10jili com
CANCUN, Mexico (AP) — Darryl Simmons II scored 19 points to help Gardner-Webb defeat SE Louisiana 73-69 on Tuesday. Simmons shot 7 for 13 (2 for 5 from 3-point range) and 3 of 3 from the free-throw line for the Runnin' Bulldogs (3-3). Pharell Boyogueno scored 15 points while going 6 of 13 (3 for 7 from 3-point range) and added seven rebounds and four steals. Anthony Selden shot 6 of 10 from the field and 3 of 6 from the free-throw line to finish with 15 points. Jeremy Elyzee led the Lions (2-4) in scoring, finishing with 22 points, three steals and two blocks. Sam Hines Jr. added 12 points, seven rebounds, six assists and four steals. Jakevion Buckley finished with 11 points, four assists and three steals. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .Rimini Street Announces New Management Console for Rimini ConnectTM Suite of Interoperability Solutions
MAI Capital Management reduced its stake in HP Inc. ( NYSE:HPQ – Free Report ) by 60.2% during the 3rd quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor owned 22,370 shares of the computer maker’s stock after selling 33,823 shares during the period. MAI Capital Management’s holdings in HP were worth $802,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period. Other hedge funds and other institutional investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. Ashton Thomas Securities LLC purchased a new position in shares of HP in the 3rd quarter valued at about $25,000. Triad Wealth Partners LLC purchased a new position in HP in the second quarter worth approximately $33,000. Thurston Springer Miller Herd & Titak Inc. acquired a new position in HP during the 2nd quarter worth approximately $34,000. Wolff Wiese Magana LLC increased its position in shares of HP by 115.1% in the 3rd quarter. Wolff Wiese Magana LLC now owns 968 shares of the computer maker’s stock valued at $35,000 after purchasing an additional 518 shares during the last quarter. Finally, ORG Wealth Partners LLC acquired a new stake in shares of HP in the 3rd quarter valued at $37,000. 77.53% of the stock is currently owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors. Insiders Place Their Bets In related news, CEO Enrique Lores sold 211,501 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Thursday, September 12th. The shares were sold at an average price of $33.16, for a total transaction of $7,013,373.16. Following the transaction, the chief executive officer now owns 3 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $99.48. This represents a 100.00 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is available at the SEC website . 0.41% of the stock is owned by corporate insiders. HP Price Performance HP ( NYSE:HPQ – Get Free Report ) last released its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, August 28th. The computer maker reported $0.83 earnings per share for the quarter, missing the consensus estimate of $0.86 by ($0.03). HP had a negative return on equity of 266.37% and a net margin of 5.33%. The company had revenue of $13.52 billion for the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $13.37 billion. During the same period in the previous year, the business posted $0.86 EPS. The business’s quarterly revenue was up 2.4% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, sell-side analysts anticipate that HP Inc. will post 3.39 earnings per share for the current year. HP declared that its Board of Directors has authorized a share repurchase program on Wednesday, August 28th that allows the company to buyback $10.00 billion in outstanding shares. This buyback authorization allows the computer maker to buy up to 28.9% of its shares through open market purchases. Shares buyback programs are often an indication that the company’s leadership believes its stock is undervalued. Analysts Set New Price Targets Several equities research analysts recently weighed in on the company. Barclays decreased their target price on HP from $33.00 to $32.00 and set an “equal weight” rating for the company in a research note on Thursday, August 29th. Loop Capital lowered their target price on shares of HP from $37.00 to $35.00 and set a “hold” rating for the company in a report on Thursday, September 5th. Morgan Stanley cut their price target on shares of HP from $37.00 to $36.00 and set an “equal weight” rating on the stock in a research note on Thursday, August 29th. Bank of America downgraded shares of HP from a “buy” rating to a “neutral” rating and set a $37.00 price objective for the company. in a research note on Friday, September 27th. Finally, Citigroup lowered HP from a “buy” rating to a “neutral” rating and set a $37.00 price target on the stock. in a research report on Tuesday, October 1st. One research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, seven have issued a hold rating and four have given a buy rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat, HP currently has an average rating of “Hold” and a consensus price target of $35.45. Read Our Latest Analysis on HPQ HP Company Profile ( Free Report ) HP Inc provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates through Personal Systems and Printing segments. The Personal Systems segment offers commercial personal computers (PCs), consumer PCs, workstations, thin clients, commercial tablets and mobility devices, retail point-of-sale systems, displays and other related accessories, software, support, and services for the commercial and consumer markets. Read More Want to see what other hedge funds are holding HPQ? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for HP Inc. ( NYSE:HPQ – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for HP Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for HP and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .Gateshead firm Recite Me secures £4.6m investment from backer BGF
Smuggling gangs’ desire to profit from human misery has no limit – we won’t rest until we have broken business model
I bought £13,000 Bentley only to learn it was once owned by legendary TV host of classic 1980s game showJonah Goldberg Among elites across the ideological spectrum, there's one point of unifying agreement: Americans are bitterly divided. What if that's wrong? What if elites are the ones who are bitterly divided while most Americans are fairly unified? History rarely lines up perfectly with the calendar (the "sixties" didn't really start until the decade was almost over). But politically, the 21st century neatly began in 2000, when the election ended in a tie and the color coding of electoral maps became enshrined as a kind of permanent tribal color war of "red vs. blue." Elite understanding of politics has been stuck in this framework ever since. Politicians and voters have leaned into this alleged political reality, making it seem all the more real in the process. I loathe the phrase "perception is reality," but in politics it has the reifying power of self-fulfilling prophecy. Like rival noble families in medieval Europe, elites have been vying for power and dominance on the arrogant assumption that their subjects share their concern for who rules rather than what the rulers can deliver. Political cartoonists from across country draw up something special for the holiday In 2018, the group More in Common published a massive report on the "hidden tribes" of American politics. The wealthiest and whitest groups were "devoted conservatives" (6%) and "progressive activists" (8%). These tribes dominate the media, the parties and higher education, and they dictate the competing narratives of red vs. blue, particularly on cable news and social media. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Americans resided in, or were adjacent to, the "exhausted majority." These people, however, "have no narrative," as David Brooks wrote at the time. "They have no coherent philosophic worldview to organize their thinking and compel action." Lacking a narrative might seem like a very postmodern problem, but in a postmodern elite culture, postmodern problems are real problems. It's worth noting that red vs. blue America didn't emerge ex nihilo. The 1990s were a time when the economy and government seemed to be working, at home and abroad. As a result, elites leaned into the narcissism of small differences to gain political and cultural advantage. They remain obsessed with competing, often apocalyptic, narratives. That leaves out most Americans. The gladiatorial combatants of cable news, editorial pages and academia, and their superfan spectators, can afford these fights. Members of the exhausted majority are more interested in mere competence. I think that's the hidden unity elites are missing. This is why we keep throwing incumbent parties out of power: They get elected promising competence but get derailed -- or seduced -- by fan service to, or trolling of, the elites who dominate the national conversation. There's a difference between competence and expertise. One of the most profound political changes in recent years has been the separation of notions of credentialed expertise from real-world competence. This isn't a new theme in American life, but the pandemic and the lurch toward identity politics amplified distrust of experts in unprecedented ways. This is a particular problem for the left because it is far more invested in credentialism than the right. Indeed, some progressives are suddenly realizing they invested too much in the authority of experts and too little in the ability of experts to provide what people want from government, such as affordable housing, decent education and low crime. The New York Times' Ezra Klein says he's tired of defending the authority of government institutions. Rather, "I want them to work." One of the reasons progressives find Trump so offensive is his absolute inability to speak the language of expertise -- which is full of coded elite shibboleths. But Trump veritably shouts the language of competence. I don't mean he is actually competent at governing. But he is effectively blunt about calling leaders, experts and elites -- of both parties -- stupid, ineffective, weak and incompetent. He lost in 2020 because voters didn't believe he was actually good at governing. He won in 2024 because the exhausted majority concluded the Biden administration was bad at it. Nostalgia for the low-inflation pre-pandemic economy was enough to convince voters that Trumpian drama is the tolerable price to pay for a good economy. About 3 out of 4 Americans who experienced "severe hardship" because of inflation voted for Trump. The genius of Trump's most effective ad -- "Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" -- was that it was simultaneously culture-war red meat and an argument that Harris was more concerned about boutique elite concerns than everyday ones. If Trump can actually deliver competent government, he could make the Republican Party the majority party for a generation. For myriad reasons, that's an if so big it's visible from space. But the opportunity is there -- and has been there all along. Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch: thedispatch.com . Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!