Pfizer is raising the price of its covid-19 vaccine in Europe by over 25% under a newly negotiated contract with the European Union, according to a report from the Financial Times. Competitor Moderna is also hiking the price of its vaccine in Europe by roughly 10%.

Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine is already expected to generate the most revenue of any drug in a single year—about $33.5 billion for 2021 alone, according to the pharmaceutical company’s own estimates. But the company says it’s providing poorer countries the vaccine at a highly discounted price.

Pfizer previously charged the European Union €15.50 per dose for its vaccine ($18.40), which is based on new mRNA technology. The company will now charge €19.50 ($23.15) for 2.1 billion doses that will be delivered through the year 2023, according to the Financial Times.

Moderna previously charged the EU $22.60 per dose but will now get $25.50 per dose. That new price is actually lower than first anticipated, according to the Financial Times, because the EU adjusted its initial order to get more doses.

[…]

While most drug companies like Pfizer and Moderna are selling their covid-19 vaccines at a profit—even China’s Sinovac vaccine is being sold to make money— the UK’s AstraZeneca vaccine is being sold at cost. But AstraZeneca has suffered from poor press after a few dozen people around the world died from blood clots believed to be related to the British vaccine. As it turns out, Pfizer’s blood clot risk is “similar” to AstraZeneca according to a new study and your risk from dying of covid-19 is much higher than dying from any vaccine.

[…]

“The Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine contributed $7.8 billion in global revenues during the second quarter, and we continue to sign agreements with governments around the world,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said last week.

But Bourla was careful to note that Pfizer is providing the vaccine at discounted rates for poorer countries.

“We anticipate that a significant amount of our remaining 2021 vaccine manufacturing capacity will be delivered to middle- and low-income countries where we price in line with income levels or at a not-for-profit price,” Bourla said.

“In fact, we are on track to deliver on our commitment to provide this year more than one billion doses, or approximately 40% of our total production, to middle- and low-income countries, and another one billion in 2022,” Boula continued.

Source: Pfizer Hikes Price of Covid-19 Vaccine by 25% in Europe

Incredible that this amount of profit can be generated through need. These vaccines should have been taken up and mass produced in India or wherever and thrown around the entire world for the safety of all the people living in it.

Chinese antitrust watchdog, State Administration of Market Supervision (SAMR), announced Tuesday it has started investigating price gouging in the automotive chip market.

The regulatory body promised to strengthen supervision and punish illegal acts such as hoarding, price hikes and collusive price increases. SAMR singled out distributors as the object of its ire.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, prices for items such as hand sanitizer, face masks, toilet paper and other health-related items saw startling inflation that required legal intervention.

As the pandemic wore on and work from home kit became a necessity, the world saw a new kind of shortages: semiconductors.

The automotive industry was hit particularly hard by the shortage, largely because its procurement practices sent it to the back of the queue. The industry has since endured factory shutdowns and reduced levels of vehicle production – which, given cars have long supply chains, is not the sort of thing anyone needs during difficult economic times.

Chinese entrepreneurs are clearly alive to the opportunities the silicon shortage presents. Last month several Chinese would-be bootleggers were caught smuggling the critical tech with tactics like taping US$123,000 worth of product to their calves and torso or hiding them in their vehicle as they attempted to cross borders.

Analyst firm Gartner has predicted semiconductor shortages will remain moderate to severe for the rest of 2021 and continue until the second quarter of 2022. Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC has said shortages will continue until 2023.

The Register imagines that those that can influence chip prices in China, and elsewhere, will continue to try their luck until demand deflates. Or until SAMR gets a grip on regulation, whichever comes first

Source: China tightens distributor cap after local outfits hoard automotive silicon then charge silly prices • The Register

The Chinese regulators are doing a way better job than the EU and US in terms of price gauging and monopolies. Maybe the EU and US shouldn’t let big companies lobbying determine their courses of action.

Nvidia’s Shield TVs are some of the best streaming video boxes on the market, but following a recent update to Android TV, Shield TV users are starting to see ads on their home screen and they aren’t happy about it.

The latest update to Android TV on Shield TV devices began rolling out earlier this month and featured a small UI redesign that added large banner images to Android TV’s home screen, similar to what you get when using Google TV devices like the Chromecast with Google TV.

Now technically, Google calls these banner images “recommendations,” as they are regularly updated and rotated to help users find new streaming content Google thinks they might enjoy. However, a number of Shield TV users consider these images to be advertisements (especially when they recommend shows on services users aren’t even subscribed to), and as such, have taken to showing their displeasure with the recent update by review bombing the listing for the Android TV Home app, which now has a one-star rating across more than 800 reviews.

[…]

As seen in a number of reviews and complaints on Reddit, many Shield TV users are unhappy about the way Google has killed off Android TV’s previously minimalist design by implementing intrusive banner ads that take up significantly more space, particularly on what is supposed to be a premium streaming device that goes for $150 or $200 depending on the model.

[…]

But more importantly, the addition of new banner images in Android TV is merely just one example of a growing trend in which major OS makers have begun inserting ads in a number of devices from smartphones to smart TVs. Sometimes these ads are presented as tools to help users find new content, while in other situations (like on Samsung phones), ads can appear as unwanted notifications alerting users about a newly announced Samsung device or service.

[…]

Unfortunately, oftentimes there’s no easy way to get rid of the ads, which causes user dissatisfaction or may even eventually drive users away from their current devices or platforms. But the real sad part is that until users make enough noise or cause a company’s sales to drop, it’s hard to say when this trend of seeing more and more ads in modern gadgets will stop.

Source: Shield TV Owners Are Pissed About the Banner Ads in Android TV

The argument for ads everywhere was that as you were accessing a free service, it had to be paid for by advertising. These products have all been paid for though and as such belong to you. The manufacturer has no business being on these products trying to monetise something you own even further.

A Which? investigation has found that printer ink is one of the most expensive liquids consumers can purchase when bought from the big inkjet printer manufacturers – and people could save a small fortune by opting for third-party alternatives. 

Which? research has uncovered that inkjet printer ink bought from the manufacturer could be up to 286 per cent more expensive than third-party ink and could easily lead to consumers paying hundreds more than they need to over a five-year period.

During the pandemic, printer ink has become an essential as households across the country have been forced to rely on their home printer for work and homeschooling.

However, many are unaware that they are paying over the odds by buying printer ink from their printer’s manufacturer – and the costs quickly stack up.

The consumer champion surveyed more than 10,000 consumers who own inkjet printers to find out about their experiences with original-branded and third-party inks.

Just over half (56%) of inkjet printer owners said they stick with using potentially pricey original-branded cartridges every time.

Which? assessed the cost of original-branded and third-party ink for the Epson WorkForce WF-7210DTW printer. A multipack of colour ink (cyan, magenta, yellow) costs £75.49 from Epson. This works out at an astonishing £2,410 a litre – or £1,369 for a pint.

The Epson printer also requires a separate Epson black cartridge (£31.99), bringing the total cost of a single original-branded ink refill to £107.48.

On the other hand, restocking with a full set of black and colour inks from the highest-rated third-party supplier in the consumer champion’s survey would cost just £10.99.

[…]

It is not just Epson’s ink prices that are sky high, either. Brother, Canon and HP also charge huge prices for cartridges.

A multipack of ink for the Brother MFCJ5730DW cost £98.39 compared to just £29.21 from the cheapest third-party alternative – a price difference of £1,037 over five years assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times each year.

Similarly, a full set of original-branded, high-yield cartridges for a Canon Pixma MX475 costs £80.98 compared to just £12.95 from the cheapest third-party ink supplier- a difference of £68.13 for each purchase, or £1,021 over five years assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times each year.

The price difference between own-brand and one of the third-party inks Which? looked at for the HP Officejet 6950 would leave consumers £705 out of pocket over a five-year period assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times a year. For a single refill, own-branded inks for the HP 903XL total £91.96 for both black and colour cartridges and just £44.99 from a third-party retailer.

Some HP printers use a system called ‘dynamic security’ which recognises cartridges that use non-HP chips and stops them from working. Over the course of its testing programme, Which? has found 28 HP printers that use this technology.

Other manufacturers use similar tactics such as promoting the use of ‘approved’, ‘original’ or ‘guaranteed’ cartridges on their websites and in instruction manuals. For example, the Epson printer Which? tested flashed up a ‘non-genuine ink detected’ alert on its LCD screen whenever we inserted third-party cartridges.

It is highly concerning that manufacturers are discouraging consumers from using third-party inks – and that some HP printers are actively blocking customers from exerting their right to choose the cheapest ink.

Because of these practices, consumers are understandably confused and concerned about using non-manufacturer inks. Two in five (39%) of the people we surveyed who do not use third-party cartridges said they avoided them because they thought they would not work in their printer.

[…]

“Printer ink shouldn’t cost more than a bottle of high-end champagne or Chanel No5. We’ve found that there are lots of third-party products that are outperforming their branded counterparts at a fraction of the cost.

“Choosing third-party ink should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. Which? will continue to make consumers aware of the staggering cost differences between own-brand and third-party inks and give people the information they need to buy the best ink for their printer.”

[…]

Source: Pint of printer ink? That’ll be £1,300 please: Which? reveals the eye-watering cost of branded printer ink – Which? Press Office

So basically that’s a practical monopoly on printer ink then. This is a saga that’s been going on for decades but the price increase recently has been insane!

You can spot a veteran of the Browser Wars a mile off. These fearsome conflicts, fought across the desktops of the world not 20 years ago, left deep scars.

[…]

By Gen XP, it was all over and the internet desktop was under total Empire control. Then came the Rebel Alliance of Chrome and Firefox, and in a few short years we were liberated.

Like every peacetime generation, those since have forgotten the conflict. They assume that freedom is here by right. The desktop is an antique battleground, as obsolete as warships in the Baltic. We are mobile, we are cloud, all places where access lock-in is baked out.

[…]

the new superweapon you’ll get for free is Microsoft Teams, which is now super-snugly installed on the Windows 11 desktop and just a click away from easy-peasy sign-on to the Empire. Everything else that MS really wants you to use – OneDrive, Office 365, those blasted widgets – you can do away with. Teams? Ah, not so much. Teams is there, ostensibly, to talk to other people, and if they’re on Teams you have to use it too. Documents, spreadsheets, files of all sorts – a OneDrive, Office 365 user can swap stuff with your Google Drive and apps.

[…]

What makes the conferencing space as tempting a resource as Mesopotamian oil fields to the Great Powers? It’s the same as the Browser Wars – those who control the conversation between humans and the digital control the world. Every file you share, every connection made, every link swapped, is treasure to be collected. It’s all funnelled together automatically. Watch as in-Teams access channels spring up across businesses for helplines, content accumulators, special offer conduits, payment systems.

The long trail of interactions between conferencing system users, each other, and their resources, produces a rich seam of ready-to-mine behaviour that, because it is so task-focused, is massively monetisable.

[…]

This is a terrible prospect, not just for Slack but for everyone. IE6’s reign was marked by stagnation; all companies see spending development resources for a monopoly service as waste. It had its slave army toiling in the factory, they should be grateful for what they get. And if you think Teams is less fun than tickling the tonsils of a decomposing turbot, wait until Microsoft has settled in to enjoy its new monopoly.

What saved the world were internet open standards – Microsoft couldn’t manage that lock-in, hard as it tried. This time, the standards don’t exist or where they do, they’re not used by the big players, who control the whole chain end-to-end. Third-party endpoints are not allowed. So it doesn’t matter if you’re on a non-MS desktop or a mobile device, you’ll have to use the Microsoft app.

[…]

 

Source: Windows 11 comes bearing THAAS, Trojan Horse as a service • The Register

The mastermind behind what the government says is one of the largest cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes prosecuted in the US has been sentenced to 15 years in prison. While crypto scams have been getting increasingly common, Swedish citizen Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson defrauded thousands of victims and stole tens of millions of dollars over a period that lasted almost a decade. He pleaded guilty to securities and wire fraud, as well as money laundering charges on March 4th.

According to the Department of Justice, Karlsson ran his fraudulent investment scheme from 2011 until he was arrested in Thailand in 2019. He targeted financially insecure individuals, such as seniors, persuading them to use cryptocurrency to purchase shares in a business he called “Eastern Metal Securities.” Based on information from court documents, he promised victims huge payouts tied to the price of gold, but the money they handed over wasn’t invested at all. It was moved to Karlsson’s personal bank accounts instead and used to purchase expensive homes and even resorts in Thailand.

To keep his scheme running for almost a decade, he’d rebrand and would show victims account statements in an effort to convince them that their funds are secure. Karlsson would then give them various excuses for payout delays and even falsely claimed to be working with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the sentencing, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered his Thai resorts and accounts to be forfeited. He was also ordered to pay his victims in the amount of $16,263,820.

Acting US Attorney Stephanie Hinds of the Northern District of California said:

“The investigation into Roger Karlsson’s fraud uncovered a frighteningly callous scheme that lasted more than a decade during which Karlsson targeted thousands of victims, including financially vulnerable seniors, to callously rob them of their assets and all to fuel an extravagant lifestyle surrounded by luxury condominiums and lavish international vacations. The court’s decision to order a 180-month prison term reflects the fact that Karlsson’s cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme is one of the largest to be sentenced to date and ensures that Karlsson now will have plenty of time to think about the harm he has caused to his victims.”

Source: Major crypto scammer sentenced to 15 years in prison | Engadget

As expected, Google is facing a fresh legal assault regarding its Play Store, the 30 per cent cut it took from developers’ revenues via the software souk, and other rules and restrictions.

In an antitrust lawsuit [PDF] filed in a federal district court in San Francisco on Wednesday, 36 US states and commonwealths, plus Washington DC, alleged Google ran roughshod over the Sherman Act, screwing over users and software makers by abusing its monopoly on Android and the distribution of apps.

Those states include New York, California, Florida, Washington, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Arizona, though not Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, nor Illinois, among others. There doesn’t appear to be an obvious partisan split.

The complaint is wide-ranging and extensive, from criticizing Google’s commission from app and in-app purchases and that it must handle payments, to undue pressure on phone makers, to a ban on advertising by non-Play stores on Google’s web properties, like YouTube, and more.

[…]

In March, Google dropped its cut of app sales from 30 to 15 per cent for the first $1m a developer makes. The move mirrored a similar decision by Apple last year, matching the same terms almost exactly. This was not enough, it seems, to hold off attorneys general.

[…]

Source: Three-dozen US states plus DC sue Google over Play Store’s revenue cut, payment system, and more • The Register

The Federal Trade Commission has filed charges against Broadcom over allegations that the chip maker monopolized the market for semiconductor components, the agency announced Friday.

According to the commission’s complaint, Broadcom entered into long-term exclusivity and loyalty agreements with both original equipment manufacturers and service providers to prevent them from buying chips from Broadcom’s rivals. The FTC’s investigation, which dates back years, found that Broadcom had been making “exclusive or near-exclusive” deals since 2016 with at least 10 manufacturers of TV set-top boxes and broadband devices. The company also threatened customers who used a rival’s product with retaliation, with nonexclusive customers facing higher prices for slower delivery times and less responsive customer support, the FTC claims.

“By entering exclusivity and loyalty agreements with key customers at two levels of the supply chain, Broadcom created insurmountable barriers for companies trying to compete with Broadcom,” the agency said in a press release Friday.

The FTC said that under a proposed consent order, Broadcom must stop engaging in these kinds of contracts and conditioning access to its chips based on exclusivity or loyalty deals. Broadcom would also be prohibited from retaliating against customers that do business with its competitors.

[…]

The proposed consent order is still subject to a public comment period and a final commission review. For its part, Broadcom has pushed back against the FTC’s allegations while also indicating that it’s willing to cooperate on a settlement. The company resolved a similar antitrust dispute with the European Union last October in which it agreed to stop pushing exclusivity arrangements for chips used in TV set-top boxes and modems for the next seven years.

Source: FTC Charges Broadcom With Monopolization of Chip Industry

Source: Jeff Bezos Steps Down as Amazon’s CEO After 27 Years

Near the end of the Epic v. Apple trial, Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers had some pointed questions for Tim Cook on the state of Apple’s relationship with its developers. Citing an internal survey of developers, she noted that 39 percent of them indicated they were unhappy with the App Store’s distribution. What incentive, then, she asked, does Apple have to work with them?

Cook seemed to be caught off guard by the question. He said Apple rejects a lot of apps and that “friction” can be a good thing for users. Rogers replied that it “doesn’t seem you feel pressure or competition to change the manner in which you act to address concerns of developers.”

It was a brief but telling exchange. And one that strikes at the heart of Apple’s currently rocky relationship with developers.

Epic vs. Apple vs. developers

Ostensibly, Epic’s antitrust case against Apple was about the iPhone maker’s treatment of Fortnite and its refusal to allow the game developer to bypass the App Store for in-app purchases. Epic, along with many other prominent developers, has long chafed at Apple’s 30 percent commission, or “App Store” tax.

It’s not just that they see 30 percent as greedy and unfair (Apple recently lowered its take to 15 percent for small developers). It’s that Apple has appeared to treat some developers differently than others. For example, documents unearthed during the trial detail how Apple went to great lengths to prevent Netflix from yanking in-app purchases from its app.

After considering “punitive measures” toward the streaming giant, Apple offered Netflix custom APIs that most developers don’t have access to. It also dangled the possibility of additional promotion in the App Store or even at its physical retail stores. Netflix ended up pulling in-app purchases anyway, but it was illustrative of the kind of “special treatment” many developers have long suspected Apple employs towards some apps.

Meanwhile, game developers have no choice but to pay Apple’s “tax.” Not only that, but Apple’s rules prohibit them from even alerting their users that they may be able to make the same purchase elsewhere for less — what’s known as its “anti-steering” rules.

Friction over these rules is nothing new. But the details of these arrangements, and Apple’s hardball tactics with developers, had never been as exposed as they were during the trial.

“What was great about the Epic trial was that it brought many of these issues to light and into the public dialogue,” said Meghan DiMuzio, executive director for the Coalition for App Fairness, an advocacy group representing developers who believe Apple’s policies are anticompetitive. “I think we saw how Apple more generally chooses to approach their relationships with developers and how they value, or don’t value, their relationships with developers. I think those are really incredible soundbites and storylines to have out in the public eye.”

The case touched on other issues that have been the source of long-simmering developer frustrations with Cupertino, and not just for giants like Netflix. Epic also highlighted common developer complaints around App Store search ads, fraudulent apps and Apple’s often inscrutable review process.

In one particularly memorable exchange, the developer of yoga app Down Dog spoke at length about how Apple’s opaque policies can have an outsize impact on developers. For example, he said Apple had repeatedly rejected app updates for seemingly bizarre reasons, like using a “wrong” color on a login page. Once, he said, an update was rejected because App Store reviewers couldn’t find his app’s integration with Apple’s Health app. He later realized it was because the reviewers were testing on an iPad, which doesn’t support the Health app.

These types of complaints are probably familiar to most developers. It’s not unusual for Apple to quibble over the placement of a particular button, or some other minor feature. These seemingly small issues can drag on for days or weeks, as Epic repeatedly pointed out. But it’s rare for such squabbles to spill over into public view as they did during the trial.

The trial raised other, more fundamental issues, too. A witness for Epic testified that the operating margin for the App Store was 78 percent, a figure Apple disputed but didn’t offer evidence to the contrary. Instead, Tim Cook and other execs have maintained they simply don’t know how much money the App Store makes.

Cook did, however, have much more to say when pressed on whether game developers effectively “subsidize” the rest of the App Store. “We are creating the entire amount of commerce on the store, and we’re doing that by focusing on getting the largest audience there,” Cook stated.

The argument struck a nerve with some. Marco Arment, a longtime iOS developer whose apps have been featured by Apple, wrote a scathing blog post in response.

“The idea that the App Store is responsible for most customers of any reasonably well-known app is a fantasy,” Arment writes. “The App Store is merely one platform’s forced distribution gateway, ‘facilitating’ the commerce no more and no less than a web browser, an ISP or cellular carrier, a server-hosting company, or a credit-card processor. For Apple to continue to claim otherwise is beyond insulting, and borders on delusion.”

Determining just how many developers agree with that sentiment, though, is trickier. There are millions of iOS developers and for much of the App Store’s history, most have been reluctant to publicly criticize Apple. The company has conducted its own surveys — as evidenced in the Epic trial disclosures — but the findings aren’t typically made public. And even Cook admitted he was unsure if it’s a metric the company regularly tracks.

“There’s not a lot of actual third-party survey on the developer ecosystem,” says Ben Bajarin, CEO of analyst firm Creative Strategies. He has been conducting his own poll of Apple developers to gauge their feelings toward the company.

He says he sees “a pretty big gap” between the smaller, independent developers and the larger businesses on the App Store. Developers with smaller projects, he says, are “simply much more reliant on Apple.” And while they quibble with things like search ads or Apple’s review process, they don’t have many alternatives. “These aren’t developers that have a huge budget for marketing […] they’re entirely reliant on Apple to get them customers.”

The coming antitrust battles

[…]

Source: Apple’s developer problems are much bigger than Epic and ‘Fortnite’ | Engadget

How is it possible that Apple doesn’t know the income from its app store?

 

The Dividend Aristocrats in 2021

Legendary investor George Soros once said, “Good investing should be boring”. But an increase in volatile themes today suggests this maxim has gone ignored by at least some market participants.

From a high level, we can view investments on a spectrum. Volatile assets like cryptocurrencies and SPACs are more on the exciting side of things. The boring side is likely where Dividend Aristocrat stocks lie.

The data above, from Sure Dividend, looks at all 65 Dividend Aristocrats, ranking them by their yield, sector, and years of growth.

What are Dividend Aristocrats?

The U.S. Dividend Aristocrats are a basket of 65 stocks in the S&P 500 index. These companies have been growing their dividend per share consecutively, for a minimum of 25 years.

This is easier said than done, since companies often distribute dividends quarterly. To pay and grow a dividend in the long run implies a business model that can withstand varying economic environments, including setbacks like market crashes.

Though dividend stocks may not carry the same excitement as other investments, studies show that dividends represent over 50% of total S&P 500 market returns.

Search:

Company	Dividend Yield	Years Dividend Grown	Sector
AT&T, Inc.	6.9%	36	Communication Services
Exxon Mobil Corp.	6.1%	38	Energy
Chevron Corp.	5.1%	33	Energy
International Business Machines Corp.	4.9%	25	Technology
Abbvie Inc	4.8%	49	Healthcare
Realty Income Corp.	4.2%	26	Real Estate
People`s United Financial Inc	4.1%	28	Financial Services
Federal Realty Investment Trust	4.0%	53	Real Estate
Consolidated Edison, Inc.	4.0%	47	Utilities
Amcor Plc	3.9%	36	Consumer Cyclical

Showing 1 to 10 of 65 entries

PreviousNext

Numerous companies on this list have brand value that stretches all over the globe—including the likes of McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Walmart.

Vast global recognition and branding power is in part why these companies can generate cash flows to pay dividends for decades on end. For instance, 94% of the world population recognizes Coca-Cola’s logo.

Zooming In

The 65 Dividend Aristocrat stocks break down into 11 sectors. Across sectors, Industrials is the most crowded, consisting of 14 companies, with an average yield of 1.6% and a dividend growth duration of 43 years. Popular stocks in this sector include 3M and Caterpillar.

Next is the Consumer Defensive sector, containing 13 companies like Clorox, Target, Pepsi, and Procter & Gamble. The average yield is 2.2%, with an average growing duration of 49 years.

The highest yield by sector belongs to Energy, at 5.5%, but is only made up of only Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Their dividend track record may falter in the years to come, due to transitions away from the oil business. Just last year, Big Oil firms reported record net income losses, and Exxon was booted from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA).

The Consumer Cyclical sector has been increasing their dividend for an average of 50 years, the longest of any sector. Lowe’s and McDonald’s are involved in this category.

Businesses for Today and Tomorrow

Although the Dividend Aristocrats list is published every year, the companies on the list are a stable bunch, meaning changes are fairly infrequent.

In a market climate in part shaped by low rates and compressed yields in the fixed income space, Dividend Aristocrats might be a particularly attractive alternative for investors with a longer-term outlook.

Source: Who Are the Dividend Aristocrats in 2021?

Billionaire Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal, has publicly condemned “confiscatory taxes.” He’s been a major funder of one of the most prominent anti-tax political action committees in the country. And he’s bankrolled a group that promotes building floating nations that would impose no compulsory income taxes.

But Thiel doesn’t need a man-made island to avoid paying taxes. He has something just as effective: a Roth individual retirement account.

Over the last 20 years, Thiel has quietly turned his Roth IRA — a humdrum retirement vehicle intended to spur Americans to save for their golden years — into a gargantuan tax-exempt piggy bank, confidential Internal Revenue Service data shows. Using stock deals unavailable to most people, Thiel has taken a retirement account worth less than $2,000 in 1999 and spun it into a $5 billion windfall.

To put that into perspective, here’s how much the average Roth was worth at the end of 2018: $39,108.

And here’s how much $5 billion is: If every one of the 2.3 million people in Houston, Texas, were to deposit $2,000 into a bank today, those accounts still wouldn’t equal what Thiel has in his Roth IRA.

What’s more, as long as Thiel waits to withdraw his money until April 2027, when he is six months shy of his 60th birthday, he will never have to pay a penny of tax on those billions.

[…]

What this secret information reveals is that while most Americans are dutifully paying taxes — chipping in their part to fund the military, highways and safety-net programs — the country’s richest citizens are finding ways to sidestep the tax system.

One of the most surprising of these techniques involves the Roth IRA, which limits most people to contributing just $6,000 each year.

The late Sen. William Roth Jr., a Delaware Republican, pushed through a law establishing the Roth IRA in 1997 to allow “hard-working, middle-class Americans” to stow money away, tax-free, for retirement. The Clinton administration didn’t want to give a fat tax break to wealthy people who were likely to save anyway, so it blocked Americans making more than $110,000 ($160,000 for a couple) per year from using them and capped annual contributions back then at $2,000.

Yet, from the start, a small number of entrepreneurs, like Thiel, made an end run around the rules: Open a Roth with $2,000 or less. Get a sweetheart deal to buy a stake in a startup that has a good chance of one day exploding in value. Pay just fractions of a penny per share, a price low enough to buy huge numbers of shares. Watch as all the gains on that stock — no matter how giant — are shielded from taxes forever, as long as the IRA remains untouched until age 59 and a half. Then use the proceeds, still inside the Roth, to make other investments.

About a decade after the creation of the Roth, Congress made it even easier to turn the accounts into mammoth tax shelters. It allowed everyone — including the very richest Americans — to take money they’d stowed in less favorable traditional retirement accounts and, after paying a one-time tax, shift them to a Roth where their money could grow unchecked by Uncle Sam — a Bermuda-style tax haven right here in the U.S.

[…]

Among this rarefied group, ProPublica found, the term “individual retirement account” has become a misnomer. Rather than a way to build a nest egg for old age, the accounts have morphed into supercharged investment vehicles subsidized by American taxpayers. Ted Weschler, a deputy of Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, had $264.4 million in his Roth account at the end of 2018. Hedge fund manager Randall Smith, whose Alden Global Capital has gutted newspapers around the country, had $252.6 million in his.

Buffett, one of the richest men in the world and a vocal supporter of higher taxes on the rich, also is making use of a Roth. At the end of 2018, Buffett had $20.2 million in it. Former Renaissance Technologies hedge fund manager Robert Mercer had $31.5 million in his Roth, the records show.

[…]

And thanks to the Roth, Thiel’s fortune is far more vast than even experts in tallying the wealth of the rich believed. In 2019, Forbes put Thiel’s total net worth at just $2.3 billion. That was less than half of what his Roth alone was worth.

Source: Lord of the Roths: How Tech Mogul Peter Thiel Turned a Retirement Account for the Middle Class Into a $5 Billion Tax-Free Piggy Bank — ProPublica

The Wall Street Journal reports: Authorities in the U.K. and Japan took aim at affiliates of Binance Holdings Ltd., the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange network, in the latest regulatory crackdown on the wildly popular trade in bitcoin and other digital assets. The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the country’s lead financial regulator, told consumers Saturday that Binance’s local unit wasn’t permitted to conduct operations related to regulated financial activities…

As of April, Binance operated the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world by trading volume, allowing tens of billions of dollars of trades to pass through its networks, according to data provider CryptoCompare. It was founded in 2017 and initially based in China, later moving offices to Japan and Malta. It recently said it is a decentralized organization with no headquarters… The FCA move doesn’t ban customers from using Binance completely; U.K. customers can continue to use Binance’s non-U.K. operations for activities the FCA doesn’t directly regulate, such as buying and selling direct holdings in bitcoin.
The Financial Times called the move “one of the most significant moves any global regulator has made against Binance” and “a sign of how regulators are cracking down on the cryptocurrency industry over concerns relating to its potential role in illicit activities such as money laundering and fraud, and over often weak consumer protection.” But more countries are also taking action, Reuters reports: Last month, Bloomberg reported that officials from the U.S. Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service who probe money laundering and tax offences had sought information from individuals with insight into Binance’s business. In April, Germany’s financial regulator BaFin warned the exchange risked being fined for offering digital tokens without an investor prospectus.
And CoinDesk adds: Binance is no longer open for business in Canada’s most populous province, apparently choosing to close shop rather than meet the fate of other cryptocurrency exchanges that have had actions filed against them for allegedly failing to comply with Ontario securities laws.

Source: Regulators Crack Down on Crypto Exchange Binance in UK, Japan, Germany, and Ontario, Canada – Slashdot

We’ve written so many stories about how you don’t own what you’ve bought any more due to software controls, DRM, and ridiculous contracts, and it keeps getting worse. The latest such example involves Peloton, which is most known for its extremely expensive stationary bikes with video screens, so that you can take classes (usually on a monthly subscription). I will admit that I don’t quite understand the attraction to them, but so many people swear by them. The company also has branched out into extremely expensive treadmills with the same basic concept

[…]

Peloton announced that they will refund the machine, which costs $4,295, and are working on a mandatory software update that will automatically lock the Tread+ after each use and require a unique password to be used to unlock the machine.

That automatic lock and password idea sounds sensible enough, given the situation, but in order to get it to work, but apparently Peloton hasn’t figured out how to make that work for customers who bought the treadmill and aren’t using its subscription service for classes. The Tread+ does have a “Just Run” mode, in which it acts like a regular treadmill (with the video screen off). But, as Brianna Wu discovered, the company is now saying that the “Just Run” mode now requires a subscription to work with the lock. The company is waiving the cost of such a subscription for three months, and it’s unclear from the email if that means that after the three months they’re hoping to have the “Tread Lock” working even for non-subscription users:

Wow. The Peloton Tread will no longer allow you to use your $3000 treadmill without a $39.99 a month subscription.

The pretext is their design issues that led to a child’s death.

Hope reporters will cover this. pic.twitter.com/XHKS6DaOeD

— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) June 21, 2021

If you can’t see it, the image is an email from Peloton customer support saying:

We care deeply about the safety and well-being of our Members and we created Tread Lock to secure your Tread+ against unauthorized access.

Unfortunately at this time, ‘Just Run’ is no longer accessible without a Peloton Membership.

For this inconvenience, we have waived three months of All-Access Membership for all Tread+ owners. If you don’t see the waivers on your subscription or if you need help reactivating your subscription, please contact our Support team….

Now, it’s possible that the subscription part is necessary to update the software to enable the lock mode, but that seems… weird. After all, there must have been some sort of software upgrade that locked out the “Just Run” mode in the first place.

[…]

 

Source: You Don’t Own What You’ve Bought: Peloton Treadmill Edition | Techdirt

A pair of South African brothers have vanished, along with Bitcoin worth $3.6 billion from their cryptocurrency investment platform.

A Cape Town law firm hired by investors says they can’t locate the brothers and has reported the matter to the Hawks, an elite unit of the national police force. It’s also told crypto exchanges across the globe should any attempt be made to convert the digital coins.

Following a surge in Bitcoin’s value in the past year, the disappearance of about 69,000 coins — worth more than $4 billion at their April peak — would represent the biggest-ever dollar loss in a cryptocurrency scam. The incident could spur regulators’ efforts to impose order on the market amid rising cases of fraud.

The first signs of trouble came in April, as Bitcoin was rocketing to a record. Africrypt Chief Operating Officer Ameer Cajee, the elder brother, informed clients that the company was the victim of a hack. He asked them not to report the incident to lawyers and authorities, as it would slow down the recovery process of the missing funds.

Lawyers Hired

Some skeptical investors roped in the law firm, Hanekom Attorneys, and a separate group started liquidation proceedings against Africrypt.

“We were immediately suspicious as the announcement implored investors not to take legal action,” Hanekom Attorneys said in response to emailed questions. “Africrypt employees lost access to the back-end platforms seven days before the alleged hack.”

The firm’s investigation found Africrypt’s pooled funds were transferred from its South African accounts and client wallets, and the coins went through tumblers and mixers — or to other large pools of bitcoin — to make them essentially untraceable.

Calls to a mobile number for Cajee were immediately directed to a voicemail service. He and his brother, Raees, 20, set up Africrypt in 2019 and it provided bumper returns for investors. Calls to Raees also went straight to voicemail. The company website is down.

The saga is unfolding after last year’s collapse of another South African Bitcoin trader, Mirror Trading International. The losses there, involving about 23,000 digital coins, totaled about $1.2 billion in what was called the biggest crypto scam of 2020, according to a report by Chainalysis. Africrypt investors stand to lose three times as much.

While South Africa’s Finance Sector Conduct Authority is also looking into Africrypt, it is currently prohibited from launching a formal investigation because crypto assets are not legally considered financial products, according to the regulator’s head of enforcement, Brandon Topham. The police have not yet responded to a request for comment.

[…]

Source: South Africa Africrypt Bitcoin Scam?: Cajee Brothers Missing Along With Billions – Bloomberg

Hyundai this morning announced that it has completed its acquisition of Boston Dynamics. The deal, which values the innovative robotics company at $1.1 billion, was announced in late-2020. The companies have not disclosed any future financial details.

The South Korean automotive giant now owns a controlling interest in Boston Dynamics, previously belonging to SoftBank. The Japanese investment company was effectively a transitional owner, purchasing Boston Dynamics from Google, which owned the company for just over three years.

While its time with Softbank wasn’t much longer than its stint under Google/Alphabet X, Boston Dynamics saw the commercialization of its first two products since launching nearly 30 years ago. The company brought its quadrupedal robot Spot to market and this year announced the (still upcoming) launch of Stretch, an updated version of its warehouse robot, Handle.

In a recent appearance at TechCrunch’s Mobility event, Hyundai’s Ernestine Fu discussed the planned acquisition of an 80% controlling interest in the company. Fu noted that Hyundai’s New Horizon Studios has previewed multiple “walking” car concepts that look poised to build on decades of Boston Dynamics research.

“With New Horizon Studios, the mandate is reimagining what you can do when you combine robotics with traditional wheeled locomotion, like walking robots and walking vehicles,” Fu told TechCrunch. “Obviously the technology that [Boston Dynamics] has put together plays a key role in enabling those sorts of concepts to come to life.”

As it has changed hands over the years, Boston Dynamics has long insisted on maintaining its own research wing, which has given us less commercial technology, like the humanoid robot, Atlas. How this will function under the umbrella of Hyundai remains to be seen, though the company does seem to have a vested interest in maintaining a forward-looking approach.

Source: Hyundai completes deal for controlling interest in Boston Dynamics | TechCrunch

With graphics cards seeming harder to get than ever, China’s stricter measures against Bitcoin mining have led to lower prices online in the country.

In Yunnan, the country’s fourth-largest Bitcoin-producing province, authorities have been investigating illegal electrical power use tied to Bitcoin mining and are threatening to cut power to those involved in the practice. As SCMP reports, it’s the latest province to join the country’s clampdown on crypto.

In 2020, China made up 65 percent of Bitcoin’s global hash rate.

SCMP now reports that stricter measures towards Bitcoin are driving down the prices of graphics cards in China. Graphics cards aren’t only used for gaming, but for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as they provide the extra computer power needed in the computations necessary to mine digital currencies.

As the Chinese government has been putting the squeeze on crypto, Sichuan province remained a holdout for mining operations. But, as SCMP adds, Sichuan has called for all mining to cease, dashing the hopes of miners to take advantage of the province’s hydropower. Now, miners are apparently looking at moving operations outside China to friendlier areas.

All of this has caused the prices of graphics cards to drop online in China. In May, the Asus RTX 3060 was commanding as much as 13,499 yuan ($2,085), but SCMP reports that prices have dropped to 4,699 yuan ($725).

That’s not the only thing to drop. According to CNN, the value of Bitcoin has dropped in the wake of China’s measures.

[…]

Source: Bitcoin Crackdown Leads To Cheaper Graphics Cards In China

[…]

The U.S. is dominated by anticompetitive giants in banking, telecom, insurance, health care, air travel, and countless other sectors. And generally, we’ve historically encouraged them by underfunding our regulators, steadily weakening antitrust enforcement, rubber stamping merger after terrible merger, and replacing competent Judges with bobble head dolls. All under the pretense that doing anything else would be disastrous, while clinging tightly to a consumer welfare standard that sometimes seemed incapable of addressing modern market, labor, and consumer harms.

[…]

The movement to rein in big tech and shore up antitrust enforcement certainly has valid components, based on justified anger at years of dodgy business practices. But this anger has been proven to be exploitable by folks like News Corporation and AT&T. Both companies are looking to saddle their Silicon Valley competitors in online advertising with rules that don’t apply to their own businesses, while simultaneously demolishing constraints and oversight of their own sectors (see: net neutrality, the dismantling of FCC authority, or the steady erosion of media consolidation rules protecting small businesses).

[…]

Meanwhile, many of the bills are oddly selective in what they deem to be a “dominant platform.” The Platform Competition and Opportunity Act (pdf), for example, greatly restricts what constitutes a monopolistic offender, making sure to carve out exceptions for telecom giants, Mastercard, VISA, and Walmart. The bill bans companies from owning or operating a business that “presents a clear conflict of interest,” but only if the company in question has 50 million monthly active U.S. users and a market cap of over $600 billion:

“…is owned or controlled by a person with net annual sales, or a market capitalization greater than $600,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation on the basis of the Consumer Price Index, at the time of the Commission’s or the Department of Justice’s designation under sec13 tion 4(a) or any of the two years preceding that time, or at any time in the 2 years preceding the filing of a complaint for an alleged violation of this Act.”

Again, this very specific restriction omits a lot of companies that are engaging in the same kind of anticompetitive behavior, including many that see overlap in markets dominated by technology giants (telecom). It’s also just kind of an arbitrary restriction given that what others value you at isn’t necessarily what determines whether or not you’re engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The actual, anticompetitive behavior does.

But just looking at the $600 billion valuation threshold gives a sense of just how this line-drawing happened. Under this definition (including the number of US users), it looks like the law only applies to Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google (Alphabet) and Facebook. That’s it. It seems notable that companies which are also kinda powerful and dominant, but happen to fall just somewhat beneath the threshold, include Visa, Mastercard, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Walmart, Disney… and Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

[…]

Telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast have spent the last three or four years successfully convincing many DC policymakers that Silicon Valley giants are the only dominant giants worth worrying about. Rupert Murdoch has been playing similar reindeer games. Pretending “big tech” monopolies are the only monopolies that need immediate fixing benefits both, and exploiting legitimate public anger at big tech isn’t particularly hard right now on either side of the aisle.

[…]

Source: Recent Antitrust Push Is Weirdly Narrow, Pretends Telecom And Banking Don’t Exist | Techdirt

Google and Apple Inc. face a sweeping probe into the “duopoly” power of their mobile ecosystems, in the U.K. antitrust watchdog’s latest attack on Silicon Valley.

The increasingly tech-focused Competition and Markets Authority opened a 12-month market study into broad aspects of the iOS and Android systems, saying it feared the companies’ dominance is stifling competition. The investigation adds to the regulator’s separate investigations into both tech giants.

“Our ongoing work into big tech has already uncovered some worrying trends and we know consumers and businesses could be harmed if they go unchecked,” CMA Chief Executive Officer Andrea Coscelli said in a statement.

[…]

The CMA said it will consider whether Apple and Google use their position as the owners of the main app stores to exploit consumers and developers as well as their supply of mobile browsers.

Big Tech is the focus of a vast array of European probes looking at how the firms increasingly govern the terms of what people do online, often gaining insights into user behavior that smaller rivals can’t match.

The market study will inform the CMA’s move to boost oversight over the largest tech companies while it develops a new code of conduct for companies that have “strategic market status.” But the regulator also warned that the study could lead to more stringent interventions, noting that even operational splits of company units were a possible outcome.

The CMA is separately scrutinizing Apple’s app payment rules and Google’s planned changes to ad tracking.

Source: Android, Apple Mobile Ecosystems Face UK Antitrust Probe Amid Competition Fears – Bloomberg

This week, ProPublica released a massive scoop—a treasure trove of financial records showing how some of the U.S.’s wealthiest billionaires scamper off with virtually no tax burden. And the U.S. government knows exactly what to do in response: find whoever released those embarrassing records and incarcerate the shit out of them.

Priorities, people!

ProPublica obtained official Internal Revenue Service documents that were, admittedly, not supposed to be public knowledge and released key details about just how well various tax tricks used by the ultra-wealthy are working out for them. For example, compared to Forbes estimates, the country’s 25 richest people saw a net growth of $401 billion in wealth from 2014 to 2018 but paid just $13.6 billion in federal income tax—an effective rate of 3.4%. Berkshire Hathaway investment titan Warren Buffet saw his net worth rise by $24.3 billion over that period, paying just $23.7 million in tax. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw his net worth rise by $99 billion, paying just $973 million in tax. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ratio was $22.5 billion in net worth gains to $292 million in tax, while Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was $13.9 billion to $455 million.

Morally obscene display of inequality and impunity as this is, the U.S. government has far more pressing concerns, such as punishing whoever squealed. Attorney General Merrick Garland assured lawmakers on Wednesday that one of his most immediate focuses will be plugging the leak, wherever or whoever it might be.

[…]

Source: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos Tax Leak: DOJ Vows to Hunt Down Leaker

ProPublica says it has seen the tax returns of some of the world’s richest people, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett.

The website alleges Amazon’s Mr Bezos paid no tax in 2007 and 2011, while Tesla’s Mr Musk paid nothing in 2018.

A White House spokeswoman called the leak “illegal”, and the FBI and tax authorities are investigating.

ProPublica said it was analysing what it called a “vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data” on the taxes of the billionaires, and would release further details over coming weeks.

While the BBC has not been able to confirm the claims, the alleged leak comes at a time of growing debate about the amount of tax paid by the wealthy and widening inequality.

ProPublica said the richest 25 Americans pay less in tax – an average of 15.8% of adjusted gross income – than most mainstream US workers.

Jesse Eisinger, senior reporter and editor at ProPublica, told the Today Programme: “We were pretty astonished that you could get [tax] down to zero if you were a multi-billionaire. Actually paying zero in tax really floored us. Ultra-wealthy people can sidestep the system in an entirely legal way.”

“They have enormous ability to find deductions, find credits and exploit loopholes in the system,” he said.

So while the value of their wealth grows enormously through their ownership of shares in their company, that’s not recorded as income.

But there’s more than that, he said: “They also take aggressive tax deductions, often because they have borrowed to fund their lifestyle.”

He said US billionaires buy an asset, build one or inherit a fortune, and then borrow against their wealth.

Because they don’t realise any gains or sell any stock, they’re not taking any income, which could be taxed.

“They then borrow from a bank at a relatively low interest rate, live off that and can use the interest expenses as deductions on their income,” he said.

Biden plans

The website said that “using perfectly legal tax strategies, many of the uber-rich are able to shrink their federal tax bills to nothing or close to it” even as their wealth soared over the past few years.

The wealthy, as with many ordinary citizens, are able to reduce their income tax bills via such things as charitable donations and drawing money from investment income rather than wage income.

ProPublica, using data collected by Forbes magazine, said the wealth of the 25 richest Americans collectively jumped by $401bn from 2014 to 2018 – but they paid $13.6bn in income tax over those years.

President Joe Biden has vowed to increase tax on the richest Americans as part of a mission to improve equality and raise money for his massive infrastructure investment programme.

He wants to raise the top rate of tax, double the tax on what high earners make from investments, and change inheritance tax.

However, ProPublica’s analysis concluded: “While some wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, would pay more taxes under the current Biden administration proposals, the vast majority of the top 25 would see little change.”

[…]

Source: US super-rich ‘pay almost no income tax’ – BBC News

[…]

A May survey of 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 39% would consider quitting if their employers weren’t flexible about remote work. The generational difference is clear: Among millennials and Gen Z, that figure was 49%, according to the poll by Morning Consult on behalf of Bloomberg News.

“High-five to them,” said Sara Sutton, the CEO of FlexJobs, a job-service platform focused on flexible employment. “Remote work and hybrid are here to stay.”

The lack of commutes and cost savings are the top benefits of remote work, according to a FlexJobs survey of 2,100 people released in April. More than a third of the respondents said they save at least $5,000 per year by working remotely.

Perks of Flexibility

Not having to commute is the top benefit for remote workers.

Source: FlexJobs

Survey of 2,181 total respondents ran from March 17, 2021 through April 5, 2021.

 

[…]

At least some atop the corporate ladder seem to be paying attention. In a Jan. 12 PwC survey of 133 executives, fewer than one in five said they want to go back to pre-pandemic routines. But only 13% were prepared to let go of the office for good.

Senior Management’s View

Days in the office that executives think is needed to maintain company culture.

Source: PwC

PwC surveyed 133 US executives between Nov. 24 and Dec, 5, 2020,from public and private companies in financial services, technology, media and telecommunications and retail products.

[…]

Source: Return to Office: Employees Are Quitting Instead of Giving Up Work From Home – Bloomberg

At Amazon in Spain, France and Italy, Chinese sellers already make up more than half of the largest merchants in the marketplace, says market research firm Marketplace Pulse. The Thuiswinkel Markt Monitor shows that we in the Netherlands spent 1.1 billion euros on products from abroad in 2019. Chinese online stores, such as AliExpress, are in first place with almost 33 percent. One reason for the rise of Chinese retailers is that they supply European customers directly through platforms such as Amazon or AliExpress. They also often pay no import duties and pay little attention to product safety. At the beginning of July, new EU tax rules will come into effect for orders from non-European online retailers. The most important change is the abolition of the current exemption limit of 22 euros for direct imports. As a result, 19 percent import tax is due on all packages. In addition, dealers will have to complete a customs declaration for all shipments in the future. The prices of Chinese articles will therefore rise sharply. If you want to spend something of 22 euros, you will soon pay 4 euros 84 in VAT and approximately 13 euros in handling costs for the delivery person. Then you do not lose 22 euros for the product, but almost 40 euros. Brussels expects a lot from the measures. The tax reform will ensure “fair competition between European and foreign operators in the e-commerce market,” the Brussels government writes in a brochure. It expects an additional tax revenue of 7 billion euros per year. Organization GS1 advises retailers to let marketplaces take care of the VAT return because they know who is buying, at what price and where the package must be delivered. They can also provide the authorities with unique identifiers for the product, the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN), the sales transaction a Global Shipment Identification Number (GSIN) in which the price is recorded and the package identification code, a GS1 Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC). to enable an automated check. In this way, the customer can look forward to his package without any problems.

Source: EU verscherpt regels voor internationale onlinehandel, Chinese pakketjes fors duurder – Emerce