In this article, we will take a look at 15 good stocks to buy. If you want to see more good stocks to buy, go directly to 5 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

A good stock to buy is a stock of a strong company that can grow earnings in the future.

Although a good stock to buy might decline in the near term, there would be a good chance that the good stock to buy would be higher in the long term given the company's normalized earnings potential and its competitive advantages. Ideally a good stock to buy would trade for a fair or attractive valuation.

Many good stocks to buy have historically been leading blue chips that have increased their earnings per share over time. Many of the same stocks make it to the Dividend Aristocrats list where the company has increased its annual dividend for 25 years or more. Many good stocks to buy also return capital back to shareholders through share repurchases. Good stocks to buy are generally less volatile than the general market although there can be exceptions.

Given that the Federal Reserve has increased interest rates significantly this year, the broader market has declined substantially with the S&P 500 down 15% year to date and the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 6% year to date. Many stocks, including good stocks to buy, have also declined substantially as well. As a result, some blue chips with competitive advantages trade for fairly attractive valuations if the economy can grow as expected.

Recently, stocks have increased due to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's comments that the Federal Reserve might increase interest rates at a slower pace.

Nevertheless, Powell also said the central bank will still raise rates until it defeats inflation. He added, "Despite some promising developments, we have a long way to go in restoring price stability."

If economic data fails to meet expectations, the good stocks to buy could decline even further. Given the uncertainty, it could be a good idea for long term investors to own a well diversified portfolio of stocks across many different sectors.

Story continues

Trump International Hotel & Tower, New York City

benjamin-suter-Issa_lRkr0o-unsplash

Methodology

For our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now, we picked 15 companies with the right mix of scale, competitive advantages, and earnings growth potential.

We then ranked them based on the number of hedge funds in our database that owned shares of the same stocks at the end of Q3 2022.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 40

International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) is a leading tech company that provides infrastructure, software and consulting services for clients as they pursue a digital transformation for their businesses. In terms of the future, International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) has a goal to eventually build quantum-centric supercomputers that are substantially faster than today's computers for some applications. In Q3, International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) reported adjusted EPS of $1.81 on revenue of $14.1 billion versus the consensus of $1.77 on revenue of $13.51 billion. International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM) ranks #15 on our list of good stocks to buy.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON) is a leading specialty industrial machinery conglomerate whose shares have trended higher in the long term given the strength of the company's businesses. Although the S&P 500 is down 15% year to date, Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON) stock is up 5.1% in 2022. On December 1, Julian Mitchell of Barclays raised his price target to $229 from $212 and kept an 'Overweight' rating on Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE:HON).

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) is a leading defense contractor that makes the F-22 and F-35. Given the growth in military spending over the years, demand for the latest and greatest defense airplanes has never been higher. With a stock price of over $483 per share, Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) stock price is near an all time high as well. If Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) can maintain its technological leadership, the company has more growth in the future.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) has rallied from around $100 per share in 2015 to $273.4 on December 1, 2021 given the growth in the company's earnings per share. Although the stock isn't cheap with a forward P/E ratio of 26.14, bulls think the company's same store sales will continue to increase despite the weakening macro environment. Out of the 920 hedge funds in our database, 53 owned shares of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) at the end of Q3 2022, ranking the company #12 on our list of good stocks to buy.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 53

Based on its past history over the last 10 years, General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) hasn't been a good investment given the struggles at GE Capital and the pandemic affecting aerospace companies. Nevertheless, it seems that General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) has a chance to be a solid stock for the future given the company is more of a leading industrial. Although there could still be downside if there is a recession or if aerospace slows further, General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) has long term potential given its normalized earnings power.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 68

Leading retailer Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) ranks among the potential good stocks to buy given its substantial scale and earnings power. Despite the inflation headwind, analysts think Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) will earn $6.04 per share in 2023 and $6.59 per share in 2024. Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT) shares also have a dividend yield of around 1.46%.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 69

Given the inflation headwind, shares ofThe Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) stock have fallen 8.4% year to date. Nevertheless,The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) has many leading consumer product brands that could rebound if the Federal Reserve wins its battle against inflation. In terms of Wall Street, analysts think The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG) will overcome its headwinds with expected EPS of $5.81 for 2023, $6.23 for 2024 and $6.73 for 2025.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 75

Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) is a pharmaceutical giant whose shares have surged over 36% year to date to near an all time high. Analysts expect substantial earnings growth in Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY)'s future with Wall Street expecting EPS of $7.80 in 2022, $9.17 in 2023, and $12.20 in 2024. 75 hedge funds in our database owned shares of Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY), ranking the company #8 on our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 85

Healthcare conglomerate Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) ranks among the potential good stocks to buy given its substantial normalized earnings power and its forward P/E ratio of 17.24. Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) has a strong history of increasing its dividend and returning capital back to shareholders. Furthermore, Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) is held by many smart money funds with 85 hedge funds in our database holding shares at the end of Q3 2022.

Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 110

Megabank JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) ranks #6 on our list of 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now given 110 hedge funds in our database held shares at the end of Q3 2022. Although the company's earnings might not meet expectations next year if there is a recession, analysts believe JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) will grow its EPS in the long term given its growing market share and its earnings power.

Vltava Fund commented onJPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) in a Q3 2022 investor letter,

We regard JPM to be the strongest and best- managed bank in the world. It is a leader in investment banking, commercial banking, credit cards, and asset management. Its size (the largest bank in the USA, with nearly USD 4,000 billion in assets) and diversification give it a strong competitive advantage that is compounded by its cost advantages and the high costs to clients associated with switching banks. JPMs management prides itself on running the only large bank to avoid major instability over the long term. JP Morgans quality and strength first became fully evident in 2008 under the leadership of its CEO Jamie Dimon. Not only did JP Morgan help to stabilize the market by taking over the failing Bear Stearns in the spring of that year, but throughout the Great Financial Crisis it was the only big US bank that did not require government assistance and it was highly profitable even in the difficult year of 2008. A well-functioning and efficient bank can be a very good long-term investment, because the interest compounding effect works well here. JPMs return on equity (ROE) is well into the double digits and this puts it in a good position to continue producing better long-term returns than does the market. JPM has been very profitable even during years when interest rates were close to zero. The current and perhaps not temporary return to somewhat more normal, higher interest rates should have a significantly positive impact on the banks interest income and overall profitability.

Click to continue reading and see 5 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now.

Suggested articles:

Disclosure: None. 15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now isoriginally published on Insider Monkey.

See original here:
15 Good Stocks to Invest in Right Now - Yahoo Finance

Since the 2013 announcement of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative, worries of Chinese economic imperialism through funding development projects have continued to inform Western opinions of China-Africa relations. In 2020, Zambia became the first post-COVID African state to default on its Eurobonds, eliciting renewed concern about Chinese debt-trap diplomacy. The fact that Chinese firms comprise one-eighth of the continents industrial output is enough to question the equality of the China-Africa relationship. Yet, despite China holding US$153 billion in African loans, the idea that China actively designs loans for national benefit assumes a perfectly calculated conspiracy to induce debt that simply does not exist in Chinese investment in Africa. Closer examination of the Zambian debt crisis, one of the more extreme examples of debt to China, reveals how a lack of development drives African loans, with chronic mismanagement by both China and Zambia creating todays crisis.

That is not to say that Chinas aid to Africa occurs out of benevolence. Chinas historical incentives for engaging with Africa cannot be ignored. After a period of isolation due to the Korean War, China sought economic and political connections with Africa, importing raw materials in exchange for greater ownership of their production. In Zambia, the copper mining industry represents 80 percent of economic production, but the collapse in copper prices in the 1970s led to the sale of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mine (ZCCM) to foreign companies like the China Nonferrous Mining Company (CNMC). The acquisition of 85 percent of the Luanshya and Chambishi mines, along with the Chinese Jinchuan Mining Groups 51 percent majority share in Zambias only nickel mine, further deepened Chinas profit control over Zambias economy. Furthermore, Chinas 2006 creation of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) formalized Chinese development of Africa by pledging further aid. The implications of this organization are insidious. The Brookings Institute notes that FOCACs recent 2035 Vision conference shares the same goals of international investment and development as the China 2035 Vision conference, in addition to the same timeline of achieving modernization by 2035. Considering the promise of US$60 billion by 2035, FOCACs existence clearly reveals how China sees global development as the key to domestic growth. Chinese ownership of the mining industry and the process of providing loans clearly illuminates Chinas structural dominance in this relationship.

Western critics blame Chinese abuse of their power for Zambias economic woes. Indeed, Chinese labor standards have come under fire for creating poor conditions for African workers. As of 2010, Zambian wages cost China just 0.093 percent of gross income and health regulations have been criticized for threatening workers with longer hours and greater exposure to acid noxious fumes and dust than what is allowed by Zambian law. The root of these problems appears to be Chinas ignorance of international standards of practice, but Chinas unchallenged power clearly underlies the neglect of labor rights. A concerning corollary of this control appeared in the 2006 Chambishi riots, where Zambian workers protested a 2005 mining explosion that killed 46 workers in a CNMC mine. Instead of recognizing Zambian demands for improved safety measures and healthcare, Chinese managers shot six protestors. The failure to provide potable water, higher wages, and protective equipment against silicosis stings particularly strongly considering Chinas willingness to spend US$350 million on the new Chambishi Copper Smelter with computerized technology (HRW). Chinas ignorance of cultural differences and unjust treatment of local workers reveals how China profits off of Zambian suffering.

Yet, this convenient narrative of Chinese neocolonialism falls apart upon analysis of the debt crisis seemingly driving Zambian dependence on China and labor problems. Zambia has the highest number of Chinese lenders of all African states, and China owns 69 percent of the construction industry. However, Chinese debt only represents 17.6 percent of total external debt payments, showing that Zambian responses to foreign investment in general need reform. African leaders are also complicit in the accumulation of Chinese development loans through electoral incentives. As Ching Kwan Lee explains, politicians frequently receive kickbacks and votes for agreeing to development deals, with President Edgar Lungu raising borrowing from China during a copper price collapse. More fundamentally, Zambian citizens do seek to benefit from development, with officials stating that we want to borrow for infrastructure and the people desiring improved road, energy, and digital infrastructure. The historical lack of African development, fueled by European colonialism, led to Zambias lack of economic diversity and poor infrastructure, creating the desire to compensate with hyper-development. A 2012 Zambian report found that the public has totally unrealistic expectations that all roads should ultimately be paved, and Lungus Link Zambia 8000 plan for paved roads led the government to take a US$287 billion loan from Chinese Eximbank. With US$863 billion of road development planned in 2020, the Zambian publics sense of entitlement to modern infrastructure and the governments willingness to indulge them clearly contribute to the countrys debt crisis. In their quest for infrastructure, the Zambian government violated existing regulations on foreign direct investment, with increasingly centralized decision-making leading to the President and the Minister of Finance directly signing contracts without the parliaments approval. Yet the fact that no other countries agreed to finance these projects suggests that the global neglect of African development leaves countries like Zambia with few options in the fight for better infrastructure.

Despite the massive number of Chinese lenders supporting the road debt crisis, Zambias energy industry lacks this predatory investment. Only the Chinese Sinohydro emerged as the contractor for the Kafue Gorge Project and 76 percent of energy contracts, and only four new power plants have been implemented since 1977. This single company deal suggests that China does not actually hope to gain Zambian assets through debt in the energy sector. More broadly, these differences in behavior show that claims of Chinese economic imperialism cannot be generalized. In fact, Chinas economic support has, at times, benefitted Zambia. China-Africa Cotton, Chinas cotton firm, has created contracts with more than 100,000 farmers in Malawi and Zambia, funding training trips to transfer knowledge to Zambian cotton managers. During the 2008 recession, around 100,000 Zambians lost their jobs when Western mining companies reduced and even closed production, but CNMC stayed and even gave US$10 million to Zambias Non-ferrous Company-Africa, thus preserving the industry. More broadly, studies have found that Chinese investment in Africa increases business density and fosters entrepreneurship in 38 countries including Zambia. More recently, Chinese telecommunications company Huawei has provided Wi-Fi and digital interconnectivity in 40 African countries, loaning US$280 million to build 808 telecommunication towers. Given that 60 percent of the African public views Chinas investments favorably, Chinas investment clearly provides more than just economic exploitation.

Regardless of the harms or benefits of certain Chinese investments, what is clear is that China cannot possibly and does not perfectly craft each deal with Zambia to their benefit. Loan proposals must be accepted by Chinas export credit insurance agency Sinosure, industry associations, and the Ministry of Commerce, resulting in significant pressure from this bureaucratic machine on African governments to accept without reservations. This rapid acceptance leads to poorly planned projects that quickly fail, thus wasting Chinese capital and hurting their image in African nations. The consequences of these failures led to China canceling US$158 million in Zambian debt in 2006, eventually resulting in a US$392 million write-off. While the Chinese approval process contributes to these write-offs, the issue of Zambian trust that China will continue to write off debt, in addition to their unrealistic development goals, is ultimately responsible for the decades of debt accumulation and write-offs.

Zambia, with the second-most Chinese lenders and the greatest amount of write-offs, remains an outlier in the grand scheme of China-African relations. Yet, the underlying causes of the debt crisis reveal the complexity of mistakes by both the Zambian and Chinese governments in regulating development. China certainly cares about the optics of its economic power in Zambia. A Chinese manager of a mining company justified their continued presence during the 2008 economic crisis by wondering, if we cut production what will the Zambian people think of us?, suggesting that China aims to maintain a narrative of aiding countries neglected by the West. But, contrary to Western complaints, Chinas job creation and infrastructure development is clearly valuable to Zambias government and people. What, then, is the path forward in preventing further debt accumulation and improving China-Zambia relations?

The dual problems of centralized decision-making and poor regulation of Chinese investment can be addressed by strengthening the Zambian parliaments ability to enforce regulations. While corruption may be difficult to root out, the national government can develop strategic commissions similar to the African Unions Partnerships Coordination and Interactive Platform (AU-PCIP), which oversees partnerships with other countries. Greater scrutiny of Chinese investment plans will enable Zambia and its African neighbors to avoid extravagant and exploitative interactions, pushing back on FOCAC and domestic pressures. Given Chinas economic and political incentives for continuing to invest in Zambia, Zambian reassessment of priorities is unlikely to lead to a sudden dearth of development. And while total economic independence seems unlikely in the near future, Zambia can at least work towards greater equality in loan agreements with China to slowly regain control of its mining industries and escape the cycle of debt.

Indeed, progress has already been made. In 2020, the G-20s Common Framework created a mechanism for African countries deep in debt to receive IMF loans in exchange for promises of debt restructuring. Zambia, led by new president Hakainde Hichilema, accepted a US$1.4 billion loan in the hopes of restructuring the economy through cuts to fuel and electricity subsidies worth about US$800 million a year. These economic reforms, in conjunction with improved transparency to creditors about the extent of Zambias debt, have reduced inflation from 24.4 percent to 9.4 percent and committed new investors like Canadas First Quantum Minerals to expand copper production. Yet, with South Africa being the only African member in the G-20 and just Zambia and two other countries using the Common Framework, historical distrust of richer nations and a lack of representation in deciding the terms of restructuring casts doubt on the future of debt restructuring in Africa. Zambias path to economic redemption, in which domestic and international reforms proceed in sync, may become the exception rather than the new norm for African countries seeking economic relief from the burden of debt and the persistent threat of economic neocolonialism from both East and West.

Go here to read the rest:
Chinese Investment in Africa: A Reexamination of the Zambian Debt Crisis - Harvard International Review

The first years of the 2020s have forced the United States to contend with a litany of major issues, including the COVID-19 pandemic, digital disruptions, climate change, racial and gender divides, and the continuing need for more middle-class jobs. But they have also ushered in a period of bold, urgent responses. Across the federal government, agencies are launching larger-scale, more in-depth initiatives for accelerating innovation, optimizing supply chains, mitigating climate change, and addressing demographic and geographic inequities.

An important part of this response is the surge of programs using place-based, challenge-oriented designs to generate experiments with the potential to fix the nations largest problems, as displayed first by the Economic Development Administrations (EDA) $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge (BBBRC).

These experiments see federal agency leaders mobilizing regional networks, building collaborative financing approaches, and aligning it all with the nations most urgent priorities. They are also piloting a new era of national problem-solving across geographies and in service of economic inclusion.

Specifically, the BBBRC provides five-year grants ranging from $25 million to $65 million across 21 competitively selected regions. These investments will support the local development of nationally critical technology clusters, and attempt to do so in ways that deliver economic opportunity to traditionally underserved people and communities.

In that context, it is well worth the effort to study the initial blueprint of early programs like the BBBRC, with an eye toward extracting guidance for the $77 billion in new place-based programmatic investments in the coming years. In a Brookings report published earlier this month, we distilled six key policy design features that inform this new era of place-based economic policymaking:

The BBBRC represents the early stages of a major federal investment agenda to create better, more accessible jobs in the nations regional economies. In addition to the EDAs efforts, there are tens of billions of dollars in other new place-based programs inside the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. As federal leaders design those programs and regional and state leaders seek their funding, we hope this initial analysis proves useful in undertaking such critical work.

This report was prepared by Brookings Metro using federal funds under award ED22HDQ3070081 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

View post:
Six keys to unlocking a new era of place-based federal investment - Brookings Institution

Though higher education has historically been a reliable economic engine for individuals and the economy, college insiders have long failed to convey the industrys value to students, parents, employers and policy makers who question the investment, Kathleen Ives and Deborah Seymour argue in their new book, Using ROI for Strategic Planning of Online Education. Online learning has potential to provide access and optimal course pacing and content to students with time, geographic or medical constraints. But many continue to view it with a critical eye.

At the same time, the shift from emergency remote teaching in the early pandemic has morphed into innovation and investment in online teaching and learning. Many have since discovered an interest in understanding online learnings return on investment.

Inside Higher Ed recently asked Ives and Seymour about why analyzing return on investment is uncomfortable for many in higher education, the gap between students and college leaders understanding of return on investment, and how ed-tech companies are bringing the notion of return on investment into focus for college leaders. What follows is an edited and condensed version of this email conversation.

Q: Kathleen, you argue that implementing a return-on-investment analysis in online higher education will entail making significant cultural, policy and processes changes. What are some of these changes that need to happen, and how will we recognize progress?

Ives: Historically, colleges have seen themselves as mission-driven, which means that measuring return on investment can be culturally uncomfortable. Colleges may fear that a business perspective could undermine their values and turn them into degree mills. At the same time, colleges are facing increased competition from both inside and outside of academe. Reversing this only-mission-driven mind-set will require a cultural shift in which students are treated as customers. Satisfying the customer is critical to survival, or they will go elsewhere.

As higher education costs and student debt mount, policy makers and others are questioning higher educations role in producing a workforce needed to sustain the economy. At the same time, college enrollments are declining, state governments are offering less support and employers are skeptical that college graduates possess appropriate skill sets. Policy makers could help colleges protect students, promote access and improve both institutional and student return on investment, without introducing regulations that curb innovation, according to the presidents interviewed in our book.

Colleges are navigating complex technological environments with limited resources. They typically have neither the operational infrastructure nor the embedded skill sets to institutionalize return on investment. By reviewing and adapting return-on-investment methodologies to inform decision-making, online college leaders can evaluate initiatives and work toward achieving their financial and social goals.

Online colleges will see progress when they adopt a return-on-investment mind-set. Such a mind-set may be new for many, and some may not be used to digesting or even requesting such analysis. But this books contributors argue that they should be brought along on the journey. To make return on investment a cornerstone of initiatives going forward, they need trainings on best practices and terminology. A return-on-investment mind-set will increase engagement in the decision-making process and make it easier for all to see its impact.

Q: A chapter in your book by Laurie Hillstock suggests that students and college leaders may have different perspectives on return on investment for online learning. Students consider a range of complex factorsincluding cost, type of degree, faculty-to-student ratios, connections with classmates, job placement and starting salaries. Meanwhile, many college leaders view online course delivery primarily as a means for increasing access to higher education. What steps can leaders take today to help bridge this gap?

A: As a start, leaders can acknowledge that learners differ in many ways. One universal method may not close the gap. Capturing and acting on students direct feedback will help. To do this, colleges need to be intentional about building trust and helping students feel heard. Formative assessments that, for example, request feedback may be more effective than online surveys.

Some students may feel more comfortable sharing with faculty, staff, peer mentors or other students than with college leaders. In such cases, be transparent with those with whom students feel most comfortable connecting. Then look for ways to work with and through them to capture authentic student feedback.

Remember, dont just collect student feedback. Be intentional about acting on the feedback. Share updates with students as well. Building authentic relationships takes time but is necessary for student success.

Q: Deborah, you note that innovative investors and entrepreneurial venturessuch as ed-tech companies, online program managers, venture capital firms and pathway programsseek to stake a claim in the online higher education ecosystem. How have these institutions and companies brought the notion of return on investment into focus for college leaders and students?

Seymour: More and more, employers are hiring candidates for their technical skill sets rather than for their ability to communicate. Boot-camp training programs at Apple, Microsoft, Google and others, as well as pathway programs, focus on the competencies and skills employers say are necessary to fill existing technical skills gaps. Many students learn to code to get a job instead of pursuing a two- or four-year degree.

As a result, many colleges have been forced to look at their strategy and balance sheets differently. Whats the return on investment for an individual who chooses a degree over technical skills training? That question can no longer be ignored.

Q: The collection of articles in your book makes a strong case that leaders should pay more attention to return-on-investment analysis in online education. But one of the articles by David Schejbal argues that higher education institutions would be well served to resist the urge to fit online education into a narrow return-on-investment box to justify its worth. Does a holistic, online higher ed return-on-investment spreadsheet exist that can measure nonfinancial benefits such as an educated populace, research, individual enrichment and community improvement?

A: To our knowledge, no actual spreadsheet exists. But David Schejbal explains why college access is important beyond employment rates and the economy. When more people are educated beyond the secondary level, citizens are more active in public life, crime rates are lower and life expectancy increases.

When a college wishes to offer an online program, return-on-investment planning includes market research to determine concrete, monetary benefits to both the student and the institution. But colleges will also want to align their online programs with their social missions. (This is alluded to in the chapter by Leah Matthews on online education and accreditation.) That means social factors in a campus-based program in, say, nursing, must be included in online nursing programs, as well.

Q: What did you learn about return on investment for online learning from putting together this book that you did not fully understand before you started?

Seymour: When a face-to-face course is originally developed, many colleges do not consider the cost of converting it to an online course that is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. In some cases, these conversion costs are higher than the original cost of development. Also, these costs are often not included in the course design nor the prices that online program managers charge when developing courses for colleges. That means the risk of noncompliance is passed along to the institution. Hidden costs like these on an institutions balance sheet can produce significant opportunity costs.

Online programs face many external challenges, including doubt about their worth. College leaders may have more success by first addressing their institutions internal challenges. To do this, they should engage strategy and planning experts to ensure that oversights do not threaten program continuity.

Ives: Return on investment in online higher education has moved beyond the singular metric of student earning potential. It is not solely or even necessarily a performance measure gauging investment efficiency as typically measured by corporations, investors and entrepreneurs. Also, what works for one colleges mission and vision may not work for another institution.

Many methodologies are available to assess return on investment, and many institutional leaders are serious about measuring value as compared to cost, specifically with regard to students and institutional mission. Many are pursuing nuanced return-on-investment analyses, depending on their definitions of success.

Many of the presidents told us the pandemic fast-forwarded some plans to optimize their return-on-investment initiatives. As Keith Miller, president of Greenville Technical College, put it, ROI may even increase because we have learned so much.

See the rest here:
Analyzing the return on investment for online education - Inside Higher Ed

WASHINGTON, D.C. (December 1, 2022) Northmarqs multi-year objective to bring an investment sales team to every one of its debt & equity offices, took a step closer to completion with the addition of a team of industry-recognized professionals in its Washington, D.C. office.

Christopher Doerr, William Harvey, and Shack Stanwick will be based out of Northmarqs Washington, D.C. office and focus on the origination of investment sales and capital raises. They will concentrate on opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic region, including Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and into the Northeast. Our team is excited to join Northmarq. Their investment sales platform is experiencing rapid growth and tremendous momentum, and were thrilled to be a part of it, said Doerr. We look forward to working alongside our local bankers to provide seamless debt execution to our investment sales business. We truly want to be a full-service advisor to our clients. Our team has big plans to grow in the Mid-Atlantic and into the Northeast across all asset classes.

Chris, Will and Shack are a dynamic team with years of experience, have a strong reputation in the region, and are aligned with Northmarqs values and culture, making them an ideal addition to our growing multifamily platform, explained Trevor Koskovich, president investment sales. As they integrate with our regional debt and equity teams, I am eager to see our coverage expand in this region as we serve our clients commercial real estate needs.

Prior to joining Northmarq, Doerr served as managing director at Walker Dunlop, where he oversaw investment sales activity in the Mid-Atlantic. He also served as a senior managing director for five years at Cushman & Wakefield, working with owners of institutional real estate providing disposition services for multifamily properties in the Mid-Atlantic, as well as joint venture structuring, recapitalization, and equity placement. He has been responsible for more than $5 billion worth of transactions.

Harvey previously served as a vice president at Walker & Dunlop, where he handled investment sales activity in the Mid-Atlantic. Before this, he was an associate at Cassidy Turley (d/b/a Cushman & Wakefield) where he assisted in the disposition and equity placement process. Harveys prior experience also includes serving in the Finance department at FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). He has completed sales of commercial real estate assets totaling more than $3 billion (nearly 20,000 units) within the past five years.

Stanwick joins Northmarq after his employment as associate director for Walker & Dunlops multifamily investment sales team where he focused on representing multifamily owners, developers, and operators. Before this, he worked for three years at CBRE.

See the rest here:
Northmarq's Washington, D.C. office adds top-tier investment sales team with eyes on expanded regional coverage - NorthMarq

By Irina Slav - Dec 01, 2022, 2:06 AM CST

Investment in the upstream oil and gas industry in Russia could decline by $15 billion this year as a result of Western sanctions, Rystad Energy has calculated, saying the total for the year could end up around $35 billion.

The analytical firm noted that Russian upstream investments stood at $45 billion last year, increasing from $40 billion in 2020. Before Russias invasion of Ukraine, upstream investments in the country were expected to rise to $50 billion in 2022, but sanctions have begun to bite and investment is set to decline substantially amid the exodus of Western oil companies from the country.

According to Rystad, investments would remain lower than normal until at least 2025 but this would likely affect smaller oil companies, while Gazprom and Rosneft will be able to continue spending as they were spending until this year, the company said.

The situation appears to be particularly worrying for the LNG industry, where several large-scale projects have been delayed because of sanction-related problems with technology and funding.

The war in Ukraine has cost the Russian oil and gas sector dearly, with project investments taking a significant hit. Covid-related disruptions in 2020 dragged down spending but this year looks set to be the start of a multi-year slump that will make the Covid years pale in comparison, said Swapnil Babele, a senior analyst with Rystad.

The worst affected projects will be Greenfield ones, the analytical firm also said, with investment in new field development set to decline by 40 percent this year from last, to $8 billion from $13.7 billion.

Next year Rystad does not expect any significant new oil and gas projects to receive approval amid the lingering effects of Western sanctions. In 2024, however, there will be a boost in production as Gazprom begins extraction from one new field and Rosneft launches production at one of the fields comprising the giant Vostok Oil project.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Read this article:
Russian Upstream Oil And Gas Investment Set To Plunge By $15 Billion - OilPrice.com

Redwood Materials a lithium battery recycling company based in Carson City received more than $105 million in tax abatements following a unanimous decision Thursday by the Governors Office of Economic Development (GOED) Board of Directors.

The abatements came after Redwood Materials announced a $1.1 billion capital investment, the second-largest in GOEDs history behind Tesla, which Redwood Materials CEO J.B. Straubel co-founded along with Elon Musk. Redwood plans to build a campus in Storey County at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center.

While the state is issuing a $105 million abatement, we are projecting the return on investment will be $5.6 billion for Nevada, Gov. Steve Sisolak said at Thursdays meeting.

As one of the few lithium battery recycling companies in the United States, Redwood Materials helps solve supply-chain problems for local manufacturers such as Panasonic and Tesla. It also allows the country to be less reliant on fossil fuels and less dependent on China, which has 80 percent of the global market share for lithium production.

With the tax abatements, Redwood Materials will be required to add 150 jobs in the first two years at an average weighted hourly wage of $32. By 2027, the company is expected to grow to a 450-employee workforce.

Over the next 20 years, Redwood Materials is also expected to generate $180 million in net new tax revenues for the state.

Aside from the investment to the workforce, Straubel said he is already investing in programs with UNR and UNLV to train an upcoming workforce in the lithium battery recycling industry. Straubel also said he is investing in elementary schools by offering tours to the recycling center and educating students at a young age.

During Thursdays meeting, officials thanked Straubel for keeping his company in Nevada, noting the critical need to move away from fossil fuels and expressing gratitude for making Nevada an epicenter of production for new green energy.

Read the original:
Lithium recycler making near-record investment gets $105 million in Nevada tax abatements The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

Shopify(SHOP -0.78%), the all-in-one commerce platform, has performed terribly in 2022, losing 70% year to date. However,investors have reasons to be optimistic. The company released an earnings report on Oct. 27showing why retailers continue gravitating to it.

Here are two reasons Shopify is the best investment in retail.

Shopify's business is driven by how successful it is at helping its merchant clients create sales, which today means using a multichannel retailing strategy. Data shows that the more channels a merchant offers shoppers to buy through, its revenue multiplies. For instance, when an online store sells through one additional marketplace, like Amazon, it gains a 38% increase in revenue. Likewise, the merchant sees a 120% revenue boost by having two additional channels.

Brick-and-mortar retailing is a significant sales channel that Shopify opened almost a decade ago by releasing its first point-of-sale (POS) software and payment system in 2013. Later it added a card reader in 2017 and additional first-party retail POS devices in 2019. This sales channel gave Shopify an offline presence long before many of its competitors. Most of its competitors use third-party POS solutions or only moved into physical retailing after e-commerce sales started fading post-pandemic.

Meanwhile, Shopify POS has rapidly become one of the preferred solutions for small and medium-sized businesses (SMB). On its third-quarter 2022 earnings call, Shopify President Harley Finkelstein said that since the beginning of 2021, SMB retailers have driven over half of the adoptions of POS Pro. He added that a third of the adoptions are from established offline retailers entirely new to e-commerce or selling only via POS devices. So, physical retailing brings Shopify an altogether new set of SMB customers.

Shopify is rapidly gaining enterprise customers, too. Several well-known brands adopted its POS Pro solutions during the quarter, driving its offline gross merchandise value (GMV) 35% higher over the previous year's period, or 41% in constant currency. This growth rate outpaced its third-quarter total GMV, which only grew 11% over the year-ago period, or 15% on a constant-currency basis. Its offline GMV also outpaces the third-quarter U.S. retail growth rate of 9%.

Shopify's multichannel initiatives are a long-term tailwind for growth. According to eMarketer, multichannel online retailing created $241 billion in sales in 2019, and this retail strategy continues to explode higher post-pandemic. By 2023, eMarketer expects multichannel sales to balloon to $575.62 billion.

Market data company Statista projects that global retail e-commerce sales will grow 42% to $8.1 trillion by 2026. So it was only a matter of time before Shopify focused on grabbing market share internationally.

The company introduced two cross-border solutions for retailers in 2022: Shopify Markets and Shopify Markets Pro. It launched Shopify Markets in the first quarter of 2022. This solution enables merchants to establish and manage a single online storefront in multiple countries and regions. Plus, the platform arms merchants with the necessary tools to scale their retailing business in each location added.

International customers can shop using their local currency, languages, and payment methods, and Shopify will collect any duties and import taxes at checkout.

Shopify Markets Pro, an enhanced version of Shopify Markets, debuted in the U.S. in mid-September 2022 in early access. A merchant that chooses the pro version gains Global-e Onlineas the merchant of record, the legal entity responsible for maintaining a merchant account and selling goods or services to an end customer. In addition, the merchant of record is responsible for adhering to local laws and regulations, registering for and paying taxes, arranging payments in local currency, and shipping andlogistics.

A person without Shopify Markets Pro acts as their merchant of record and must manage the complexities of selling cross-border themselves, which can be difficult, especially when handling multiple countries. Consequently, once Shopify starts ramping up the Pro service, it should bring in a ton of revenue, as the platform simplifies establishing a brand internationally for merchants.

Some investors might consider Shopify's stock expensive based on its price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 9.32, which is high compared to many of its peers. For instance, comparable companies BigCommerceandBlock sell at P/S ratios of 2.37 and 2, respectively. However, Shopify's solid third-quarter revenue growth beat analysts' estimates. Shopify also posted a smaller loss than expected, leading many to believe that the tide has turned and the stock is due to rebound.

If you believe in management's long-term growth plans of multichannel retailing and cross-border retailing, today's stock price might look like a bargain five years from now.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Rob Starks Jr has positions in Amazon, Block, Inc., Global-e Online Ltd., and Shopify. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, BigCommerce Holdings, Inc., Block, Inc., Global-e Online Ltd., and Shopify. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2023 $1,140 calls on Shopify and short January 2023 $1,160 calls on Shopify. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

See the original post:
2 Reasons Why Shopify Is the Best Retail Investment - The Motley Fool

HALEWOOD, England, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co (F.N) will invest an extra 149 million pounds ($180 million) to boost output of electric vehicle (EV) power units by 70% at its engine factory in northern England as the U.S. carmaker accelerates its push to go electric.

Electric drive unit production capacity at the Halewood plant will increase to 420,000 units a year, from 250,000 units, starting in 2024, the Detroit-based carmaker said on Thursday.

The move will bring Ford's total investment in the combustion engine factory's transition to production of EV parts to 380 million pounds.

"This is a very significant and important part of scaling up for our transformation," said Tim Slatter, head of Ford in Britain. "This is a really big deal for Fords business in Europe."

The EV power unit, which consists of an electric motor and gearbox, replaces the engine and transmission of a fossil-fuel vehicle.

Ford has committed to selling only fully electric cars in Europe by 2030 and only electric commercial vans by 2035. That puts it ahead of the European Union's plans to effectively ban the sale of new fossil-fuel passenger cars by 2035.

Slatter said Ford plans to have nine fully electric models on sale in Europe by 2024, with Halewood supplying power units to assembly plants in Romania and Turkey for five high-volume models, including an electric version of the popular Puma SUV.

Halewood is expected to supply 70% of the 600,000 EVs the company aims to sell in Europe annually by 2026, Ford said.

The latest Ford investment includes 125 million pounds in the plant itself and 24 million pounds in the development and testing of new EV parts for production at Halewood.

Ford said the investment will safeguard more than 500 jobs.

The UK government contributed to the initial EV power unit investment at Halewood, which was announced by Ford last year.

($1 = 0.8326 pounds)

Reporting by Nick CareyEditing by Edward Tobin and David Goodman

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read more here:
Ford to boost EV parts investment for UK plant by $180 mln - Reuters

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

More:
Steve Williams: Sewer system upgrade an investment in city's future - Huntington Herald Dispatch