The final regulations are the culmination of a lengthy rulemaking process that kicked off in August 2018, when FIRRMA was enacted. As explained in our previous alert, FIRRMA represented the most sweeping overhaul of the operations and jurisdiction of CFIUS in its 45-year history. Likewise, the final regulations expand CFIUSs jurisdiction and introduce new levels of complexity and nuance that require extensive regulatory analysis for investors and US target companies alike. The final rules are divided into two separate regulations the first dealing with regular investments and the second dealing with just real estate transactions.

While a comprehensive treatise on the 327-page final CFIUS regulations will be of interest to many readers who have insomnia, we have instead chosen to highlight five areas and themes of the new CFIUS regulation covering regular investments. A separate alert will address the final regulations on real estate transactions.

With the final regulations, the Treasury Department essentially implemented a three-lane system for CFIUS reviews, just as Congress intended when it passed FIRRMA.

The regular lane will utilize CFIUSs traditional full-length filings, which are known as notices, and will need the full timeline for CFIUS review. However, this may feel like the slow lane to transaction parties in deals that are more complex or where CFIUS has questions because these types of reviews will still likely take several months.

For transactions filed using notices, the final regulations provide for an initial 45-day national security review, which includes a robust 20-day intelligence analysis by the US Intelligence Community, known as a National Security Threat Assessment (NSTA). The second stage, when needed, is a 45-day national security investigation with the option for CFIUS to grant itself a 15-day extension in extraordinary circumstances (such extensions are expected to be rare). The final stage is a 15-day window for the presidential determination. Therefore, where CFIUS seeks adverse action (by the President) against a transaction, the process for full filings can take 105 days, assuming no extraordinary circumstances would trigger an extension.

We summarize the types of transactions that require mandatory filings below, but it is worth noting that transactions of this nature may end up in the regular lane for reasons we will explain.

The fast lane is the streamlined process that Congress provided for in FIRRMA when it created short-form filings known as declarations. It will involve low-risk transactions, voluntary declarations, and an expedited, simplified intelligence assessment known as Basic Threat Information, which Congress authorized CFIUS to use at its discretion in lieu of the traditional, more robust NSTA.

For transactions submitted as declarations, CFIUS will have a 30-day review period. Declarations were introduced in FIRRMA, and either a declaration or a joint voluntary notice (JVN) may be used to satisfy a mandatory declaration requirement. Declarations will be short in length (about five pages) and submitted on a standard fillable form. Under FIRRMA, CFIUS may respond to declarations in several ways and is not required to make a final determination on the basis of a declaration.

This lane leads to a convenient exit ramp from the CFIUS process. It is available to excepted investors that meet a very narrow definition under the new CFIUS regulations. Of course, a central part of that definition involves excepted foreign states. The Treasury Department has selected Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom as the initial excepted foreign states. The determination of which countries will qualify in the future as an excepted foreign state is based on a determination by CFIUS that the country has in place an effective, robust process for screening foreign investments for national security risks and coordinating with the United States on related matters. The three initial excepted foreign states are all members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence partners and have a demonstrated history of cooperation and coordination with the United States on national security matters.

Excepted investors are low-risk foreign persons who will be exempt from CFIUS reviews for non-passive, non-controlling minority-investments and real estate transactions (but not for control transactions). The concept of excepted investors will be based on not just the foreign persons connections to an excepted foreign state, but also the foreign persons compliance with certain US laws, regulations, and other rules.

An investor interested in qualifying as an excepted investor must self-classify as one, based on its own determination that it meets the criteria set out in the final regulations. In order to be an excepted investor, the investor must meet one of the following definitions:

The excepted investor concept will result in two de-facto tiers of foreign investors: those who are seen as inherently low-risk and meet the criteria, and everyone else. However, the definition of excepted investor is quite narrow, reflecting CFIUSs concern over the growing complexity of ownership structures and its desire to prevent the circumvention of its jurisdiction (which was also a primary motivation of the US Senators who originally authored FIRRMA).

The final regulations implement FIRRMAs provisions on mandatory and voluntary filings, which were among the laws more significant changes to the CFIUS process. Stakeholders should be aware that, although we summarize the filing requirements below, the final CFIUS regulations are complex, and this summary is not intended to capture all of the requirements of the final rules comprehensively. Experienced CFIUS counsel should analyze whether a certain transaction requires a filing.

Transaction parties will be required to file a mandatory declaration (or notice) for certain transactions:

As explained below, the Treasury Department incorporated the key elements of the 2018 critical technologies pilot program into the final regulations. If a transaction could result either in foreign control of a US business that produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops a critical technology that is used in one of 27 sensitive industries (listed in an appendix to the regulations), or it constitutes a non-passive, non-controlling minority investment in such a US business, then the transaction parties must submit a mandatory filing.

The final CFIUS regulations do not contain an actual list of the critical technologies, because the universe of critical technologies is dictated by the lists of export-controlled technologies overseen by the Commerce and State Departments, and export controls are not static. Further, the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), which was enacted alongside FIRRMA as sidecar legislation, requires Commerce to examine and control emerging and foundational technologies that are essential to US national security, but neither of these categories have been fleshed out yet. Anything added by Commerce under that framework will also become a critical technology for CFIUS purposes, so stakeholders would be well-advised to monitor the potential expansion of export controls for emerging and foundational technologies.

Although the filing of a declaration will satisfy transaction parties mandatory filing obligation, in some instances (e.g., transactions involving a critical technology that the US Government considers especially sensitive), it may be advisable and ultimately more efficient to file a joint voluntary notice (JVN) instead of a declaration. Stakeholders will want a final determination from CFIUS (i.e., safe harbor from CFIUS taking adverse action in the future against a transaction that never underwent CFIUS review) yet, under the final regulations, they are only entitled to an up or down decision from CFIUS if they file a JVN. The filing of a declaration does not obligate CFIUS to make an actual decision regarding a transaction, which can be a source of frustration, delay, and expense for transaction parties.

Mandatory declarations must be submitted 30 days before the completion date of the transaction (for deals completed after March 14, 2020).

CFIUS remains a largely voluntary process under the updated statute and regulations. The final regulations give substance to FIRRMAs tight focus on critical technologies, critical infrastructure, and the sensitive personal data of US citizens. TID businesses are not subject to mandatory filing requirements unless the transaction meets the criteria laid out above. Rather, transaction parties can voluntarily file a declaration or JVN depending on the nature of the transaction.

As explained in our previous alert, non-passive, non-controlling minority investments in TID US businesses will typically be venture capital and other private equity investments through which a foreign person could obtain certain types of governance or information rights in the TID US business, including board membership or observer status (or the right to nominate someone to the board); access to the businesses material nonpublic technical information; or involvement in the companys substantive decision making on critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data (other than through shareholder voting).

As noted, per FIRRMA and the new CFIUS regulations, critical technologies are comprised of not only items on the US Munitions List (USML) and certain items on the Commerce Control List (CCL), but also emerging and foundational technologies identified and controlled pursuant to ECRA.

Progress on new controls on emerging and foundational technologies has been slow. On January 6, 2020, Commerce issued an interim final rule adding software specially designed to automate the analysis of geospatial imagery to the Commerce Control List, restricting its export to all countries except Canada. Consequently, as explained in our alert discussing the implications of the interim rule, this software is now a critical technology under CFIUS regulations, and companies that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop such software may have to submit a CFIUS filing. Before that development, Commerces last action had been in November 2018, when it issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) asking for public input on identifying emerging technologies. Moving forward, we expect that Commerce will issue controls on additional emerging technologies, as well as an ANPRM on foundational technologies to gather public and industry input.

In terms of how the CFIUS rules apply here, companies that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop critical technology may trigger a mandatory filing requirement or decide to do a voluntary filing for several reasons discussed below. Additionally, it is critical to note that companies that use a critical technology but do not engage in any of the above-listed activities will not be caught by the CFIUS regulations pertaining to non-passive, non-controlling minority investments involving critical technology. That being said, the activities that may trigger CFIUS jurisdiction producing, designing, testing, fabricating, and developing are not defined in the CFIUS regulations.

Ultimately, for US companies and investors, any new export controls on emerging and foundational technologies may result in CFIUS asserting jurisdiction for transactions not previously required to undergo CFIUS review. Further, because the imposition of export controls on emerging and foundational is an ongoing process, both companies and investors should be on the lookout for changes.

In the final regulations, the Treasury Department incorporated the separate critical technologies pilot program it had implemented for non-controlling and controlling investments involving critical technology into the CFIUS regulations. If the transaction could result in foreign control of a US business that produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates, or develops critical technologies used in one of the industries the Treasury Department has listed in an appendix, then a mandatory filing will be required.

For now, the Treasury Department will continue to use the same North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that it used in the pilot program, enumerating 27 sensitive industries that will be covered by the mandatory filing requirement for critical technology. However, in the final regulations, the Treasury Department announced that it will issue a future notice of proposed rulemaking on this, departing from this industry-based approach for mandatory filing requirements. CFIUS will instead use export control licensing requirements to determine whether a critical technology transaction belongs to an industry that will be subject to mandatory filing requirements.

While it is unclear what the Treasury Department means by export control licensing requirements, it is possible that the Treasury Department will link mandatory filing for critical technology transactions to whether the technology at issue would require an export license if exported, reexported, transferred, or released to the country of the foreign investor. The Treasury Department will likely issue interim rules on this issue before February 13, 2020, creating additional anticipation for stakeholders.

Non-passive, non-controlling minority investments in US companies that produce, design, test, manufacture, fabricate, or develop one or more critical technologies are now under CFIUS jurisdiction. However, if the investment (1) does not meet the criteria of the mandatory critical technology filings and (2) the foreign acquirer is not a foreign government, then notification of the transaction is purely voluntary and should be based on an evaluation of whether CFIUS might have concerns about the transactions national security risks. Experienced CFIUS counsel can assist with such an evaluation and advise on whether a filing would be prudent.

The final regulations expand CFIUSs jurisdiction to include certain non-passive, non-controlling minority investments by a foreign person in a US company that owns, operates, manufactures, supplies, or services critical infrastructure. Treasury enumerated the specific critical infrastructure that can trigger this new area of CFIUS jurisdiction, listing 28 specific types of systems and assets within various infrastructure subsectors, such as telecommunications, utilities, energy, transportation, and manufacturing.

The final regulations implement CFIUSs jurisdiction over 11 specific categories of sensitive personal data, including financial, geolocation, health, biometric, and security clearance data, as well as electronic communications such as emails, text messages, and chat. These constitute sensitive personal data only if the US company:

In the final regulations, Treasury Department also narrowed the scope of genetic information that would have been subject to CFIUS jurisdiction (under its original proposed draft regulations) to only results of an individuals genetic tests whenever such results constitute identifiable data. Genetic tests is defined in reference to the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91(d)(17)). So, genetic testing data covered by CFIUS will not include genetic testing data derived from databases maintained by the US Government and routinely provided to private parties for research.

The final regulations also provide a special clarification for limited partners (LPs) who are foreign persons, have passive investments in a TID US business through an investment fund, and serve on that funds special advisory board or committee. This provision is derived from a very specific section of FIRRMA. Under the final rule, an investment can avoid being swept up by CFIUS jurisdiction if a series of specific criteria are met, such as the fund being managed by a general partner who is not a foreign person, the advisory board lacking the ability to impact investment decisions, and the passive foreign LPs lacking the ability to control the fund.

CFIUS will apply this exemption narrowly only to truly passive investors, and therefore it is in the best interests of investment funds to ensure that any foreign LPs do not have an active role in the management of the fund. As a result, stakeholders should clearly define roles for foreign LPs to avoid the entire fund being classified as a foreign person for CFIUS purposes.

Lastly, in the final regulations, the Treasury Department defined a new term, principal place of business, which has been a longtime element of the definition of foreign entity. Treasury is now seeking comments on the definition of principal place of business, which are due February 17, 2020. The final regulations define foreign entity as any entity organized under the laws of a foreign state if either its place of business is outside the United States or its equity securities are primarily traded on one or more foreign exchanges. The final regulations define principal place of business as the primary location where an entitys management directs, controls, or coordinates the entitys activities, or in the case of an investment fund, where the funds activities and investments are primarily directed, controlled, or coordinated by or on behalf of the general partners, managing member, or equivalent.

The impact of this new term may be that some investors who previously could have been categorized as a foreign entity will now be off the hook, under certain circumstances. Stakeholders should be aware that the final regulations tie the principal place of business of an entity to the most recent submission or filing to the US government or any foreign government.

Read more:
CFIUS 2.0: Treasury Unveils Final Regulations to Govern Expanded Foreign Investment Screening - JD Supra

HOLLAND, MI Pharmaceutical company Perrigo is building a 66,000 square foot warehouse expansion at its Holland Township campus, an investment valued at $13.6 million.

The project was announced Friday by Lakeshore Advantage, an economic development organization that assists employers with growth opportunities in Ottawa and Allegan counties.

Perrigo, the store-brand pharmaceutical maker that was founded in Allegan but is now headquartered in Dublin, says construction started in April and is expected to be completed by May. As part of the project, the company received a 12-year industrial facilities tax exemption from Holland Township. The exemption cuts the buildings property tax bill in half.

Sarah Barwacz, a spokesperson for Perrigo, said the expansion is needed to accommodate high product demand in the Holland production facility which manufactures some of our consumer over-the-counter products.

Lakeshore Advantage officials say theyre pleased Perrigo is investing in its Holland Township campus.

Perrigos investment is a testament to the strength and ingenuity of our regions manufacturing workforce, Jennifer Owens, President of Lakeshore Advantage, said in a statement. We are grateful to have this significant investment by global business leader and outstanding employer, Perrigo, in West Michigan.

Barwacz said the project will result in job growth. But as of now, company officials do not have projections for how many positions will be created, she said.

Perrigo employs more than 3,000 people in West Michigan.

Read more:

Minor flood levels on the Grand River receding

Grand Rapids approves more medical marijuana dispensaries, bringing total to 24

Armed robbery suspects who shot man sought by police

Read more:
Perrigo investing $13.6M in warehouse expansion - MLive.com

Investing can seem intimidating when you see experts advising workers to put away $100,000 by 35 or aim for over $1 million by retirement. But you don't need a ton of money to buy into the stock market. In some cases, you can get started with as little as $1.

Stocks and exchange-traded funds can only be bought in whole units at many brokers. Depending on the company or fund, that could mean thousands of dollars for a single share. But some financial companies are changing those requirements. Now, firms including Charles Schwab, Robinhood, Square, SoFi and Stash all allow investors to buy fractional shares of individual stocks and, in some cases, ETFs, for $1 or more.

"This is a start in the right direction," Ryan J. Marshall, a New Jersey-based certified financial planner, tells CNBC Make It. "Allowing for fractional shares of ETFs will open up the market for more investors."

If that sounds enticing, here's what to keep in mind.

It's certainly positive that investing is getting cheaper on the whole for the average investor. But if you're a novice, you're going to want to stick to buying low-cost funds that track an index like the S&P 500, rather than picking and choosing individual companies to invest in.

"If you can only afford fractional shares of a stock, then you probably shouldn't purchase the stock in the first place," says Marshall.

These funds have relatively cheap fees and give you exposure to broad swaths of the stock market, which are key factors in building wealth. Stock picking by itself is a losing game no matter how much research you put in, you're probably not going to beat the market, and studies indicates time and again that passively managed funds perform better than actively managed funds.

"In today's environment, most people are running around worried about their careers, their family, what time soccer practice is on Tuesday and simply don't have the time to monitor and research individual stocks," says Marshall. "Either leave it up to mutual funds managers to make those calls or own the market in an index fund. Both provide great diversification and lower entries costs."

Buying fractional shares has always been possible when buying mutual funds, according to a spokesperson from Fidelity; it's essentially what investors do when buying into funds through a 401(k). Now, the ability to buy fractional shares is expanding to ETFs and stocks too, which you'd typically buy through a taxable brokerage account.

"The individual investor is better suited by investing in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds," Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate, told CNBC Make It. "But the lure of individual stocks is always there. On some level, so is the belief that doing so enables the investor to beat the market, which has proven not to be true."

That said, if you're already contributing a healthy amount to a retirement investment account like a 401(k) or IRA but want to dip your toe into individual stock trading, buying fractional shares can be a good starting point.

This way, you can invest in expensive companies like Amazon or Alphabet without the near-$2,000 necessary to buy a single share (Amazon was trading for close to $1,900 on Friday; Alphabet was at just over $1,400). It's also an effective way for to test out a company before committing a large amount of money.

Again, it shouldn't be your sole investing strategy, but if you want to build on your retirement accounts, it's a good entry point. CNBC's Jim Cramer says the first $10,000 you invest should go to a low-cost index fund or exchange-traded fund that mirrors the S&P 500.

After that, you can start researching individual companies to invest in if that's part of your overall financial plan and you have the time and resources to do so.

Don't miss: Robinhood will let users invest with as little as $1here's what that means for you

Like this story? Subscribe to CNBC Make It on YouTube!

Original post:
How to get started investing with as little as $1 - CNBC

Microsoft plans to establish a $1 billion fund dedicated to carbon reduction, capture, and removal technologies, amid a broader commitment to clean up the software giants emissions across its corporate history by 2050.

Its one of the largest funding commitments ever to methods of sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, which most research shows will be a necessary part of any plan to prevent catastrophic levels of global warming. Funding for direct-air-capture startups like Carbon Engineering, Climeworks, and Global Thermostat have been climbingbut have been limited to the tens of millions of dollars range to date.

In a statement to MIT Technology Review, Microsoft stresses the money will go to more than direct air capture, adding that it will fund the build-out of projects as well as research and development. The money will be invested over the next four years.

The companys language leaves room for many other possible investment areas, including natural systems for removing and storing carbon dioxide, such as forestry projects, or technologies that prevent it from escaping power plants in the first place. For that matter, the phrase carbon reduction in the announcement means some of the funds could simply go to solar, wind, and other renewables projects as well.

Courtesy: Microsoft

Microsoft didnt specify its total historic emissions, but said its operations will pump out 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year, directly or indirectly. The company says it will offset its climate pollution stretching back to 1975 through a combination of direct air capture and natural systemsincluding tree plantings, new soil management practices, and a largely theoretical approach known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

Experts say that natural systems can play a big role in drawing down greenhouse gases, but its notoriously difficult to account for them in an accurate and reliable way.

Noah Deich, executive director of Carbon180, and other observers says Microsofts announcement on Thursday goes well beyond the standard carbon neutrality commitments of other major corporations, because it incorporates historic emissions, sets specific benchmarks for reductions, and puts a large amount of money behind the efforts.

Link:
Microsoft will invest $1 billion into carbon reduction and removal technologies - MIT Technology Review

Jan 14, 2020 at 19:00 UTCUpdated Jan 14, 2020 at 19:56 UTC

Matt Hougan image from CoinDesk archives

More than half of financial advisors in the U.S. are too spooked by regulatory uncertainty to initiate or expand their cryptocurrency investments, a new study by Bitwise Asset Management found.

The annual survey, released Tuesday, asked 415 advisors a range of questions on their crypto sentiments, including where they think the market is going, how their clients approach crypto and what it would take for them to invest more in the space. Bitwise found advisors are increasingly bullish on bitcoins future but hesitant to invest in it for their clients or themselves.

Bitwise conducted the survey in December.

Only 6 percent of respondents currently invest clients' funds in crypto assets, and the holdouts largely plan to continue avoiding crypto in 2020; 55 percent said they will probably or definitely not invest in crypto this year, while only 7 percent said they probably or definitely will.

The survey found a notable slice of fence-sitters, too: 38 percent are unsure what theyll do this year, which is significant, said Matt Hougan, Bitwises global head of research, who conducted the survey.

Advisors are intrigued by cryptos proven history of delivering uncorrelated returns or high returns, Hougan said. However, many continue to balk at investing, largely because of regulatory uncertainty and questions of access.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said regulatory concerns are preventing them from embracing crypto assets. This is despite what Bitwise describes as significant progress in the crypto regulatory space in 2019, including action by New Yorks Department of Financial Services and steps toward a regulated bitcoin exchange-traded fund.

Respondents are looking at the regulatory landscape. According to the 2019 figures, 42 percent indicated regulation was their top concern, while, looking ahead, this year a majority, or 58 percent, said better regulation could spur them to invest.

Hougan said even small increases in investors crypto allocations could be a boon for the market overall. He said advisors control $24 trillion in assets, dwarfing bitcoins current market cap of about $160 billion.

Crypto people are over-focused on institutions as the next wave of adopters and under-focused on advisors, who control just as much as the institutions, he said.

The survey finds advisors increasingly think bitcoin is on the rise. Sixty-four percent project it will add value by 2025, while 8 percent think the market will crash by years end.

Their clients, too, seem to show notable interest in cryptos future and sometimes outside of their relationships with the fiduciary; 35 percent of advisors believe that some of their clients are investing in crypto themselves. A far larger slice of the advisors 76 percent said they fielded clients crypto questions in the past year.

Hougan said advisors attitudes towards the market made strides through 2019; compared to the nadir of December 2018, when bitcoins price made historic lows, advisors are more positive this year.

Last year people were not sure if crypto would survive. Now people are more confident, he said.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Read the original here:
More Than Half of Financial Advisors Want Better Regulation Before Investing in Crypto - CoinDesk

Yet stocks remain near all-time highs. It's not necessarily the wisest time to take your money out of the market.

Fortunately, there are several so-called minimum or low volatility exchange-traded funds from such respected money management firms as Fidelity, BlackRock, Invesco and others of their ilk.

These and many other low and minimum volatility ETFs offer investors a mix of value stocks that have some of the characteristics of safer bonds, said Troy Gayeski, co-chief investment officer at SkyBridge. They should benefit from a flight to safety.

Financial stocks are another group that may benefit from low volatility. Banks have outperformed the broader market in four out of five recent periods of low volatility, according to KBW analyst Fred Cannon.

As a result, Gayeski said investors could be missing out on bigger gains by shunning riskier parts of the stock market, such as tech, in favor of stodgy, dependable dividend payers.

The US-China trade agreement, due to be signed this week, could keep the broader market rally going for some time. That means that now may not be the right time to adopt a more prudent, risk-averse strategy.

"It's too early to be defensive. The 'phase one' China deal may not be a Kumbaya-let's-hug-each-other moment, but it stops things from escalating further," Gayeski said.

Others argue that the market won't remain this sanguine indefinitely.

"Low volatility can't last forever," KBW's Cannon wrote in a report last Friday.

To that end, adding more consumer companies, health care stocks, real estate firms, utilities and financial services companies to your portfolio could make sense.

Dividend yields should become an increasingly important generator of market returns if things suddenly become more noisy.

"I understand why people are anxious. We are getting late in this economic cycle. People are opting for some good old-fashioned dividend players," said John Norris, managing director of wealth and investments for Oakworth Capital Bank.

Norris told CNN Business he's "astonished" by how quickly Iran has vanished from the financial news headlines. But he added there are still question marks about the health of earnings, the Federal Reserve's rate policy and a potential economic slowdown.

"You should see more normal levels of volatility this year," Norris said.

With that in mind, it may make sense for investors to favor blue chip stocks in more stable sectors, says Quincy Krosby, chief market strategist with Prudential Financial.

Krosby argues that there is still uncertainty about what will happen with the United States and China even after a preliminary trade deal is signed.

She added that CEOs and CFOs may hold off on some key business decisions until the outcome of the presidential election becomes clearer. A more progressive Democratic candidate could spell trouble for the health care, retail and tech sectors.

"Is there an all clear signal for the broader market? No. You're going to have to take things quarter by quarter," Krosby said. "That's why it will be important to focus on quality companies with strong cash flows and steady dividends."

Originally posted here:
How to stay invested if you're a worrier - CNN

Don't fall for "cheap" stocks. Buy these companies instead.

Motley Fool Staff

Jan 16, 2020 at 3:15PM

New investors are often drawn to penny stocks -- they're small companies with "potentially huge growth opportunities" and they trade for only a couple of dollars (or cents) so it seems easy to scoop up a bunch of shares even if you don't have a lot of cash.

They sound like the perfect way to start investing, but they're actually the exact opposite!

In this video from our YouTube channel, our team explains why these seemingly "cheap" stocks can actually burn your hard-earned cash and how investors with only $20 can get started investing the right way.

To get our free investing starter kit mentioned in the video, head over to Fool.com/Start!

Stock Advisor S&P 500

5 Years 71% 44%

17+ years 379% 102%

Originally posted here:
Forget Penny Stocks -- Here's the Best Way to Invest $20 - The Motley Fool

Are you hoping to increase your retirement account contributions in 2020? That's a great financial goal, since many Americans are saving far too little.

Saving for retirement in a tax-advantaged account such as a 401(k) or an IRA is the best way for most people to prepare for their golden years. Investing costs less when the money you set aside for it lowers your taxable income and decreases your eventual bill from the IRS.There are annual limits to the tax-advantaged contributions you can make, but these limits went up in 2020.

Image source: Getty Images.

The table below shows the maximum you can personally contribute to different kinds of retirement savings accounts in 2020. This is separate from any employer contributions, which are subject to a different limit.

While there are no income limits for making 401(k) or Simple IRA contributions, there are some income-based restrictions for traditional and Roth IRAs.

Employers are also allowed to make contributions to your retirement accounts for you. These are subject to a separate limit and employer contributions don't affect how much you can personally contribute.

The table below shows the maximum contributions employers can make in 2020.

Often, employers match a percentage of the contributions you make to your own 401(k) or Simple IRA. For example, your company may match 50% of your 401(k) contributions up to a maximum of 4% of your salary.

If your employer offers this help, you should contribute enough to earn the maximum match, or you'll be leaving free money on the table.

Now you know the maximum you can contribute to tax-advantaged retirement accounts in 2020. You should aim to contribute as much as possible to them. If you have enough money to max them out, you'll be well on your way to a secure future.

See the article here:
What Are the Maximum Limits for Investing in Your Retirement Savings Accounts in 2020? - The Motley Fool

Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City is not going anywhere anytime soon and will invest more money into its boardwalk facility despite issues the CEO said he has with the city.

During the first of two employee town hall sessions held at the Mark G. Etess Arena in Atlantic City Thursday morning, Hard Rock CEO Jim Allen announced the company would invest $15 million more in capital improvements in 2020 at the hotel and casino. Among the upgrades will be renovations to the ballroom, suites, and adding additional restrooms. The $15 million is on top of the initial $562 million investment in the beachfront hotel. Allen also said despite rumors floating around, Hard Rock is currently not looking at purchasing the adjacent Showboat property.

Allen told employees the company was giving 2,782 full-time employees, union and non-union, a minimum $250 bonus as a way to give back to its employees. The bonuses to be doled out will total more than $2 million. Allen said the bonuses were a way to thank the employees for the job they have done thus far.

We are going above and beyond and not just giving the holiday turkey, gift cards, and all those things that we do, but we wanted to put cash in their pocket and show them that we are putting our money where our mouth is, Allen said. We want to deliver the best product in Atlantic City, and we want them to have the entrepreneurial spirit so that they go the extra step. This is a sign of our thanks and appreciation.

Jim Allen, chairman of Hard Rock International and CEO of Seminole Gaming, right, talks to Marcellus Osceola Jr., chairman of Seminole Tribe of Florida, during a town hall meeting in Hard Rock Live at Etess Arena in Atlantic City, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020.Tim Hawk | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Although the company has invested millions in the resort town, Allen said he wishes the city and state would do more to help spur more growth in Atlantic City, including improved safety and more efficient traffic signals around the resort town.

Frankly the towns in worse shape today than it was when we bought the building, he said.

He noted the street lights have been out for two months on several blocks along Pacific Avenue, a sign of a continuing trend that concerns him.

When youre in a resort environment where safety and security is so important, if the city cant get something fixed as simple as the street lighting, then maybe a change is needed, he said.

Allen also specifically referenced the state of the properties at the vacant Trump Plaza and Sands Casinos, even suggesting officials use the enforcement of eminent domain to force the property owners to maintain their holdings.

Carl (Ichan) is worth how many billions of dollars? Allen asked. To leave a vacant casino like that sitting, that is a safety hazard with debris falling off the building potentially hurting someone. I do not know why the city and Carl cant come together. I hear that they are in some form of negotiations. We work with Carl. He and his CEO are fine people, but we do not understand why that building is still there. And rather than finding out what happened at the Sands where it is a field full of weeds and a chain-link fence that looks like it is at a prison, do something to make it at least look nice. Nothing. Nobody does anything.

The Hard Rock Casino finished with the second highest amount of revenue in both slot and table games, garnering $324 million. The hotel also received $62 million in hotel revenue.

See the original post here:
Hard Rock says it will continue to invest in Atlantic City despite concerns - NJ.com

In the opening pages of the curator James Meyers new book, The Art of Return: The Sixties and Contemporary Culture, we find ourselves on Marthas Vineyard in August 1971. It is the Summer of Love, and a mania for nude swimming and sunbathing has overtaken the beaches.

Meyer and a friend, determined to prove our independence, break free from their families and decide to hitchhike across the island. They walk and walk until theyre finally picked up by a man driving a VW bus. He has a beard, long hair, and he shouts,Come on in!

Meyer is only nine years old.

So begins the art historians perceptive study of the long 1960s (which actually covers roughly 1955 through 1975), and why that era continues to animate the imagination of artists, writers, and historianseven if, like Meyer, they mostly missed the period in question.

The books impressive sweep, which looks at 20 international artists, is motivated by a range of probing questions. What purpose do historical reenactments serve? How do events from past eras shade our understanding of the present? What are artists doing when they remember moments from before they were even born?

Artnet News spoke with Meyer, a curator at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, about the books genesis, his turn toFriedrich Nietzsche, and how todays right-wing politics grew from reactions against 1960s progressivism.

Anri Sala, still fromIntervista (Finding the Words) (1998). Courtesy of Idale Audience International, Paris; Galerie Chantal Crousel, Paris; Galerie Esther Schipper, Berlin; Galerie Rdiger Schttle, Munich; and Marian Goodman Gallery, New York/Paris.

What would you describe as the greatest challenge of the book?

Figuring out the topic itself. What I am writing about? What is the 60s return? How do you define it? How do you understand that history is not static, that it impacts later periods or bleeds into them?

My earlier workmy books on Minimalism and my exhibition on the history of the Dwan Gallery in Los Angeles and New Yorkreflected a structuralist understanding of history as a set of discursive, economic, and institutional conditions specific to their time. This book understands the long 60sthe period stretching from the mid-50s to the mid-70sas over and not over, a past that is not past.

Nietzsche, in his essay On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, proposes that history is a dynamic force. It can be a chain that binds us to the past, and a model of emulation. How we perceive the past has a great bearing on how we live now. As he says, we need to strike a balance between remembering and forgetting. It is vitally important to remember, yet not to the degree that we get stuck in the past. I discuss Kerry James Marshalls paintings about Civil Rights-era memory, the Souvenirs, along these lines.

Kerry James Marshall, Memento V (2003). Nelson-Atkins Museum, Kansas City, Missouri. Kerry James Marshall. Courtesy of the artist and Jack Shainman Gallery, New York.

What about inserting yourself into the narrative? You write about your childhood early in the book. Was that difficult?

It was a challenge to write myself into the story. It was counterintuitive to my training to inscribe my voicemy memory and nostalgia for a period I experienced before I could understand what was happening around meinto my work. It turned out to be at the very core of what the book is about.

My generationthe children of the 60s and 70swas deeply impacted by what now appears to us as the last revolutionary period on a global scale. Revolutionary eras produce a surfeit of memory. They last longer because theyre more traumatic and more impactful than more quiescent eras. They return. I was forced to consider how my experiencethe impressions of childhood we each havehad inflected my research, and the work of so many others: why it is that so many artists, writers, scholars, and filmmakers of my generation, give or take 10 years, have felt compelled to revisit that time? The more I looked into it the more I realized the phenomenon is international and quite broad. My book discusses more than 20 figures from the US, UK, Eastern and Western Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. I considered 90.

Martha Rosler, Election (Lynndie), from the series House Beautiful: Bringing the War Home, New Series (2004). Photomontage. Martha Rosler. Courtesy of the artist and Mitchell-Innes & Nash, New York.

In the book, you make a number of connections between the George W. Bush years, with the Iraq War, and the turmoil of the 60s. What are the connections between the long 60s and the moment were living in now?

The most obvious connection is between Watergate and the growing scandal involving Russia and Ukraine. The adjective Nixonian comes up a lot, and you see Watergate-era veteransJohn Dean, Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, and so onon TV regularly. What we have come to understand is this isnt Watergate. Practices of return, as I call them, force us to see the differences between then and now. The misinformation campaign and hacking of the DNC server by Russian state intelligence was a highly successful espionage action by a foreign government, damaging to the Clinton campaign and US democracy. The impact is ongoing. A failed burglary in DC seems almost quaint in comparison.

Martha Rosler, Red Stripe Kitchen, from the series House Beautiful: Bringing the War Home (ca. 196772). Martha Rosler. Courtesy of the artist and Mitchell-Innes & Nash, New York.

The book was written over the course of a number of years. Were you ever concerned that its relevance might expire in the gap between writing and the books ultimate publication?

Just imagine, my first essay on the subject was published in 1998! I was indeed worried that the book would lose its contemporaneity. What I discovered in the course of writing it is the very point the book makes: there is the historical 60s, a period that came to an end, and a 60s that returns, each time differently, depending on whats happening in the current moment. It doesnt go away.

During the Bush era, comparisons were made between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, and between the anti-war movement and the relative lack of activism on campuses during the 2000s, connections I explore in works by Martha Rosler, Nancy Davenport, and Matthew Buckingham. Watergate is clearly germane right now. But it is important to recognize that the fissures we are experiencing between red and blue electorates came into play then, with the emergence of the New Left, identity politics, and Johnsons Great Society programs, on the one hand, and the rise of Nixons Silent Majority on the other.

One could say that the reactionary turns since the 60santi-busing during the 70s, the election of Reagan in 1980, the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 and Trumpism in 2016are extensions of that division. Right-wing efforts to disenfranchise voters of color, the Supreme Courts 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the administrations efforts to curtail the Immigration Act of 1965 are other attempts to repeal the progressive gains of the 60s.

Amy Granat and Drew Heitzler, T.S.O.Y.W. (2007). Amy Granat and Drew Heitzler.

What about the other side of the battle? Are there connections between the popular movements of the 60s and the movements of today?

The Civil Rights, anti-war, feminist, and LGBTQ movements emerged then; each had a powerful constituency that developed around a particular issue. One can hope that climate politics and the Black Lives Matter and gun-control movements will be so impactful.

Visit link:
How We Perceive the Past Has a Great Bearing on How We Live Now: Art Historian James Meyer on Why the 1960s Wont Fade Away - artnet News