Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

RFK Jr. offers Biden wacky ‘no spoiler’ deal in desperate bid to battle Trump for White House

 Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. needled President Biden Wednesday, offering a zany “no spoiler” agreement that whichever of the two candidates is least likely to defeat Donald Trump drops out of the race in October.

During a news conference in Brooklyn, the 70-year-old RFK Jr. proposed that he and Biden co-fund a 50-state poll of at least 30,000 likely voters to determine which candidate is the true “spoiler” who would ensure a victory for the 45th president by continuing to campaign.

“Ultimately, I think what we all want in this election is [for] Americans not to feel like they have to vote out of fear,” Kennedy told reporters. “That they feel like they can vote out of hope. And that is only going to happen if there’s a two-way race between me and President Trump or me and President Biden.”

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a suit, holding a microphone at a press conference in Brooklyn, New York, May 1, 2024AFP via Getty Images

The poll would measure the likelihood both of Kennedy defeating Trump, 77, in a head-to-head race and Biden, 81, repeating his 2020 victory over his Republican rival.

The Democratic National Committee quickly pooh-poohed the proposal from Kennedy, claiming he was there as a Trump ally.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr is a spoiler-  recruited by the MAGA GOP and propped up by Trump’s largest donor. His ‘Veep’-like performance today does nothing to dispel that notion- it only reinforces how deeply unserious his campaign is,” DNC spokesperson Matt Corridoni told The Post in a statement.

But polls do show that Kennedy has significant support against Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

At Wednesday’s event, the Kennedy campaign cited a 50-state poll conducted by John Zogby Strategies that indicated the independent would win a two-way race against Biden and Trump.

In the survey, which polled over 26,000 people, Kennedy won 367 electoral votes to Biden’s 171. Against Trump, RFK Jr. barely obtained the magic number of 270 electoral votes.

In the widely expected Trump-Biden rematch, the 45th president knocked off his successor by 294 electoral votes to 244, according to Zogby.

A map posted by Kennedy’s campaign depicting Trump beating out Biden in the Electoral College.kennedy24.com
The largest 50-state poll of the 2024 cycle indicates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the only alternative to four more years of Donald Trump.kennedy24.com
A map of the United States illustrating the results of a 50-state poll for the 2024 election cycle, suggesting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the main alternative to Donald Trump.kennedy24.com

RFK Jr. campaign manager Amaryllis Kennedy had stronger words urging Biden to bow out, saying the incumbent “can not win” Nov. 5, “not in a two-way [race], not in a three-way [race],”

Jeremy Zogby, managing partner of John Zogby Strategies, told The Post that “the numbers speak for themselves” and that Kennedy has been polling well “going back over a year.”

“I’ve conducted 30 something polls and I’ve seen him consistently draw from both parties, equally… When you put it all together he’s polling pretty equally,” Zogby added.

“He’s building a pretty substantial coalition of a mosaic of the political landscape.”

https://nypost.com/2024/05/01/us-news/rfk-jr-offers-biden-wacky-no-spoiler-deal-with-chance-of-october-dropout/

Walmart closing down health centers. What that mean for Amazon, Walgreens, CVS

 A look at whether rival retailers should be worried or encouraged by Walmart shuttering its health centers

Walmart Inc. (WMT) announced Tuesday it's closing its 51 health centers after the retail giant admitted the business had not seen sustainable profits since its inception in 2019.

Walmart's announcement emphasizes the difficulty some retailers have come across as they attempt to enter the primary-care and healthcare markets.

Other retailers who have made moves to provide people with healthcare in recent years include Amazon, CVS (CVS), Walgreens (WBA) and Costco (COST). Amazon acquired One Medical for $3.9 billion last year to bolster its in-person and remote primary-care services. CVS has continued to expand its retail locations. Walgreens introduced several new primary-care locations after a string of acquisitions, including VillageMD, Summit Health and CareCentrix. And Costco began offering its members access to medical care in 2023 through the Sesame platform, which includes $29 virtual primary-care visits.

Some of those companies experienced headwinds related to the healthcare aspects of their business. Amazon (AMZN) had to shut down one iteration of its primary-care service, Amazon Care, in 2022, and Walgreens reported a second-quarter loss partially due to a $5.8 billion charge associated with its primary-care business.

"Retail health presents tremendous opportunities, but also challenges. There's high operating costs, regulatory challenges, and disparities in reimbursement," Natalie Schibell, the vice president of marketing strategy, intelligence and insights at the health platform Zyter|TruCare, told MarketWatch about the Walmart announcement.

Compared with other similar retail stores, Walmart stores tend to be more prevalent in rural areas. And because people living in rural parts of the U.S. often have fewer primary-care options than others, Schibell was optimistic about Walmart Health.

"I had high hopes for retail health clinics, especially those in rural areas to help bring those barriers to access," she said. Some of those barriers include staffing issues, travel-time issues (Americans in rural areas travel an average of 30 minutes or longer for medical appointments) and reimbursement rates.

"Our belief is that the closure of Walmart Health, while it shuts the door on clinics, provides the opportunity to focus on leveraging existing assets in pharmacy, optical, & OTC. We think the new private label brand should help to further bolster market share gains ahead," analysts at Jefferies said in a research note.

But if a company as big as Walmart - with its $485 billion market cap - had a difficult time making substantial profit from ITS retail health offerings, should other companies offering relatively similar services be worried?

"If you look at Walmart's strategy, they're strategically located versus their competitors in more rural areas. And if they're relying heavily on insurance payment being their operations, those little reimbursement rates in rural areas could really impact their profitability," Schibell said.

Walmart's store locations led to a few challenges for the profitability of its primary-care business, an issue that other brands in urban or suburban areas may not experience.

Despite future challenges, some brands are pushing forward with expansion.

"We're still opening 50 to 60 clinics next year," CVS chief executive officer Karen S. Lynch said shortly after the company reported fourth-quarter earnings in February. "All is working well."

CVS's stock tumbled nearly 20% on Wednesday after the healthcare-services brand fell short of first-quarter expectations. CVS cited "elevated medical cost trends" as the reason for cutting its full-year outlook, and showed a 9.7% decrease in year-over-year revenue in its "health services" segment, which includes but is not limited to its medical clinics.

And though Walgreens closed 160 of its VillageMD clinics in March, it's optimistic about a new way forward.

"During the first half of fiscal '24, we have seen positive financial impacts from the recent actions taken by VillageMD management team to accelerate profitability. We believe the focused approach on improving performance in core markets as well as rightsizing the cost structure will provide VillageMD a platform for future growth," Walgreens Chief Executive Tim Wentworth said during the company's second-quarter earnings call.

Amazon's One Medical has 240 primary-care office locations in the U.S. and is looking to expand, particularly in major cities.

"We look at MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) specific needs and try to meet our members where they are in terms of their desire for access and convenience," One Medical CEO Trent Green recently said in an interview with Forbes. "We're sustaining and we are intentionally expanding our physical footprint."

However, healthcare has still proven to be a difficult industry to navigate for retailers.

"[Retailers] are going to need to sharpen their pencil and be more strategic," Schibell concluded.

Walmart said its health centers and telehealth services didn't have a "sustainable business model for us to continue," citing the insurance-reimbursement environment and rising operating costs that hurt profitability.

Walmart's optical business, which includes more than 3,000 vision centers, as well as its 4,600 pharmacies, will continue to operate normally.

Americans spent a total of $4.4 trillion, or $13,493 per capita, on their health in 2022, according to the American Medical Association. Health spending made up 17.3% of the country's GDP that year.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20240501830/walmart-is-closing-down-its-health-centers-what-does-that-mean-for-amazon-walgreens-and-cvs

Starbucks On Brink Of Worst Crash Since Dot Com After "Stunning" Earnings Miss

Starbucks shares plummeted by 16% during the early cash session, approaching the -16.2% level last seen during the Covid crash. If intraday losses surpass 16.2% and remain above this level at closing, it would mark the company's worst single-day loss since the Dot Com crash in early 2000.

"Starbucks reported what's perhaps the worst set of results of any large company so far" this quarter, analyst Adam Crisafulli of Vital Knowledge wrote in a note. William Blair downgraded the coffee chain, citing last quarter's "stunning across-the-board miss on all key metrics."

Starbucks reported a 4% drop in same-store sales in the second quarter compared with the same period last year, while analysts tracked by Bloomberg were expecting growth. In China, same-store sales plunged 11%. The company's top geographic segments are showing a pullback in consumer spending. 

On Tuesday evening, CEO Laxman Narasimhan started the earnings call with investors by clarifying his unhappiness with last quarter's results. 

"Let me be clear from the beginning. Our performance this quarter was disappointing and did not meet our expectations," Narasimhan said. 

He said major headwinds originate from a "cautious consumer," adding, "A deteriorating economic outlook has weighed on customer traffic and impact felt broadly across the industry." 

Here's a snapshot of the second quarter's earnings results (list courtesy of Bloomberg):

  • Comparable sales -4%, estimate +1.46% (Bloomberg Consensus)

  • North America comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.05%

  • US comparable sales -3%, estimate +2.31%

  • International comparable sales -6%, estimate +1.36%

  • China comparable sales -11%, estimate -1.62% 

  • Adjusted EPS 68c, estimate 80c 

  • Net revenue $8.56 billion, estimate $9.13 billion

  • Operating income $1.10 billion, -17% y/y, estimate $1.35 billion

  • Adjusted operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.5%

  • Operating margin 12.8%, estimate 14.4%

  • North America operating margin +18%, estimate +19.5%

  • International operating margin 13.3%, estimate 15.2% 

  • Channel development operating margin 51.7%, estimate 43.6%

  • Average ticket +2%, estimate +2.41% 

  • North American average ticket price +4%, estimate +4.15%

  • International avg. ticket -3%, estimate +0.1%

  • North America net new stores 134, estimate 144.33

  • International net new store openings 230, estimate 429.23

  • Comparable transactions -6%, estimate -0.27% 

  • North America comparable transactions -7%, estimate -1.86%

  • International comparable transactions -3%, estimate +1.37%

Goldman analysts Eric Mihelc and Scott Feiler told clients, "Expectations were for a clear sales miss and a modest EPS miss, but both came worse than the lowered bar." 

They added, "The miss was across geography and was as bad, if not worse, than worst fears." 

Other Wall Street analysts shared the same gloom and doom about the coffee chain (list courtesy of Bloomberg): 

Deutsche Bank analyst Lauren Silberman cuts Starbucks to hold from buy 

  • Says the "challenging" results was a sign "headwinds are more pervasive and persistent than we expected, and we have limited visibility into the pace and magnitude of a recovery"

  • Had thought comparable sales deceleration in the US was more transitory and isolated to a specific cohort

  •  However, with the decline in 2Q traffic and what seems to be limited improvement from Lavender and Spicy Refreshers, Silberman sees it being difficult to "underwrite a meaningful reacceleration," which is key to the bull case

William Blair, Sharon Zackfia (cuts to market perform from outperform)

  • After healthy demand over the past three years, Zackfia says the "tide has turned quickly," with Starbucks posting the weakest traffic performance outside the pandemic or Great Recession

  • China now "looks more fragile," with comparable sales down 11%, and even Starbucks Rewards members "took a rare dip," she adds

Jefferies, Andy Barish (hold)

  • There was a "notable" miss on US and international comparable sales as well as EPS, and Barish says there is "no easy fix in sight to reaccelerate SSS near-term"

  • Notes that international comparable sales was "similarly weak," with traffic and comparable transactions both declining; China's comparable sales miss and Middle East volatility more than offset positive comps seen in Japan, APAC and Latin America

  • PT cut to $84 from $94

Citi, Jon Tower (neutral) 

  • Starbucks is "putting a lot of oars in the water to try and paddle" its way back to a stable comparable sales outlook that investors would be willing to underwrite

  • However, Tower expresses concern that there is not enough "coxswain keeping oarsmen working in unison/with accountability"; adds that it ignores the "true leak in the bottom of the boat," flagging broad consumer pushback to cumulative transaction growth and the value equation

  •  Notes China store margins are still in the double digits and the segment is profitable despite top-line declines

  •  PT cut to $85 from $95

Cowen, Andrew Charles (hold)

  •  "We believe 2024 guidance has been derisked as we model 0% NA comps & 3% EPS growth, the high end of the range"

  • Expects shares to be in a "holding pattern" as Starbucks restores credibility while competition and tough macroeconomic conditions present headwinds

  • PT cut to $85 from $100

Bloomberg Intelligence, Michael Halen and Jennifer Bartashus

  • "Starbucks slashed fiscal 2024 same-store sales, revenue and EPS guidance and lacks a cogent plan to boost demand"

  • "We believe several initiatives, including targeting overnight sales, dozens of new products and a four-week mobile- app upgrade cycle are overkill — a distraction unlikely to boost traffic"

On Tuesday, a similar story occurred at McDonald's when the burger chain reported lower-than-expected quarterly sales growth. 

Notably, working-poor consumers are pulling back spending in a period of stagflation (read here & here). 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/starbucks-brink-worst-crash-dot-com-after-stunning-earnings-miss

Exxon To Win FTC Approval For $60 Billion Pioneer Deal, Creating Energy Supergiant

 Having adversely intervened in virtually every other M&A deal in the past 3 years, the Biden FTC will reportedly allow Exxon's $60 billion purchase of Pioneer to go through after the companies agreed to minor concessions, Bloomberg reported citing people familiar with the matter. The announcement of the deal will likely come any moment, and the resulting deal will make Exxon - a company which Biden once said makes money money than god - far and away the biggest oil and natural gas producer in the Permian Basin, North America’s largest US oil field, and also the biggest energy company in the US.

Pioneer shares that had been down more than 2% on the day reversed those losses and were trading up as much as 0.9% on the news. Hess Corp, the target of a takeover bid by Chevron, also climbed 0.9% although the probability of that deal passing is far lower especially in light of the ongoing arbitration with Exxon over Guyana.  Chevron, Occidental and Chesapeake are among companies with large pending takeovers that are undergoing in-depth reviews before the FTC.

The Pioneer deal will combine two fast-growing Permian operations, lifting Exxon’s production in the basin to the equivalent of about 2 million barrels a day by 2027, up from about 600,000 last year.

More than 50 lawmakers - obviously mostly communists, pardon, democrats - urged the FTC in March to increase scrutiny on concerns a $230 billion wave of consolidation in would increase energy prices for consumers, squeeze suppliers and suppress wages. In short: enforce more Soviet-style central planning and crush conventional capitalism. As a result, investors had feared the agency, which has become more a ruthless enforcer of authoritarian anti-capitalism under Democrat admin puppet Lina Khan, would stand in the way of several large deals, especially in an election year when the Biden administration is seeking to prove its climate credentials and contain gasoline prices at all cost.

In response to the ruling communists, oil executives have claimed the deals will benefit shareholders, consumers and the environment. Exxon CEO Darren Woods said the Pioneer deal would lower its cost of production, making US barrels more competitive in the global market, and provide a strong platform for growth, which would ultimately benefit consumers. Exxon also pledged to reduce climate-warming emissions from Pioneer operations to net zero by 2035, accelerating the prior target by 15 years.

The Biden administration has constantly been at odds with the oil industry, but easing through what many executives see as necessary consolidation is likely to improve relations. With domestic crude prices up roughly 14% this year and tensions rising the Middle East, the administration is vulnerable to Republican attacks on measures that hurt the oil industry and raise fuel prices.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exxon-win-ftc-approval-60-billion-pioneer-deal-creating-energy-supergiant

Oh, Canada: U.S. Patients Don't Want Your Health Policies

 There's never been a worse time to get sick in Canada. Our northern neighbors must wait 2.5 years longer than Americans enrolled in Medicare to access new drugs, according to a report published this month by the Canadian Health Policy Institute.

The Canadian government has chosen to deprive its citizens of the latest therapies by dictating the prices drug makers must abide by if they want access to the Canadian market. And now, the Biden administration and several states are looking to deploy Canadian-style tactics here at home.

When public officials levy price controls on prescription drugs, they're putting the government's finances ahead of patients' lives.

Drug companies understandably prioritize selling in markets where they can make the most progress toward recouping their investments in research and development — which are about $2.6 billion per drug, on average.

That figure takes into account the many drug candidates that don't pan out. Seven of every eight compounds that enter clinical testing fail. Companies have to rely on revenue from the small minority that succeed to keep them in the black — and fund future research.

Price controls upset these economic calculations. And so they compel drug companies to wait to launch medicines in the countries that employ them — if they decide to launch them there at all.

Between 2018 and 2022, drug makers filed roughly half as many new drug applications with Canadian regulators as they did with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the Canadian Health Policy Institute paper.

Just 30 of the 166 new drugs approved for marketing in Canada between 2018 and 2022 had ended up on public drug formularies by the end of 2023, CHPI reported. In the United States, 241 new drugs were on public formularies by the end of last year.

That's right. At the end of 2023, Americans had access to eight times as many new drugs on public formularies as Canadians did.

Canada was first to receive a new drug application for just 33 of the 337 drugs that received approval from at least two of the regulatory agencies in the United States, Europe, and Canada during the time period evaluated by CHPI.

And of the 92 drugs that sought approval in all three regulatory regimes between 2018 and 2022, just one launched in Canada first. American patients had first dibs on 85 of those drugs.

A February 2024 RAND Corporation study found that "most new drugs are sold first in the United States" and that "the United States has access to the largest share of new drugs overall," precisely because the "latitude to set prices" encourages companies to introduce drugs here "before launching in countries that use external reference pricing" or other forms of price controls.

That may not be the case for long. Medicare is in the process of setting price caps on 10 popular drugs in Part D, as authorized under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Those caps will take effect in January 2026. The following year, 15 drugs under Part D will be ensnared by these price controls. In 2028, 15 from Medicare Parts B and D will be subject to price controls. And in 2029 and thereafter, it's 20 drugs from Parts B and D. The Democrats have already proposed to increase those numbers.

One study estimates that the IRA's price controls will reduce pharmaceutical companies' revenue — and thus the amount of money available for research and development — to such an extent that they'll develop 139 fewer drugs by 2035.

States are working to implement price controls of their own, too. Colorado announced in March that the state's Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board would begin setting "upper payment limit[s]" on drugs it thinks are too expensive. The board claims that over 600 drugs currently meet that threshold.

Colorado is hardly an outlier. At least eight other states have created similar bodies. Thus far, only Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Maryland have the authority to set price caps.

The fact that states are embracing this type of strategy is bad news, regardless of how many boards have power at the moment. They all function like Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the agency responsible for my home country's lag in drug approvals and access.

It would be folly to think the United States could implement Canadian-style price controls and not suffer Canadian-style results. If the Biden administration and state governments continue to push for price caps, review boards, and "negotiations" with drug makers, they will inevitably restrict patients' ability to access new medicines.

Sally C. Pipes is president, CEO, and the Thomas W. Smith fellow in healthcare policy at the Pacific Research Institute.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2024/04/29/oh-canada-us-patients-dont-want-your-health-policies/?sh=5365f84915d8

Biden’s Title IX Rewrite Puts Women And Girls At Risk

 Under the banner of creating “gender equity,” the Biden administration just gutted crucial protections for women and girls and paved the way for the transgender movement’s complete destruction of female-only spaces.

In late April, after multiple delays and hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the proposed changes, the Biden Department of Education finalized its overhaul of Title IX, the landmark 1972 law establishing important protections against sex-based discrimination. But instead of strengthening those protections, Biden’s rewrite tears them down and unilaterally redefines sex and gender according to radical gender theory.

As a result, in any educational institution which receives federal funding, males who identify as women can now enter women’s restroom and locker room facilities, citing Title IX as their justification for doing so.

Following the publication of the new policy, most media coverage has focused on the reversal of a Trump-era rule requiring colleges to follow due process in handling sexual misconduct cases.

And indeed, this change should be alarming for anyone concerned about ensuring the rights of both accusers and accused are respected in such cases. Even the far-left ACLU has spoken out against the idea that universities are now not required to “provide a live hearing and an opportunity for cross-examination where serious sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion, may apply.”

But the most egregious change under the new policy is the inclusion of self-professed gender identity under the definition of “sex” – something which Congress never intended when it passed the original law.

Some states and individual school districts have already taken action to prevent males from using women’s restrooms and locker rooms by simply claiming that they identify as a woman. But Biden’s new rules will supersede those laws and regulations and force schools to comply with the Biden administration’s radical interpretation of “gender identity.”

Parents who oppose the policy will be left with few options. Those who can’t afford homeschool or private school will be forced to allow their daughters to undress in front of males and perhaps even share hotel rooms with them on overnight trips – all in order to appease left-wing transgender activists.

Other changes to Title IX to supposedly protect against “gender-based discrimination” also enshrine key elements of far-left gender ideology in federal law.

For instance, the Biden administration has now expanded the definition of “harassment” to include not using someone’s preferred pronouns. Imagine a case where a student refuses to use absurd “neo-pronouns” like “xe/xir” or “fae/faer,” and instead refers to others only by biologically correct pronouns. That student could now be subject to disciplinary action under Title IX, while his or her school could face a federal civil rights investigation.

This terrifying prospect isn’t just theoretical; last November, while the new rules were still under review, Biden’s Department of Education launched an investigation into California’s Taft College after a student alleged his professors were “misgendering” him. Such cases are likely to become significantly more common in the months and years ahead.

As Teresa Manning, policy director for the National Association of Scholars, has pointed out, not only is this policy morally reprehensible, it is also a blatant violation of the First Amendment: “In the public education setting, students and faculty can speak—or not speak—according to their conscience. Title IX cannot change that, no matter what Biden administration officials say.”

Biden’s Title IX rewrite also further undermines parental rights by discouraging schools from disclosing to parents if their child has chosen a new gender identity or is being socially transitioned at school. As Ginny Gentles of the Independent Women’s Forum has reported, “Although the administration’s Title IX rule commentary claims that ‘nothing in these final regulations prevents a recipient from disclosing information about a minor child to their parent who has the legal right to receive disclosures on behalf of their child,’ the rule directly instructs schools to update their internal gender identity policies and points to examples of state and district policies that explicitly require schools to hide a child’s chosen identity from his or her parents.”

The new rules are set to take effect just three months from now, this August, but some conservative leaders and organizations have already taken action to challenge them.

In Georgia, Attorney General Chris Carr has filed a lawsuit to block the Title IX revision. “While different administrations can have different policy views, they cannot override the text that Congress enacted in 1972 or overrule the binding precedent of this circuit. The Biden rule does both—to the detriment of the States, their schools, and their students,” the lawsuit reads. Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida have also joined the case.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also said his state’s education agency will ignore the Title IX revisions, calling them “illegal” and a “ham-handed effort to impose a leftist belief onto Title IX.”

While such opposition to Biden’s Title IX rewrite at the state level is welcome and needed, it may not be enough to stop implementation of the new rules. Absent congressional action – or Biden’s defeat this November – Title IX’s 50-year-old protections for women and girls may be about to come crashing down.

https://amac.us/newsline/society/bidens-title-ix-rewrite-puts-women-and-girls-at-risk/