Vancouver home sales jump 46.3% year-over-year in September - BNNBloomberg.ca

VANCOUVER -- The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver says home sales jumped 46.3 per cent in September compared with last year to hit near average levels after a decline in prices.

The board says 2,333 homes sold in the month, up from 1,595 sales last year, to come in at a level just 1.7 per cent below the 10-year average for September.

Higher home sales came as the composite benchmark price for all homes in Metro Vancouver was down 7.3 per cent to $990,600 in September compared with last year. The benchmark price was down 0.3 per cent from August.

The benchmark price for detached homes dropped 8.6 per cent in September compared with last year. The benchmark condo price was down 6.5 per cent from last year, and the attached home price was down 7.2 per cent.

A total of 4,866 homes were listed in the month, a 7.8 per cent decrease compared with a year earlier, and a 29.9 per cent increase compared with August.

The board says the statistics indicate a more balanced housing market.

from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/2psfK5o
via IFTTT
October 02, 2019 at 10:48PM

Charles Schwab's move to axe online trading fees weighs on TD - The Globe and Mail

Canopy Growth buys majority stake in sports drink company BioSteel - CBC.ca

Bearish Inventory Report Sends Oil Prices Lower | OilPrice.com - OilPrice.com

Crude oil prices fell further today after the Energy Information Administration reported an inventory build of 3.1 million barrels for the week to September 27.

Analysts had expected a relatively modest build, of 1.57 million barrels, after a week earlier the EIA reported a build of 2.4 million barrels. The agency’s latest report extends two weeks of consecutive inventory builds.

The EIA also reported a 200,000-barrel decline in gasoline inventories for the week to September 27, which compares with a 500,000-barrel rise in the previous week.

In distillate fuels, the authority estimated a 2.4-million-barrel inventory fall, which compares with a draw of 3 million barrels for the previous week.

Refineries processed 16 million bpd of crude last week, the EIA also said, and churned out 10.1 million bpd of gasoline and 4.8 million bpd of distillate fuels. A week before, gasoline production averaged 10.2 million bpd and distillate fuel production averaged 5 million bpd.

At the time of writing Brent crude traded at $58.50 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate was at $53.44, despite an upbeat inventory estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, which yesterday said U.S. crude oil inventories had shed 5.92 million barrels in the week to September 27.

This was not enough for a sustainable rally, however, not only because everyone waits for the official figures from the EIA, but also because of external factors. One of these was an announcement from Aramco that Saudi oil production was now back to normal levels following the attacks on a field and a processing facility two weeks ago. Another was the deepening worry about demand for the commodity.

This worry got a boost this week from the latest U.S. manufacturing activity data, which turned out to be at its lowest in more than 10 years. Ecuador’s announcement that it would part ways with OPEC beginning next January didn’t help either, sparking more fear about excessive supply.

Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/2pmNWzi
via IFTTT
October 02, 2019 at 09:40PM

This could be the next gold mine for Tesla and other electric vehicles - MarketWatch

When people think about charging electric cars, the first thought that comes to mind is: “So you are going to put charging stations at gas stations. There will be long lines of people waiting to charge their cars, since it takes much longer to charge an electric car than to fill a car with gas. It will never work.”

Capitalism will take care of building out the charging infrastructure. My prediction: At some point there will be a charging-station mini-bubble as companies raise capital and do a land grab. Grocery stores will use charging stations to attract customers. Charging stations will be in all parking lots, from restaurants to office buildings. Electric vehicle (EV) charging will be a gold rush, while gas stations will be just another relic of a bygone age, like phone booths and cassette tapes. Future EV batteries will have greater range, last longer, and charge faster.

The transition from internal combustion engine (ICE) cars to electric vehicles is a bit like the transition our ancestors went through when society switched from horses to gasoline-powered cars. At first, people wondered how they would “feed” those cars (grass was more plentiful than gasoline), whether they would have decent roads to actually drive anywhere, and whether cars would be crashing into pedestrians and each other. The shift from horses to cars required a completely new paradigm.

The domain of horses came with an ecosystem that was simply not applicable when we switched to cars. Even though both performed the same function — horses got people and goods from point A to point B — the automobile was fundamentally different, and so was its ecosystem.

I imagine the 110,000 U.S. gas stations that keep ICE cars humming along today will look like a rounding error next to the millions of electric “filling stations” that one day will be located in home garages and public parking lots.

Batteries lead the charge

The engine in an EV, though it will incrementally improve over time, is less important than the battery, which is the most expensive single part of the vehicle and a highly complex one, too. The battery in an EV needs to be treated tenderly to maintain its charge and longevity. Your iPhone, for example, is optimized for duration of a charge but not for battery longevity. First of all, Apple AAPL, +0.28%   has an incentive to build planned obsolescence into its iPhone – it wants you to replace it every three years. Second, most iPhones don’t spend much time sitting outside in extremely hot or cold weather; they mostly remain in the comfort of your pocket, at a battery-friendly temperature. Not least, the cost of replacing a battery in your iPhone is less than $100, but replacing the battery in a Tesla TSLA, +1.59%  costs $10,000.

Read: Relax, Tesla drivers — thieves don’t want your electric cars

Plus: Here’s how to capitalize on the electric car revolution — without buying Tesla’s stock

Tesla doesn’t own the battery-cell technology that goes into its batteries; that belongs to its partner, Japanese conglomerate Panasonic PCRFY, +1.53% 6752, +0.09%  . Tesla designed the battery pack the enclosure that houses the battery cells) and the battery management system controller (computer) that routes and manages electricity flow and the microclimate of the battery cells.

The battery is a key technology for Tesla, but at the moment Panasonic is in control of a big part of it. Just as Apple chose to bring development of the CPU that powers its iPhone in-house, Tesla, which is vertically integrated, may eventually increase its control over its battery technology. The company’s purchase of Maxwell Technologies, which has a battery technology that may significantly lower the cost of cell manufacturing, is the first move toward independence from Panasonic.

On the one hand, this strategy has a great appeal because if Tesla is able to produce a better (more durable, lighter, longer-range, faster-charging) battery at a lower cost, it could become a source of a competitive advantage. Today Tesla doesn’t fully control its destiny when it comes to batteries, so if BMW BMW, -1.40%  decides to use Panasonic’s cells, Panasonic will gladly supply it. BMW would still have to develop its own battery management controller, though.

On the other hand, this vertical-integration strategy could backfire. If EV batteries turn into a commodity and the aforementioned features become ubiquitous, then the lowest-cost manufacturer wins. Tesla would argue that vertical integration will ultimately result in lower costs. The company has built a giant battery factory in Nevada that it calls the Gigafactory. When it is fully operational, the Gigafactory will be able to manufacture twice the quantity of lithium-ion batteries produced globally today. Tesla owns the building, and Panasonic owns the cell manufacturing equipment.

Traditional ICE automakers that are tiptoeing into EVs have taken a more conservative strategy and are relying on suppliers (LG Chem 051910, -2.63%    , Samsung SDI 006400, -2.22%  , and others) to produce a complete battery for them.

One of the biggest differences between the Tesla battery and the batteries used in other companies’ EVs (like the BMW i3, Chevy Volt GM, -3.66%  , and Jaguar i-PACE) is the metals they put in the cathode. Traditional car companies chose the NMC (nickel, manganese, cobalt) combination, while Tesla ended up making a less conservative choice of NCA (nickel, cobalt, aluminum). NCA offers long battery life, quick charging, and great performance. NMC, on the other hand, produces slightly less energy but is less volatile and withstands larger ranges and variations of temperature.

Tesla chose a more potent and more volatile cathode chemistry and elected to control its volatility by trying to manage the macroenvironment of the cells by a special design of the battery enclosure, in order to cool or warm the battery cells as needed. Each battery pack comes with an incredibly sophisticated battery management system that tracks the voltage and temperature of each cell and orchestrates which cells the Model 3 uses.

Lithium-ion batteries are a technology of the late 1980s. This was improved in the 1990s and the early part of this century at a somewhat slow pace (especially compared to semiconductors, which have followed Moore’s law, doubling in speed every 18 months). The rate of improvement has accelerated over the past decade (in large part thanks to Tesla), and the cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) declined to $127 in 2018 from $446 in 2013. The Tesla Model 3, for example, comes with a 75kWh battery, meaning the approximate cost of the battery has declined to $10,000 from $33,000.

From the perspective of how much it will likely evolve over the next decade or two, EV battery technology is still in its infancy. As we transition from ICE cars to EVs, the value of the prize will explode; tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured into improving the battery. Tesla, for example, has already gone through three reformulations of its battery. My $50,000 Tesla Model 3 has the latest version, which charges faster than the $90,000 Model X or the $80,000 Model S that Tesla sells today.

While in the short run battery technology is going to be an important differentiating factor, in the long run the EV battery will likely become a commodity and the differentiating factors will be in software and self-driving capability. An EV is a giant computer on wheels, and historically as computer hardware is commoditized, most of the remaining value is in the software.

How does one invest in this overvalued market? Our strategy is spelled out in this fairly lengthy article.   

Vitaliy Katsenelson is chief investment officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, which has no positions in any of the companies mentioned. He is the author of “Active Value Investing” (Wiley) and “The Little Book of Sideways Markets” (Wiley). Read more about how EVs will disrupt the auto industry, including whether Tesla and traditional automakers will survive in the long run, and who's right in the Tesla bull vs. bear debate.

,

Read: 7 tips for buying your first electric vehicle

More: The best EVs and plug-in hybrids

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-could-be-the-next-gold-mine-for-tesla-and-other-electric-vehicles-2019-10-02

2019-10-02 09:20:00Z
52780398841299

In Opioid Settlement, Johnson & Johnson Agrees To Pay Ohio Counties $20 Million - NPR

Enlarge this image

Akron fire medic Paul Drouhard shows a box containing Naloxone Hydrochloride, a drug carried in all their department emergency response vehicles to treat opioid overdose patients. Keith Srakocic/AP hide caption

toggle caption

Keith Srakocic/AP

Johnson & Johnson and two Ohio counties have reached a tentative $20.4 million settlement that removes the corporation from the first federal lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, scheduled to begin later this month.

In a statement released Tuesday, the healthcare giant said the agreement with Cleveland's Cuyahoga and Akron's Summit counties allows it "to avoid the resource demands and uncertainty of a trial." However, the terms stipulate that Johnson & Johnson makes "no admission of liability."

"[The] Company is open to identifying an appropriate, comprehensive resolution of the overall opioid litigation. At the same time, the Company remains prepared to defend its actions," the statement said.

In a deal which must be approved by a federal judge, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay the counties a total of $10 million and to reimburse them for $5 million in legal fees. An additional $5.4 million would go toward programs to fight opioid addiction in the two counties.

In 2017, Ohio had the nation's second highest per capita rate of fatal opioid overdoses, with 46.3 deaths per 100,000 people, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. West Virginia had the highest rate at 57.8 per 100,000, the CDC said.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, made two opioids that were distributed in Cuyahoga and Summit counties. Johnson & Johnson says the drugs were "responsibly marketed" and "accounted for less than one percent of the total opioid prescriptions in the United States."

In August, the drug maker was ordered to pay $572 million in a case in Oklahoma, which blamed Johnson & Johnson for helping fuel the opioid crisis in the state. The company has appealed the ruling.

Judge Thad Balkman, who presided over the Oklahoma case, said the pharmaceutical giant "caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths and neonatal abstinence syndrome" in the state.

The case involving the Ohio counties is the first federal case to be brought against pharmaceutical companies and is therefore seen as potentially setting precedent for how similar suits will be handled.

Four other drug makers have already settled ahead of the Oct. 21 trial, but McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. and Henry Schein Inc. are still listed as defendants, according to Reuters.

The maker of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month, has reached a tentative settlement in the Ohio suit worth some $12 billion.

Johnson & Johnson, like the other drug makers, still faces some 2,000 other suits in various states related to the opioid epidemic.

Early next year, a similar case brought by West Virginia's Cabell County and the city of Huntington — which have the highest opioid overdose rates in the country — is set to be taken up.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766332253/in-opioid-settlement-johnson-johnson-agrees-to-pay-ohio-counties-20-million

2019-10-02 09:41:00Z
52780399115775

‘Customer set a telco really wants’: Telus's $700M buy of ADT Canada logical for a bundle of reasons - Financial Post

Telus Corp. announced Tuesday it is buying ADT Canada for $700 million, a move that will bolster the telecom’s suite of product offerings, but also bring it into direct competition with tech giants such as Amazon and Google.

ADT Inc. will still operate in the United States, but Telus is getting around 500,000 customers and 1,000 employees in the security services business across Canada with the acquisition. In announcing the deal, Telus noted that it already has about 100,000 home and business security customers.

Scott Young, principal research advisor with Infotech Canada, said the move makes sense for Telus and boils down to one word: “Stickiness.”

Faced with increased competition in their wireless and internet businesses, and cord-cutting on the television side, telecoms have been trying to hold on to customers and grow revenues by bundling services together.

“This adds another 500,000 to (Telus),” Young said. “That’s 500,000 potential people that also did not necessarily have other Telus services, that they can now try to come in from that angle too to try and offset any other losses.”

There are a lot of reasons home security services in particular are alluring to telecom operators, and Tuesday’s acquisition is just the latest in a series of moves.

Rogers launched home monitoring services back in 2011, and in 2017 Bell Canada acquired AlarmForce for $182 million. Bell then turned around and sold the western Canada portion of AlarmForce to Telus in early 2018 for $66.5 million.

The deal for ADT this week is much larger, but National Bank of Canada analyst Adam Shine noted that on a per-subscriber basis the AlarmForce and ADT deals are in the same ballpark.

“We view this as a good transaction for the company. Security and automation clearly represent areas that can be monetized as part of a bundle for businesses but also consumers in the context of health and home,” Shine wrote in an investor note. “Related solutions will find their way into smart cities, buildings, and enterprise with coming 5G serving as the great enabler to all these things.”

Related solutions will find their way into smart cities, buildings, and enterprise with coming 5G serving as the great enabler to all these things

Adam Shine, analyst, National Bank of Canada

That idea of bundling is the most alluring part of home security, according to Nigel Wallis, vice-president of industries and IoT with IDC Canada.

“Once they can prove themselves there, then potentially they can offer more of a whole-home solution, which might include a smart-home thermostat, might include digital flood warning in your basement, potentially even moving into something like smart irrigation systems for people who have gardens,” Wallis said.

“I don’t anticipate it happening this year, but over the next three years I think we will start to see all the telcos following what you see out of Comcast and Verizon (in the U.S.) trying to add, not like a geek squad, but a home squad.”

Home security customers are particularly alluring, too, because those customers tend to be higher-income individuals, Wallis said.

“That’s a customer set that a telco really wants, because they’re going to buy the extended cable package,” he said. “They’re much more likely to be on the list of people who want to get Apple iPhone 11. Those are much more likely to be higher-margin customers who are buying the home security devices.”

But there’s a problem for telecoms getting into the home security business, or really, there are two problems: Amazon and Google. Through their Ring and Nest brands, respectively, both companies are eager to sell smart locks, smart doorbells, camera systems and an array of other security services all knit together by the Alexa and Google Assistant platforms.

Those are higher-margin customers

Nigel Wallis, vice-president, industries and IoT, IDC Canada

Wallis downplayed this concern, saying that the market will probably segment largely along generational lines, with more affluent baby boomers and Gen X customers tending toward traditional home security systems, and millennials preferring the Nest and Ring options.

Wallis said because of this, the ADT Canada acquisition will probably pay for itself for Telus, but it’s unlikely to be a huge growth area.

“You’re looking to milk the existing customer-base who are going to be the same people you already work with for home residential TV and home phones and internet,” he said. “The people who are most likely to have gone to over-the-top (streaming) and not have home TV anymore are also most likely to go to digital-native companies like Amazon and Google.”

But Werner Goertz, a personal technology analyst with Gartner, was more skeptical, saying that the rise of Google and Amazon in recent years has changed the home security landscape. He said he was a bit surprised to see Telus making the acquisition right now.

“Large utilities across the globe were basically engaged in smart-home activities. They built their own subsidiaries and they made huge investments a couple years ago,” Goertz said.

“Ecosystems and incumbencies have developed on behalf of Amazon and Google to a much greater degree compared to two or three years ago, so now the barrier to entry has been raised, and I think that’s why we’ve seen less of a flurry of M&As.”

from Business - Latest - Google News https://ift.tt/2om4BlS
via IFTTT
October 02, 2019 at 05:20AM