Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul><li><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/tif-stock">Tiffany</a> slid as much as 11% on Wednesday after luxury conglomerate <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/lvmhy-stock">LVMH</a> canceled plans to buy the jeweler for $16.2 billion.</li><li>The Louis Vuitton parent <a href="https://www.lvmh.com/news-documents/press-releases/press-release-09092020/">said</a> Wednesday the deal's contract set a November 24 deadline, and that requests from <keyword id="117146" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Tiffany">Tiffany</keyword> and the French government to delay the deal led to its pulling out.</li><li>Tiffany responded soon after, saying in a <a href="https://investor.tiffany.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tiffany-files-lawsuit-against-lvmh-enforce-merger-agreement">press release</a> it filed a lawsuit to keep the acquisition on track.</li><li>The jewelry giant also alleged <keyword id="110312" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="LVMH">LVMH</keyword> sought to leverage US social justice protests and the coronavirus pandemic to "avoid paying the agreed price for Tiffany shares."</li><li><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/tif-stock">Watch Tiffany trade live here</a>.</li></ul><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/tif-stock">Tiffany</a> shares tanked as much as 11% on Wednesday after Louis Vuitton-owner <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/lvmhy-stock">LVMH</a> scrapped plans to acquire the jewelry company for $16.2 billion.In a Wednesday <a href="https://www.lvmh.com/news-documents/press-releases/press-release-09092020/">press release</a>, LVMH said Tiffany sought to extend the deal's closing date to December 31 from the previously established deadline of November 24. LVMH also said the French European and Foreign Affairs Minister directed Tiffany to defer the acquisition until after January 6 in reaction to the threat of tariffs on US goods. The two delays leave LVMH unable to complete the deal, the fashion conglomerate said.Tiffany fired back soon after, filing a lawsuit against LVMH to keep the deal intact. LVMH aimed to leverage US social justice protests and the coronavirus pandemic to "avoid paying the agreed price for Tiffany shares," the jewelry giant said in a <a href="https://investor.tiffany.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tiffany-files-lawsuit-against-lvmh-enforce-merger-agreement">press release</a>.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/investing-strategy-us-championship-oliver-kell-shares-secret-to-returns-2020-9">US Investing Championship contender Oliver Kell raked in a 359.4% return through July. Here's the strategy he's using to crush the competition — and 3 stocks he's holding right now.</a>Tiffany also said the government's request for a new deal deadline has no basis under French law, and that LVMH's decision to call off the deal before consulting Tiffany breached their contract. "We believe that LVMH will seek to use any available means in an attempt to avoid closing the transaction on the agreed terms," Roger Farah, chairman of Tiffany's board of directors, said in a statement.Both <keyword id="161513" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="luxury-goods">luxury goods</keyword> companies have been slammed by the coronavirus pandemic as consumers cut down spending on discretionary goods. Tiffany recorded its first quarterly loss in six years over the first quarter before sales swung higher in the following three-month period. The sales decline left investors wondering whether LVMH overpaid for the jeweler.Tiffany closed at $121.81 per share on Tuesday, down 8.7% year-to-date.Now read more <keyword id="31671" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="markets">markets</keyword> coverage from Markets Insider and Business Insider:<a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/economic-outlook-stimulus-bill-gdp-recovery-next-year-morgan-stanley-2020-9-1029570868">New stimulus can fuel full US GDP recovery 2 quarters sooner than previously expected, Morgan Stanley says</a><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-reasons-bull-market-running-further-goldman-sachs-2020-9-1029570702">Goldman Sachs lays out 10 reasons the bull market will keep charging after stocks' short-term slump</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-nasdaq-sell-off-explained-investing-advice-portfolio-positioning-2020-9">4 experts break down the drivers behind the sudden plunge in tech stocks that's dragging the entire market lower — and share their best recommendations for what investors should do as the election approaches</a><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/stocks/tif-stock"><div type="image" title="TIF" height="1182" width="1432" msid="78020060" hostid="261"></div></a>

Tiffany sinks 11% after Louis Vuitton-owner LVMH calls off $16 billion takeover deal

Dollar Tree (DLTR) this morning reported first quarter earnings, and shares of the company are up about 7%.
The company <a href="http://www.dollartreeinfo.com/investors/global/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=850011">said</a> that same-store sales grew by 2%, or 1.9% when excluding the impact of the Canadian dollar. Management said it expects its same store sales for 2014 to grow by low-single digits. 
Following Dollar Tree's report, dollar store peers Dollar General (DG) is rallying and Family Dollar (FDO) is barely in the green. 
It might be tempting to conclude that strength in the dollar stores is a bad sign for the economy. This chart from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-family-dollars-history-of-success-2014-4">Family Dollar's January investor conference</a>, paints an interesting picture of what makes these discount retailers go. Family Dollar has seen an uptick in its earnings before income tax, or EBIT, following economic downturns. 
<div class="KonaFilter image-container"><div class="image"><a href="http://investor.familydollar.com/investors-relations/events-and-presentations/default.aspx">Family Dollar</a></div></div> 
But recent U.S. economic data has painted the picture of an economy that is growing, even if that growth hasn't been as robust as many would expect. 
The move higher in dollar store stocks comes during what has been a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/retail-stocks-are-getting-hammered-2014-5">busy week</a> for <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/urban-outfitters-reports-earnings-2014-5">retail</a> <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/why-dicks-had-weak-golf-and-hunting-sales-2014-5">stocks</a>. The XRT ETF that tracks the S&amp;P <keyword id="6354851" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Retail">Retail</keyword> index losing about 1% this week, underperforming the S&amp;P 500's 0.8% gain. 
In more specific instances, companies in the retail sector have sent investors mixed messages. Luxury retailers <a href="http://www.coach.com/online/handbags/genWCM-10551-10051-en-/Coach_US/CompanyInformation/InvestorRelations/IR_PressReleases">Coach (COH)</a> and <a href="http://investor.tiffany.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=849272">Tiffany (TIF)</a> saw their shares go in different directions after their most recent reports: Coach sank, Tiffany soared.
High-end organic grocer Whole Foods (WFM) <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-shares-tank-2014-5">got smoked</a> after its earnings report. But retail giant Wal-Mart (WMT), which has announced clear intentions <a href="http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2014/04/10/walmart-and-wild-oats-launch-effort-to-drive-down-organic-food-prices">to drive down the price of organic food</a>, also fell after its results, <a href="http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/investors/2014/05/15/walmart-reports-fy-15-q1-eps-of-110-weather-impacted-eps-approximately-003">which disappointed</a>. 
So the question for investors is if the economy continues to make incremental improvements, what story is retail really telling, and might discount retailers go from here?
Dollar General is <a href="http://investor.shareholder.com/dollar/eventdetail.cfm?EventID=145594">set to report</a> first quarter results on June 3.

It's Tempting To Freak Out About The Economy As Dollar Tree Shares Surge

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">Thomson ReutersJack Bogle, founder and retired CEO of The Vanguard Group.</div></div></div>"Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share."That's according to Jack Bogle, the founder of the $3.5 trillion fund behemoth Vanguard.He's referring to the cost of investing and the portion of investment returns that finds its way to brokers, distributors, and Wall Street at large.Bogle has been at the forefront of the effort to change that. He launched Vanguard in 1975 and created the world's first index fund soon after. An index fund tracks the movement of an index, often the S&amp;P 500, and charges much lower fees than funds that are actively managed.Index investing is set to benefit from a Department of Labor rule that is meant to protect retirement savers from the conflicts of interests of financial advisers. Firms like Vanguard are expected to benefit from the new rule. With President-elect Donald Trump's win, however, the future of that rule has come under question.Business Insider caught up with Bogle to talk about the future of the rule, index investing, and the shift in power from Wall Street to Main Street.What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.Rachael Levy: What do you think will happen to the fiduciary rule under President-elect Trump?Jack Bogle: I'm not sure if I have any great insights - it's a very mercurial administration. I don't think they have any idea what they're going to try to do.It seems to me, pragmatically, it's very difficult to step back from a rule that's so obviously needed.Fiduciary means putting the client first, and as I have observed in the past, the only other rule we have is the client comes second.It seems equally clear to me that it's only a matter of time that the SEC adopts a comparable rule for all accounts. [The fiduciary rule, set to go into effect in April 2017, covers only retirement money.]The idea that I have a retirement account with a broker and he takes good care of me, and I have a personal account [and the broker's interest comes first] just flies in the face of common sense. If his customers don't have retirement plans, he doesn't worry about things - he sticks with the whole suitability rule. [Under the current setup, advisers that have not opted to be fiduciaries only have to provide investments that are suitable, not necessarily ones in the best interest.]<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image">Reuters/Lucas JacksonPresident-elect Donald Trump.</div></div></div>All of this makes it seems like it will be hard to walk back this fiduciary rule into oblivion. Expenses have become a big thing with funds. Index funds are taking the huge capital inflows. Cost consciousness, that's what lies at the heart of all this. Who are you making money for - your firm or your client? Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share.So the trend is to increase the share of stock market returns that goes to investors and reduce the share of stock market returns that goes to brokers and distributors and the whole Wall Street apparatus.We're reducing the share that goes to Wall Street and increasing what goes to Main Street. The great thing about the fiduciary rule is it moves up the timetable.Financial advisers [registered with the government] are already under fiduciary rule, but brokers are sellers - they live by making trades, they live by commissions. They've been operating under this so-called suitability rule. You can find a perfectly suitable investment that's too expensive.Levy: What do you think about the criticism against the rule, that firms won't be able to service low-balance accounts because of increased compliance costs?Bogle: I don't see why that should happen. Firms seem to me that they are dropping front-end loads, but they can get paid on a percentage of assets. There isn't a lot of cost saving there.These are good people - they're not ill motivated. It's just how the system has worked, and the system has worked badly.Rules can be changed. I don't think the Department of Labor and ultimately the SEC are going to want a rule that deprives smaller investors of an ability to save money for the future. What we have to do here is make it so easy to do that you may not even need an adviser.Levy: Aren't you going to be a big beneficiary of the rule because more assets would go into index funds? The rule is expected to push money out of actively managed funds into passively managed ones because the costs are easier to justify as in the best interest of the retirement saver.Bogle: I agree with that. And I would welcome, personally welcome, many more firms to start offering index funds. When you think of the traditional index funds - and I'm leaving out ETFs - I call them TIFs, 80% of those assets are at Vanguard, 10% are at Fidelity, and 5% are spread among T. Rowe Price, JPMorgan, Charles Schwab.Levy: So why don't more firms want to go into indexing?<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>Bogle: All the money goes to the investor rather than the manager. Thirty of the 50 largest mutual fund firms are owned by conglomerates, and they're in the business to make money for themselves. That's the American way, and it doesn't work very well in finance for the investor. So we're moving into a sea change in the way people invest.Levy: Why are some of these firms against the fiduciary rule?Bogle: They realize that this fiduciary idea, one of the highly likely [effects] is to have more people going into indexing without paying the high prices you get with actively managed funds.If we have a 7% market return, those who index, which is about a third of the industry, will earn 6.95%. Those who own active funds will get 7% and take two points out of it for sales loads, etc. So they'll get 5%.You put up 100% of the investment, you took 100% of the risk, and you got 33% of the return over a lifetime. If investors could just see that emblazoned in the lights of Times Square, this [shift to indexing] would happen even faster.Anybody is free to compete in the index area. I think we need more competitors, but where are they?If it's better for Main Street, it's worse for Wall Street.I think there will be some bumps in the implementation for this rule. I believe they are rectifiable, and if they are justifiable they will be fixed.Levy: What do you think in the rule needs to be fixed?Bogle: I haven't read <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/completed-rulemaking/1210-AB32-2">the whole thing</a> - it's 300 pages or something. It's very awkward, cumbersome. A lot of data has to be kept. A lot of info has to go from the buyer and seller. There's this BIC ["best interest contract"] exemption, so it's very bureaucratic. Because it comes from a bureaucracy, that might be the only way to do it, but if there are places where the shoe pinches, well then let's fix it.The SEC also has an opportunity here to write a tighter rule.Levy: Why do you think there has been this pushback against the fiduciary rule?Bogle: Sure, they're worried about the administrative burdens, but second, I think they're worried that the fiduciary rule leads to much more indexing, and they don't want to do indexing. They want to do it at a very high price, which just isn't going to cut it with investors.The whole point of the index fund is to give the investor his or her fair share of what the stock market was generous to give us - or mean enough to take away from us.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsZXv3zGmhA">YouTube / 1957Atlas</a>Clifford Asness.</div></div></div>Levy: What do you think of the criticism of indexing, that it leads to too much concentration, overvaluation of stocks?Bogle: There is a lot of concentration. BlackRock is probably doing 40% of the ETF business. We're probably doing 30%. State Street is probably doing 20% or 25%. And that's a lot of concentration.Levy: But what about the concentration in stocks?Bogle: That's not much of a problem because these funds don't trade. The amount that goes into index as a value of the total stock market is not that big. It's not as if the market goes up, the stocks in the fund go up the same way. The turnover in index funds probably runs about 4%.I would also add that when I was beginning in this business in 1951, the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.TRNR?end=2015&amp;locations=US&amp;start=1975">turnover in the market</a> was around 25% a year - now it's about 200% a year. The market is turning over at [a much higher rate].There will always be active managers who are keeping the market efficient. And if you want to read a really reasoned and well-written piece, there's one about <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-02/indexing-is-capitalism-at-its-best">indexing as the ultimate form of capitalism</a>, by Cliff Asness. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/wwe-cmo-vince-mcmahon-lesson-success-risk-2016-12">WWE CMO: The most valuable lesson Vince McMahon taught me about business</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="dvbGU5ODE6TIggiWm-Cbjw37nsucxefB" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

JACK BOGLE: 'Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share'

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">Thomson ReutersFile photo of Bogle founder and retired CEO of The Vanguard Group, speaks during the Global Wealth Management Summit in New York</div></div></div>"Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share."That's according to Jack Bogle, the founder of $3.5 trillion fund behemoth Vanguard.He's referring to the cost of investing, and the portion of investment returns that finds its way to brokers, distributors and Wall Street at large. Bogle has been at the forefront of the effort to change that. He launched Vanguard in 1975 and created the world's first index fund soon after. An index fund tracks the movement of an index, often the S&amp;P 500, and charges much lower fees than funds that are actively managed.Index investing is set to benefit from a Department of Labor rule that is meant to protect retirement savers from the conflicts of interests of financial advisors. Firms like Vanguard are expected to benefit from the new rule. With President-elect Donald Trump's win, the future of that rule has come under question, however. Business Insider caught up with Bogle to talk about the future of the rule, index investing, and the shift in power from Wall Street to Main Street. What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.Rachael Levy: What do you think will happen to the fiduciary rule under President-elect Trump?Jack Bogle: I'm not sure if I have any great insights, it's a very mercurial administration. I don't think they have any idea what they're going to try to do.It seems to me, pragmatically, it's very difficult to step back from a rule that's so obviously needed. Fiduciary means putting the client first, and as I have observed in the past, the only other rule we have is the client comes second.It seems equally clear to me that it's only a matter of time that the SEC adopts a comparable rule for all accounts. [The fiduciary rule, set to go into effect in April 2017, only covers retirement money.]The idea that I have a retirement account with a broker and he takes good care of me, and I have a personal account [and the broker's interest comes first] just flies in the face of common sense. If his customers don't have retirement plans, he doesn't worry about things, he sticks with the whole suitability rule. [Under the current set-up, advisors that have not opted to be fiduciaries only have to provide investments that are suitable, not necessarily in the best interest.]<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image">Reuters/Lucas JacksonU.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a USA Thank You Tour event in Mobile, Alabama, U.S., December 17, 2016.</div></div></div>All of this makes it seems like it will be hard to walk back this fiduciary rule into oblivion. Expenses have become a big thing with funds. Index funds are taking the huge capital inflows in. Cost consciousness, that's what lies at the heart of all this. Who are you making money for - your firm or your client? Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share. So the trend is to increase the share of stock market returns that goes to investors and reduce the share of stock market returns that goes to brokers and distributors and the whole Wall street apparatus.We're reducing the share that goes to Wall Street and increasing what goes to Main Street. The great thing about the fiduciary rule is it moves up the time table. Financial advisors [registered with the government] are already under fiduciary rule, but brokers are sellers, they live by making trades, they live by commissions. They've been operating under this so-called suitability rule. You can find a perfectly suitable investment that's too expensive.Levy: What do you think about the criticism against the rule, that firms won't be able to service low-balance accounts because of increased compliance costs?Bogle: I don't see why that should happen. Firms seem to me that they are dropping front-end loads, but they can get paid on a percentage of assets. There isn't a lot of cost saving there.These are good people - they're not ill motivated, it's just how the system has worked and the system has worked badly. Rules can be changed. I don't think the DOL and ultimately the SEC are going to want a rule that deprives smaller investors of an ability to save money for the future. What we have to do here is make it so easy to do that you may not even need an advisor.Levy: Aren't you going to be a big beneficiary of the rule, because more assets would go into index funds? The rule is expected to push money out of actively-managed funds into passively managed ones, because the costs are easier to justify as in the best interest of the retirement saver.Bogle: I agree with that. And I would welcome, personally welcome, many more firms to start offering index funds. When you think of the traditional index funds - and I'm leaving out ETFs - I call them TIFs, 80% of those assets are at Vanguard, 10% are at Fidelity and 5% are spread among T. Rowe Price, JPMorgan, Charles Schwab.Levy: So why don't more firms want to go into investing?<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>Bogle: All the money goes to the investor rather than the manager. Thirty of the 50 largest mutual fund firms are owned by conglomerates and they're in the business to make money for themselves. That's the American way, and it doesn't work very well in finance for the investor. So we're moving into a sea change in the way people invest.Levy: Why are some of these firms against the fiduciary rule?Bogle: They realize that this fiduciary idea, one of the highly likely [effects] is to have more people going into indexing, without paying the high prices you get with actively managed funds.If we have a 7% market return, those who index, which is about a third of the industry, will earn 6.95%. Those who own active funds, will get 7% and take two points out of it, for sales loads, etc. So they'll get 5%.You put up 100% of the investment, you took 100% of the risk, and you got 33% of the return over a lifetime. If investors could just see that emblazoned on the lights of Times Square, this [shift to indexing] would happen even faster.Anybody is free to compete in the index area. I think we need more competitors, but where are they? If it's better for Main Street, it's worse for Wall Street.I think there will be some bumps in the implementation for this rule. I believe they are rectifiable, and if they are justifiable they will be fixed.Levy: What do you think in the rule needs to be fixed?Bogle: I haven't read <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/completed-rulemaking/1210-AB32-2">the whole thing</a> - it's 300 pages or something, it's very awkward, cumbersome. A lot of data has to be kept, a lot of info has to go from the buyer and seller, there's this BIC ["best interest contract"] exemption, so it's very bureaucratic. Because it comes from a bureaucracy, that might be the only way to to do it, but if there are places where the shoe pinches, well, then let's fix it.The SEC also has an opportunity here to write a tighter rule.Levy: Why do you think there has been this pushback against the fiduciary rule? Bogle: Sure, they're worried about the administrative burdens, but second, I think they're worried that the fiduciary rule leads to much more indexing, and they don't want to do indexing. They want to do it at a very high price, which just isn't going to cut it with investors.The whole point of the index fund is to give the investor his or her fair share of what the stock market was generous to give us, or mean enough to take away from us.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsZXv3zGmhA">YouTube / 1957Atlas</a>Clifford Asness</div></div></div>Levy: What do you think of the criticism of indexing, that it leads to too much concentration, overvaluation of stocks?Bogle: There is a lot of concentration. BlackRock is probably doing 40% of the ETF business. We're probably doing 30%, State Street is probably doing 20% or 25%. And that's a lot of concentration.Levy: But what about the concentration in stocks?Bogle: That's not much of a problem because these funds don't trade. The amount that goes into index as a value of the total stock market is not that big. It's not as if the market goes up, the stocks in the fund go up the same way. The turnover in index funds probably runs about 4%.I would also add, when I was beginning in this business in 1951, the <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.TRNR?end=2015&amp;locations=US&amp;start=1975">turnover in the market</a> was around 25% a year, now it's about 200% a year. The market is turning over at [a much higher rate].There will always be active managers who are keeping the market efficient. And if you want to read a really reasoned and well-written piece, there's one about indexing as the ultimate form of capitalism, by Cliff Asness ["<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-02/indexing-is-capitalism-at-its-best">Indexing is capitalism at its best</a>"]. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/us-199-trillion-debt-china-japan-uk-hong-kong-ireland-cayman-islands-treasury-bonds-notes-politics-2016-12">The US is $19.9 trillion in debt - here are the countries we owe the most</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="U4aG40ODE6eNhUKBXTk9_DDbW6tKUEAM" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

You Searched For "tif stock price" and got 4 results

Tiffany sinks 11% after Louis Vuitton-owner LVMH calls off $16 billion takeover deal

Ben Winck

It's Tempting To Freak Out About The Economy As Dollar Tree Shares Surge

Myles Udland

JACK BOGLE: 'Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share'

Rachael Levy

JACK BOGLE: 'Main Street hasn't been taking its fair share'

Rachael Levy

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides