Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Crazy investors are partying like it’s 1999. But I’d buy this FTSE 100 stock today! I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Image source: Getty Images Cliffdarcy has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. See all posts by Cliff D’Arcy I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. There’s been a lot of market madness going on recently. Euphoric day-traders have been piling into volatile and beaten-down stocks, hoping to make a quick buck. But serious investors should hunt out bargains in the FTSE 100.Everybody HertzOne of the most bizarre trades I’ve seen in 34 years as an investor is happening in America. Day-traders – fuelled by commission-free trading – have piled into the stock of car-rental firm Hertz.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…In the past two weeks, Hertz stock has been on a roller-coaster ride, plunging as low as $0.56 and soaring as high as $5.53. At the current price of $1.40, Hertz’s equity is worth just $200m. That’s a tiny valuation for a market leader in any field, especially for a household name that has been renting out cars since 1918.Why the boom, when Hertz is bust?There’s one problem with this trading frenzy: Hertz filed for bankruptcy protection in a US court on 22 May. This buys the company time to negotiate with its creditors and restructure nearly $19bn of debt.I suspect that Hertz’s stock volatility has been driven by frenzied day-traders and algorithmic trading. But one thing is clear: with Hertz bankrupt and its corporate bonds trading at large discounts to par values, the stock is worthless.In US corporate history, hundreds of major companies have gone bankrupt, later to emerge phoenix-like with reduced debt burdens. But when lenders and bondholders take haircuts or swap debt for equity, shareholders get completely wiped out. That’s kind of how bankruptcy works.This FTSE 100 firm should prosper post- pandemicAlthough Hertz was the #1 name in car rentals, this didn’t prevent it from going bust. When highly leveraged companies try and fail to raise fresh capital from shareholders, bondholders and lenders, then bankruptcy is often inevitable.Which brings me to the UK market. A number of FTSE 100 businesses hit equally hard by coronavirus have successfully raised capital from their shareholders. Take FTSE 100 firm Whitbread (LSE: WTB), owner of the hugely popular Premier Inn budget-hotel chain.Following the sale of its Costa coffee chain for £3.9bn in 2018, Whitbread became financially stronger than many rivals. Even so, when faced with a crisis, investment bankers tell clients to ‘go early and go big’ when raising capital.Whitbread did just that, raising £1bn to shore up its balance sheet (and buy distressed assets from weakened rivals). The firm also has access to £2.4bn of undrawn credit lines, giving it the financial firepower to survive and thrive after Covid-19.With Whitbread’s revenues down 99% during this crisis, we can’t value this FTSE 100 share using fundamentals such as earnings per share and dividend yield. However, when life returns to normal (or some form of post-Covid normality), resilient and well-managed companies will bounce back. FTSE 100 stalwart Whitbread will be there, ready to gain market share and take a bigger slice of consumer spending.As for Whitbread’s shares, they have ranged widely in 2019/20. Over the 12 months, they traded as high as 4,462p (on 16 December 2019). During the depths of the market crash, they plunged to just 1,551p on 19 March – a ‘once in a lifetime’ FTSE 100 buying opportunity?At Monday’s closing price of 2,354p, Whitbread shares languish at nearly half (53%) their 2020 high. That 47% discount is too high for a £4.8bn FTSE 100 survivor. I’d buy at this price. Cliff D’Arcy | Tuesday, 23rd June, 2020 | More on: WTB Enter Your Email Address “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this.
El brutal asesinato de nueve afroamericanas/os en la histórica Iglesia Metodista Episcopal Africana Emanuel en Charleston-Carolina del Sur en junio del año pasado por un racista que blandió símbolos confederados, provocó un movimiento nacional para retirar las banderas y estatuas confederadas y quitar los nombres de los propietarios de esclavos de lugares y edificios.Uno de estos ricos propietarios de esclavas/os fue John C. Calhoun, un graduado de Yale en 1804, a quien la Universidad de Yale honra al haberle dado su nombre al Colegio Calhoun. Como consecuencia de la balacera en Charleston, estudiantes de Yale comenzaron una petición para eliminar el nombre de Calhoun y consiguieron más de 1.500 firmas. La petición dice: “Al igual que el despliegue oficial de la bandera de la Confederación en Carolina del Sur, el Colegio Calhoun representa una indiferencia a siglos de dolor y sufrimiento de la población negra”.Para quien no sabe cuán podrido era Calhoun, a principios de 1800, fue la voz nacional más viciosa promoviendo la esclavocracia, incluso llamando a la esclavitud un “bien positivo”. Y él era poderoso además de rico; fue representante y senador de Carolina del Sur, secretario de estado y vicepresidente bajo John Quincy Adams y también Andrew Jackson. Una de sus principales “contribuciones” fue ser el autor de la doctrina que permitía a los estados esclavistas hacer caso omiso de cualquier ley federal que inhibiera la esclavitud.En cara del Underground Railroad (Corredor Oculto de esclavas/os), dirigido por héroes como Harriet Tubman, Calhoun creó la Ley de Esclavos Fugitivos de 1850. Esta ley permitía a los dueños de esclavos localizar y volver a esclavizar a quienes se habían escapado al Norte.Desafiando a sus estudiantes, el presidente de Yale Peter Salovey, anunció el 27 de abril que la escuela se negaba a remover el nombre del supremacista blanco del colegio residencial.En un momento en que incluso la Legislatura de Carolina del Sur está de acuerdo en retirar la bandera de la Confederación de la Cámara Legislativa, ¿por qué una universidad de Nueva Inglaterra de la ‘Ivy League’ [N de T: colegios considerados los mejores del país] se niega a borrar el nombre de este monstruo racista? La única razón lógica es que conceder esta parte del pasado de Yale abre la puerta a un nuevo examen de la totalidad del enredo histórico de la Universidad de Yale y su enriquecimiento con la esclavitud.La Universidad de Yale lleva el nombre de Elihu Yale, un funcionario de la Compañía de las Indias Orientales a finales de 1600, que hizo una fortuna con el comercio de esclavos del Océano Índico. El decano Holloway de la universidad de Yale, señaló el año pasado que “En su fundación y durante sus primeros 150 años o más, sí, Yale, como tantas otras instituciones de la época, fueron cómplices en el saqueo debido a que sus finanzas estaban entrelazadas con la economía global de esclavos”. (yaledailynews.com 30 de marzo de 2015)El trabajo no remunerado de millones de esclavas/os africanos durante siglos fue central para la acumulación de capital de muchos actuales bancos, compañías de seguros, empresas e instituciones elitistas como la Universidad de Yale. Esta acumulación, con valor actual de billones de dólares, se intensificó sobre todo después de la invención de la desmotadora de algodón por otro graduado de Yale, Eli Whitney. Continuó a través del período de la aparcería, el motor económico de Jim Crow, forzado por el brutal régimen de terror del Klan.Este legado racista continúa de mil maneras hoy, con las políticas de los gobiernos y las empresas por igual sobre vivienda, educación, prisiones, e incluso de aguas limpias, diseñadas para saquear la riqueza producida por la comunidad afroamericana.Durante años ha habido un creciente movimiento de reparaciones exigiendo un retorno de esta riqueza a las comunidades afroamericanas donde estaban y de donde se extrajeron con tanta crueldad. La administración de la Universidad de Yale y todos sus patrocinadores de Wall Street quieren evitar cualquier cosa que podría abrir la puerta a la justa reparación de la riqueza.Workers World – Mundo Obrero apoya la justa demanda de las/os estudiantes de Yale para cambiar el nombre de su colegio. Pero eso es sólo el comienzo. La campaña electoral 2016 del Partido WW-Mundo Obrero incluye la demanda de ¡reparaciones ahora! Esa deuda debe ser pagada por las instituciones ricas como la Universidad de Yale y todos sus aliados de Wall Street.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Harvard initiative seen as a national model Allen took exception to that idea of neutrality, pointing out that technology grows out of human choices. “Every technology is a designed solution to a problem, seeking often to optimize something,” she said. “The choice about the problem and the choice of what to optimize is a decision. It is never neutral. That first priority-setting moment is incredibly important.” Recalling the era of Timothy Leary and rethinking the bad rap on psychedelic drugs Embedded EthiCS wins $150,000 grant Related The Daily Gazette Sign up for daily emails to get the latest Harvard news. Technology is as good or evil as those who create it and use it.That was the thorny consensus of a panel on the question of ethics in the digital world at a HubWeek event Wednesday in the Seaport District. Moderated by Harvard Business Review editor in chief Adi Ignatius, the group included computer scientist and entrepreneur Rana el Kaliouby, founder of Affectiva, and Danielle Allen ’01, James Bryant Conant University Professor.Ignatius opened the discussion at the event, sponsored by Harvard University, The Boston Globe, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a confession: He has shared photos of his granddaughter on social media to a far-flung network of friends, despite rising worries over the risk of identity theft, illicit use of such images, future embarrassment, other privacy issues, and the lack of consent. He has drawn significant criticism for this, he noted, owing to the mushrooming sense that technology is “dark,” or ill-intentioned.El Kaliouby, whose company develops emotion-recognition software, took up Ignatius’s case, arguing that such a condemnation is simplistic. However, she did add a caveat to her defense: Internet communities — such as Facebook — have become nearly ubiquitous and have gathered a lot of our data without our really being aware of the implications. “I don’t think we’ve really thought through data privacy, issues of consent, and the conversation around unintended uses of this technology,” she said.Allen, the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, enlarged on this point. Social media has made us all “public persons,” akin to celebrities who give up their privacy, to some extent, in return for exposure, she said. (She added that she never shares pictures of her children.)Technology itself is “neutral, by and large,” continued el Kaliouby, when asked what role the platforms and the programs beneath them play. She pointed to the use of algorithms such as the ones her firm has developed. Emotion-detection software can be useful in mental health care, for example, but it also can be weaponized in surveillance. “We need to all come to the table and agree what’s fair use and what’s not.” “Every technology is a designed solution to a problem, seeking often to optimize something. The choice about the problem and the choice of what to optimize is a decision. It is never neutral.” — Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor Embedding ethics in computer science curriculum That may be so, agreed el Kaliouby, but often that first priority is benign, if not downright humanitarian. With Affectiva, for example, her priority was to help children with autism recognize facial cues to ease their social interactions. “We developed a software development kit for this emotion-recognizing software — and very quickly we learned, yes, people are applying it in all sorts of different ways,” she said. “We had to go back and revise our terms and conditions,” mandating that it be used only with consent (i.e., people had to opt in, rather than opt out).One danger, Allen said, lies in how people tend to trust technology instead of their own instincts. What we need to keep in mind, she said, is that our computers are as flawed as we are, particularly since humans are responsible for not only creating these technologies but also for feeding in data that may be biased or poorly chosen. Calling on technologists and the public alike “to recognize the distinctly human role that, as of now, machines are not even close to usurping — choice of purpose,” she stressed human responsibility. “Our first responsibility is to choose the purposes for our machines,” as we do for our laws and other tools, she said.Ultimately, the two agreed, the issues surrounding ethics in technology need to be viewed as ongoing, a part of the process rather than a one-time question. “You have to have a process for repeated iterative risk assessment,” stressed Allen.In addition, said el Kaliouby, ethics training and consideration have to be woven into the process. “You can’t get away by saying you’re just the technologist,” she said. “There have to be design elements in how we approach this — how we think about designing and building these technologies.“There’s a lot of potential for doing amazing things,” she said. “I think of AI as a partnership for us to be safer, more productive, and healthier. We just, as a society, have to commit to using it that way.” Michael Pollan wants to change your mind Program aims to make everyday technology more ethical Related