tiny fishing
Chase Artopoeus has two TD passes, TD run as Chattanooga tops Austin Peay 24-17 in season finaleNEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 12, 2024-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) today announced that its board of directors declared an increase in the quarterly cash dividend on the company’s common stock to $0.43 for the first-quarter 2025 dividend, payable March 7, 2025, to holders of the Common Stock of record at the close of business on January 24, 2025. The first-quarter 2025 cash dividend will be the 345th consecutive quarterly dividend paid by Pfizer. “Our decision to increase our quarterly dividend underscores our strong financial performance, disciplined execution and our commitment to returning value to our shareholders,” said Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. At Pfizer, we apply science and our global resources to bring therapies to people that extend and significantly improve their lives. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacture of health care products, including innovative medicines and vaccines. Every day, Pfizer colleagues work across developed and emerging markets to advance wellness, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as one of the world's premier innovative biopharmaceutical companies, we collaborate with health care providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable health care around the world. For 175 years, we have worked to make a difference for all who rely on us. We routinely post information that may be important to investors on our website at In addition, to learn more, please visit us on and follow us on X at and and like us on Facebook at Category: Finance View source version on : CONTACT: Media Contact: +1 (212) 733-1226Investor Contact: +1 (212) 733-4848 KEYWORD: NEW YORK UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BIOTECHNOLOGY FDA HEALTH PHARMACEUTICAL CLINICAL TRIALS SOURCE: Pfizer Inc Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/12/2024 05:25 PM/DISC: 12/12/2024 05:25 PM
HP reports soft Q1 guidance; shares tumble in afterhours tradingThe Texas Chain Saw Massacre's recently released 50th Anniversary Collector's Edition is on sale at Amazon. The unique box set comes with the 2023 asymmetric multiplayer game and the 4K Blu-ray edition of the 1974 horror masterpiece. The commemorative collection also includes a cool steelbook case and a pack of trading cards featuring characters from the game. Released in October for $100, you can now get the Xbox Series X version for $72.89 , and the PS5 edition is $87. Xbox Series X -- $72.89 ( $100 ) PS5 -- $87 ( $100 ) The steelbook case features exclusive artwork by renowned artist Gary Pullin, who is known for illustrating a substantial number of posters, covers, and other promotional materials for iconic horror films. The collectible trading cards have a fittingly classic look. The set also comes with 13 DLC add-ons for the game, including two additional playable characters. Our Texas Chain Saw Massacre review gave the 2023 game an impressive 9/10, praising it for its intricate map design and rewarding gameplay that pushes you to experiment with your play style. "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre plays, looks, and sounds like its team holds the source material in the highest regard," wrote critic Mark Delaney. "Faithfully transposing the film's signature terror into a modern multiplayer game is a feat on both ends. As one of the year's scariest and best-designed experiences, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has reset the bar for multiplayer horror games." While this is a cool collection for fans of the game and the original movie, if you're only looking to own the movie, you can instead pick up The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 4K Steelbook for $33 (down from $55) at Amazon. This is essentially the same version of the film bundled in with the 50th Anniversary Collection, though the steelbook isn't as cool. However, the 40th Anniversary Black Maria Limited Edition is pretty darn cool, as the 4K and 1080p discs are housed in a replica of the Black Maria semi-truck from the movie. Remarkably, it's still in stock, and Amazon has discounted this five-disc set to $67 (was $100).
Coconino boys basketball cruises in opener, trouncing Tempe at home
PNC Financial Services Group Inc. Sells 15,873 Shares of Monster Beverage Co. (NASDAQ:MNST)Ipswich: Ed Sheeran helps sign player before performing with Taylor Swift
n recent years, major new studies have tried to rehabilitate the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who died on Dec. 29 at age 100. They’ve emphasized a range of underappreciated accomplishments in everything from foreign policy to environmental protection and racial equity. These accounts still acknowledge Carter’s failures but balance them with a longer-term perspective on how his presidency changed the United States and the world. This positive reappraisal, however, hasn’t extended to . This makes sense considering how devastating the battle over health care was to Carter during his presidency. Congress rejected his major health care policy initiatives, and his grudging support for a much more limited national health insurance plan in part spurred Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to challenge the incumbent Carter from the left in the 1980 Democratic presidential primary. Yet Carter’s health care record deserves a more nuanced evaluation. More than any other modern president, he took on the health care industry, as well as his own allies, by attempting to address the high costs of American health care. And his health care proposals pushed his party toward the policy strategies that eventually produced the landmark Affordable Care Act in 2010. Carter’s willingness to tackle the politically perilous task of offers a template for the kind of leadership and focus needed to address the health care system’s enduring flaws in 2024. Carter entered office at a moment when health care spending was skyrocketing. Between 1970 and January 1977, total national health expenditures had more than doubled, from $74 billion to $152 billion. As a percentage of gross domestic product, health care spending had risen from 6.9% to 8.1%. Much of this increase stemmed from the enactment of Medicare in 1965, with its generous . These formulas not only raised direct costs, but, critically, also allowed hospitals to generate new revenue streams that enabled them both to build capital reserves and take on debt by entering the bond markets. Hospitals in turn used this access to capital to build new facilities, renovate old ones and add sophisticated new equipment. This created a cost spiral as hospitals competed with one another on facilities and technology, rather than affordability. Carter tried to duck the issue of health care policy in the 1976 Democratic primary, but exploding prices, along with continued interest in national health insurance on the left flank of the Democratic Party, made that impossible. After Carter’s victory in the Florida primary in March 1976, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) union demanded that he endorse national health insurance as a condition for receiving its critical endorsement. As an outsider from Georgia, Carter needed the union’s support. So after extended negotiations, he agreed to satisfy the UAW’s demand in an April 1976 speech. Even then, however, Carter refrained from backing Kennedy’s “Health Security Bill”—which offered complete single-payer public health coverage with no cost sharing and no role for private insurers—despite all of his main rivals for the Democratic nomination endorsing it. Instead, he described the general principles of a program that would be introduced in phases. Carter envisioned relying on private as well as public insurance, and his plan included checks on both hospital and physician fees to control costs. Carter also tied his program, in some unspecified way, to reductions to welfare. Since the union wanted to maintain influence if Carter won, this proposal was enough to secure its support. Carter went on to win the nomination and the election in 1976. As the president-elect and his team evaluated their priorities, concerns about the federal budget deficit and rising inflation took precedence over his campaign promise on health insurance. They decided to focus on hospital costs instead. As later put it, they couldn’t “even begin talking about affording a national health insurance program if hospital costs had an unlimited straw into the Federal Treasury.” Kennedy and other supporters of a deferred to the new president—but they were unhappy about it. They agreed about the need to control costs, but believed the two goals could be pursued simultaneously. By April 1977, the Carter team had drafted an innovative, two-part hospital cost containment proposal. The first part capped total hospital revenue growth at nine percent annually, with limited exceptions, achieved through a limit on average revenue per admission. The second part of the Carter bill audaciously proposed limiting total annual hospital capital expenditures to $2.5 billion nationally. This would cut spending for new facilities, and thus was key to slowing the rapid growth of the hospital sector. Together, the two prongs had the potential to be as transformative as Kennedy’s “Health Security Bill” because of the way they challenged unchecked hospital expansion and cost increases. The proposal triggered a brutal war. The industry organized an aggressive local lobbying campaign against the bill while implementing a much-hyped “voluntary effort” to control costs. , Carter’s special assistant for public liaison, explained that every local hospital board included "the president of the bank, the president of whatever local community organizations there were, the leading lights in all the religious organizations in town and so forth.” The hospitals’ powerful allies meant that Carter had lost public opinion, “before we ever got going.” Congress voted down Carter’s proposal multiple times between 1977 and 1979, dealing what he considered to be a crucial blow against his domestic agenda. Meanwhile, a frustrated Kennedy pressed the president to announce a national health insurance plan before the 1978 midterm elections. Carter recognized, however, that Kennedy had no support from moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress and pushed to defer release of a specific plan until the following year. Kennedy grudgingly agreed, but at the midterm Democratic convention that December, he savaged Carter’s inaction. Finally, in June 1979, Carter released a plan for the first phase of a program to achieve universal coverage. It relied on both public and private insurance to cover “catastrophic” medical costs, and it proposed federalizing Medicaid by combining it with Medicare into a new federal program known as “Healthcare.” This would have eliminated the state-to-state variations that made Medicaid an inconsistent and unequal vehicle for insuring low-income Americans. While covering all expenses for the poor, Healthcare had a $1250 deductible ($5151 in 2023 dollars) for higher income recipients. In addition, the Carter plan retained employer-provided private insurance with a mandate that employers offer at least catastrophic coverage for their workers for costs above a deductible of $2500. On the cost control side, the bill limited hospital capital expenditures and added a new system of physician fee controls. More comprehensive coverage, the administration argued, could be added as economic conditions allowed. Kennedy balked at the skimpy benefits, understanding that Congress could not be relied on to regularly expand coverage. Even so, Carter’s vision influenced him. Kennedy’s own proposal began to include public and private elements, including an employer mandate and a requirement that insurance companies provide marketing and administrative services for the plan’s public elements. It also included an annual national health budget to control costs. Neither bill made any real progress in Congress, and Kennedy’s frustrations fueled his decision to challenge Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. Despite the political damage done by Carter’s twin defeats on health care, he achieved two major things. First, he recognized the burgeoning cost control problems in the American health care system. His proposal, if passed, would have laid the foundation for a more cost effective and equal system. He understood that such hospital cost containment was a prerequisite for achieving universal coverage. Second, Carter changed the terms of the health care debate for Democrats. No longer would they push universal federally provided insurance like Kennedy’s proposal from the early 1970s had done. Instead, Bill Clinton (unsuccessfully) and eventually Barack Obama in his signature bill in 2010 both embraced a mixture of public and private health insurance that built on Carter’s legacy. Its debatable whether this shift was positive, but it marked a key step toward our current system. The other element of Carter’s health care agenda—the critical but politically perilous problem of high costs—remains largely unaddressed. While President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act took important steps to control the costs of prescription drugs, those only account for nine percent of healthcare costs. Also under Biden, the Federal Trade Commission has increased its scrutiny of both horizontal and vertical hospital mergers, but this has had limited effects and is largely after-the-fact, as the industry has already undergone significant consolidation. Unlike Carter, Biden has not pursued the direct regulation of costs stemming from hospitals, physicians, and clinical services, despite them accounting for 51 percent of health care costs. With cost problems still plaguing Americans in 2023, Carter has proved right on health care. While he couldn’t bend Congress to his will, his hospital spending caps could have prevented many of the challenges we continue to confront. The question now is whether today’s political leaders have the courage to follow his lead. ,Another prominent UFC fighter has publicly complained after he was dealt a raw hand by having his opponent pull out at the last minute, being unable to procure a replacement due to NYSAC interference, and the UFC not paying him his show money – or any money. Chris Weidman, who was scheduled to face Eryk Anders at UFC 309, is coincidentally the brother-in-law of Stephen ‘Wonderboy’ Thompson, who also got in the news for this in 2023 after Michel Pereira missed weight for their UFC 291 bout. Weidman in fact stated that he believes Thompson got some money from the promotion, but not his full purse. Now, the former defending middleweight champion has expressed the same concerns on The Ariel Helwani Show “I showed up, you guys had that on the budget sheet to begin with, you guys had a great night, why do you keep that money and I dont?” Chris did a lot more than show up. Fighters have to go through a several-week-long training camp (which is not cheap), media obligations every day during fight week, and all the while have to starve and dehydrate themselves to cut weight. To not be compensated at all for that is harsh. Weidman says the UFC’s excuse was, “Their thoughts were, ‘Listen, this happens on like 40% of the cards, and if we paid people to not fight...’ they just want to be consistent.’” The problem with that is simple; what exactly would happen if you paid people to not fight? If this happens once on 40% of cards, that is only about ten fights per year where they would have to pay a fighter their show money. According to Chris, that is their own figure. The Ultimate Fighting Championship is worth $12 billion and has yearly revenues in excess of $1 billion since 2022 . For 2023 that number was $1.3 billion , according to the latest figures, but fighters are only paid 13% now . If they paid approximately ten fighters a year their show money for an opponent pulling out at the last minute, i.e. after the weigh-ins, then the UFC would be out no more than a million dollars a year, unless all ten were veterans with large purses. Chris Weidman has put his blood, sweat, and tears into this company, has had his shin snapped in half in the UFC octagon. He has been a loyal company man and will have health issues from MMA that last his entire life. Yet improving the revenue share to 14% is apparently beyond the pale, as is the UFC treating some of their own longest-tenured fighters fairly. Chris Weidman deserves his contracted UFC 309 ‘show’ money after Eryk Anders had to pull out just hours before their fight. “My show money is my win money. I have guaranteed money. So that was my point—like, I showed up, you guys had that on the budget sheet to begin with, you... pic.twitter.com/7pf1ifIlPe
Tecnoglass Inc. ( NASDAQ:TGLS – Get Free Report ) declared a quarterly dividend on Wednesday, December 11th, NASDAQ Dividends reports. Shareholders of record on Tuesday, December 31st will be given a dividend of 0.15 per share on Friday, January 31st. This represents a $0.60 annualized dividend and a yield of 0.73%. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Tuesday, December 31st. This is a boost from Tecnoglass’s previous quarterly dividend of $0.11. Tecnoglass has raised its dividend by an average of 48.5% annually over the last three years. Tecnoglass has a payout ratio of 14.0% indicating that its dividend is sufficiently covered by earnings. Research analysts expect Tecnoglass to earn $4.19 per share next year, which means the company should continue to be able to cover its $0.60 annual dividend with an expected future payout ratio of 14.3%. Tecnoglass Price Performance TGLS opened at $82.04 on Friday. The firm has a market capitalization of $3.86 billion, a P/E ratio of 25.64 and a beta of 1.89. The stock has a fifty day moving average of $77.01 and a 200-day moving average of $64.92. The company has a quick ratio of 1.63, a current ratio of 2.21 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.20. Tecnoglass has a 12-month low of $40.94 and a 12-month high of $86.08. Insiders Place Their Bets In related news, Director Julio A. Torres sold 30,520 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction on Tuesday, November 12th. The shares were sold at an average price of $72.83, for a total transaction of $2,222,771.60. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through this link . Also, major shareholder Holding Corp Energy sold 1,432,120 shares of Tecnoglass stock in a transaction on Tuesday, November 12th. The stock was sold at an average price of $73.02, for a total transaction of $104,573,402.40. Following the completion of the transaction, the insider now owns 23,195,988 shares in the company, valued at $1,693,771,043.76. This trade represents a 5.81 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . Insiders own 0.25% of the company’s stock. Analyst Ratings Changes Several research firms have weighed in on TGLS. StockNews.com began coverage on shares of Tecnoglass in a research note on Saturday, December 14th. They issued a “hold” rating on the stock. Robert W. Baird increased their price objective on Tecnoglass from $85.00 to $88.00 and gave the stock an “outperform” rating in a report on Friday, November 8th. Raymond James downgraded Tecnoglass from a “strong-buy” rating to a “market perform” rating in a research note on Tuesday, October 22nd. B. Riley reaffirmed a “neutral” rating and set a $72.00 price target (up from $69.00) on shares of Tecnoglass in a research note on Thursday, October 10th. Finally, DA Davidson boosted their price target on Tecnoglass from $65.00 to $90.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Tuesday, November 12th. Five analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the stock. Based on data from MarketBeat.com, Tecnoglass presently has an average rating of “Hold” and a consensus target price of $77.40. Read Our Latest Report on TGLS Tecnoglass Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) Tecnoglass Inc manufactures, supplies, and installs architectural glass, windows, and associated aluminum and vinyl products for commercial and residential construction markets in Colombia, the United States, Panama, and internationally. The company provides low emissivity, laminated/thermo-laminated, thermo-acoustic, tempered, silk-screened, curved, and digital print glass products. Further Reading Receive News & Ratings for Tecnoglass Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Tecnoglass and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .No. 24 Arizona is coming off consecutive defeats for the first time in the Tommy Lloyd era when it faces undefeated Davidson on Wednesday to begin the Battle 4 Atlantis in Paradise Island, Bahamas. Arizona (2-2) lost at Wisconsin 103-88 on Nov. 15 and followed that with a home loss against Duke 69-55 on Friday. The Wildcats have dropped 15 spots in the Associated Press Top 25 poll in two weeks. Arizona's record is .500 this early in a season for the first time since it was 3-3 to start the 2017-18 schedule. "I've got work to do, so let's get to work," said Lloyd, in his fourth year as Arizona's head coach. "Let's see where we're at in a month, and if we're still struggling, you know what I'll do? I still got work to do, but I'm gonna get to it." Arizona shot 39.6 percent from the field against Duke, and just 26.1 percent (6 of 23) from 3-point range. The Wildcats were outrebounded by 43-30 and their 15 turnovers led to 19 points. Jaden Bradley led Arizona with 18 points and KJ Lewis added 12. Preseason All-American Caleb Love had eight points on 3-of-13 shooting from the field, including 1-of-9 from 3-point range. Arizona made only one field goal in the last 5:39 as Duke pulled away after its lead was trimmed to six points. "We didn't play great," Lloyd said. "Now we need to take a step back and figure out why. Are there some schematic problems? Are there some problems with how our personnel is kind of put together? "We got to figure out what our certainties are, and the things we have to have, and then over the course of the next couple of days, if there's adjustments we need to make, we need to figure out what those are." Davidson is 4-0 after a 15-17 record last season, in which it lost its last six games to put an end to postseason hopes. A 93-66 win over visiting VMI on Friday followed a 91-85 win at Bowling Green and 76-70 victory over visiting East Tennessee State. The two wins by 10 points or fewer are important because Davidson was 6-12 in such games last season. It was 4-11 in games decided by five points or fewer. "The goal (is) to get better," Davidson head coach Matt McKillop said after the season opener. "We talk about fighting to win every possession. I think we had to figure out what that really felt like with the lights on." Davidson made 13 shots from 3-point range in the win over VMI. Reed Bailey had 23 points, eight rebounds and six assists. Bobby Durkin added 19 points, including 17 of them and a career-best five 3-pointers in the first half. Bailey leads Davidson in scoring (19 points per game) and rebounding (7.8). Durkin is shooting 57.9 percent (22 of 38) from the field and 54.2 percent (13 of 24) from 3-point range. By contrast, Arizona's Love is shooting 32 percent (16 of 50) from the field and 21.4 percent (6 of 28) from beyond the arc. Bradley leads Arizona with 15.5 points per game. He is shooting 50 percent (24 of 48) from the field and is 35.7 percent (5 of 14) from 3-point range. --Field Level Media