently bemoaned all the “China-bashing”. Deep down, though, they must know better. Any lingering hope of “change through trade”, the characteristically German belief that closer commercial ties with liberal democracies will spur political transformation in China just as they did to a degree in the Soviet bloc, has died with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Mr Xi’s authoritarian turn. Indeed, many German companies tacitly acknowledge the heightened China risk by maintaining two independent production systems—one on the Chinese mainland, the other in the rest of the world. That is not enough. Expecting geopolitical tensions between the West and China to go away is naive at best. So is expecting an autocrat like Mr Xi, who makes no bones about wanting to indigenise Chinese industry, to respect all commercial commitments to foreigners. Not cutting all business ties with China is understandable, and perfectly sensible. Deepening them looks reckless. ■Read more from Schumpeter, our columnist on global business:The reluctant rise of the diplomat CEO (Oct 27th)Despite Ukraine, these aren’t boom times for American armsmakers (Oct 20th)Will Elon Musk-owned Twitter end up as a “deal from hell”? (Oct 13th)To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More