Current Events in February 2017

Builders see no letup of demand in the 55+ single-family housing market.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reports its 55+ Housing Market Index (HMI) jumped eight points in the final three months of 2016 to 67. That's the highest reading since the inception of the index in 2008.

An index number above 50 indicates that more builders view conditions as good than poor.

“The significant increase in the index reading is attributed partly to a post-election boost,” said Dennis Cunningham, chairman of NAHB's 55+ Housing Industry Council, “as many builders and developers are encouraged by President Trump’s commitment to cut burdensome regulations that negatively impact small businesses.”

Cunningham says builders and developers in this market segment are also encouraged by the fact that for the next 15 years, 10,000 Baby Boomers will be turning 65 every day. “The consistent pressure of this age group wanting to downsize from a large home, shifting to other regions of the country or just simply looking for a newer home or community also play a key role in the index movement,” he added

Gauging opinion

There are separate 55+ HMIs for two segments of the 55+ housing market: single-family homes and multifamily condominiums.

Each 55+ HMI measures builder sentiment based on a survey that asks if current sales, prospective buyer traffic, and anticipated six-month sales for that market are good, fair, or poor (high, average, or low for traffic).

All three index components of the 55+ single-family HMI were higher. Present sales and expected sales for the next six months posted index-highs, increasing 11 points to 74 and 10 points to 75, respectively, while traffic of prospective buyers added two points to 49.

However, the 55+ multifamily condo HMI fell two points to 46. The index component for present sales fell one point to 50, expected sales for the next six months inched up a point to 52, and traffic of prospective buyers dropped three points to 35.

All four indices tracking production and demand of 55+ multifamily rentals increased in the fourth quarter. Present production rose six points, expected future production increased 11 points, and current demand for existing units and future demand posted index-highs -- jumping 12 points to 71 and 17 points to 76, respectively.

“The strong performance of the 55+ HMI at the end of 2016 is consistent with recent increases in broader measures of the housing market, including new home sales and the NAHB/Wells Fargo HMI,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz. “We expect continued growth in the 55+ market in 2017, although builders in many places will still face challenges in finding adequate supplies of inputs like labor and lots.”

BMW of North America (BMW) is recalling four model year 2016-2017 X1 xDrive28i and X1 sDrive28i vehicles.

The vehicle's instrument panel may not allow the front passenger airbag to deploy properly in the event of a crash, increasing the risk of injury.

What to do

BMW will notify owners, and dealers will replace the instrument panel, free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Owners may contact BMW customer service at 1-800-525-7417.

It's time for financial services companies to call off their paid attack dogs who continue fighting the Department of Labor's "fiduciary" rule, which will require financial advisors who sell IRAs, annuities, and other investment products to act in their client's best interests, consumer groups argue.

Opponents of the rule have decisively lost three court challenges, most recently earlier this week, but continue fighting it through lobbying, legal challenges, and any other means they can dream up.

Consumer groups say the anti-investor campaign has gone far enough, and in a letter today, they ask board members of financial industry trade groups to assert themselves and rein in their lobbyists' efforts. They note that most financial services firms are already deep into the process of implementing the rule, which is intended to safeguard consumers who trust their retirement savings to so-called "financial advisors," who are often little more than glorified insurance salesmen.

Cleaning up abuse by financial advisors is especially important as defined pension benefits, group health plans, and other "safety nets" are shredded and responsibility for retirement, health care, and other essentials is shifted to individual consumers, who are too often talked into high-fee mutual funds, inappropriate annuities, and questionable products like long-term care policies. 

Consumers on their own

The need for higher ethical standards by financial advisors has been recognized for quite some time. Indeed, as the consumer groups state, most major financial services firms -- including stock broker-dealers, certified financial advisors, and insurance companies -- are already far along with implementing the rule and have spent millions of dollars revising their operations.

The trade newsletter InvestmentNews recently quoted Andy Sieg, head of Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, as saying that Merrill will continue to implement a "higher standard of care," especially when it comes to retirement accounts, regardless of what happens with the Department of Labor rule.

“This is consistent with our overall strategic direction and what our clients are asking for,” a Sieg memo stated, as quoted by the newsletter. “Depending on what is announced, we may need to adjust the timelines for certain operational changes we have announced to ensure an orderly transition and a good client experience.”

A memo circulated by Wells-Fargo Advisors said much the same thing, saying that a fiduciary rule is likely to be implemented eventually, even if the current one is derailed, according to InvestmentNews.

“We will continue to move forward with many of the initiatives we have underway, reflecting our ongoing commitment to raising the standard of care we provide our retirement and non-retirement clients,” Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Christine Jockle said in an email.

Time to stand up

The rule simply requires that financial advisors put the client's interest first, ahead of their own profits, something responsible brokers and advisors already do. Now it's time for responsible firms to stand up and declare their willingness to adopt the rule's requirements, according to the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), and the AFL-CIO.

“We believe the public needs to know where individual firms stand. Those opposing the rule are hiding behind their trade associations who are filing lawsuits, pushing legislation, and subverting the regulatory process to delay and kill the rule," the letter asserts. "Firms that support a fiduciary standard for retirement investment advice should not be passive bystanders to their trade associations’ anti-investor activity.”

The letter was sent to board members for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), and the Financial Services Institute (FSI). All three groups were party to the lawsuit that was roundly defeated in Texas earlier this week.

Retirees at risk

Besides the legal challenges and Congressional lobbying activities, Wall Street interests have taken their case to President Trump, who has ordered the Labor Department to take a second look at the rule, possibly leading to its eventual weakening or abolition.

In their letter, CFA, AFR, and AFL-CIO warn: “If successful, this anti-investor campaign would deny retirement savers the reduced costs and improved advice quality they both desperately need and reasonably expect. In short, it would preserve a system that allows firms to put their own profits ahead of their customers’ best interests, with costly and detrimental consequences for the income security of America’s retirees.”

Trade was a major issue that Donald Trump rode to a presidential victory in November. He said trade agreements had placed the U.S. at a sharp disadvantage and had hurt American workers.

Trump's biggest beef appeared to be with Mexico, but the trade relationship with China was also one he pledged to overhaul. As President, Trump has not let up, and the two countries -- huge trading partners -- have traded barbed words ever since.

That's led some on Wall Street to fear a potential trade war, with dire consequences for both businesses and consumers.

On CNBC this week, Timothy Moe, Goldman Sachs co-head of Asia macro-research and chief Asia equity strategist, said China views any U.S. border adjustment tax as a threat because it would have a serious impact on the country's rate of economic growth.

Both sides would take some hits

"We also think that, although the U.S. is more important to China than China is to the U.S., China is still important to the United States," Moe said. "If a conflict did develop, it's not just one side that would be bloodied, both sides would take some hits."

An academic task force led by University of California (UC) San Diego professor Susan Shirk has reached a similar conclusion. The group has provided the Trump administration with a set of policy recommendations for dealing with China on trade.

“We are at a critical moment for our two countries, a moment that calls for our government and the public to reassess and reexamine policy toward China,” Shirk said. “We are confident our recommendations will support a stable relationship that is in American interests and help the U.S. maintain an active, positive presence in the Asia-Pacific.”

Getting in the way of bigger issues

Task force members include Democrats and Republicans, many of whom have served every president since the Nixon administration. Its members warn that contentious trade disputes, while creating economic problems for both countries, threaten to get in the way of bigger issues that require cooperation.

For example, the task force says the U.S. needs China's help in keeping North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions in check.

While increasing tariffs on goods imported from China might bring some benefit to U.S. manufacturing, the gain could be offset by lower exports if China and other countries retaliate with tariffs of their own. Consumers would also pay more for currently-inexpensive goods imported from China.

Meanwhile, President Trump may be extending an olive branch in an effort to lessen tensions. The White House says Trump has written a letter to China's President Xi Jinping, saying he wants to develop “a constructive relationship that benefits both the United States and China.”

Big financial interests want to kill it and the Trump Administration wants to put it on hold, but a federal judge in Dallas has upheld the Labor Department's fiduciary rule, which would require that investment advisors act in the best interests of their clients rather than simply selling them whatever was most profitable or expedient.

In an 81-page ruling, Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, granted summary judgment to the Labor Department, rejecting all of the major arguments put forth by financial interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Institute, the Financial Services Roundtable, and the Insured Retirement Institute.

President Trump, who has been steadily rolling back consumer protection measures, has ordered the Labor Department to take a second look at the rule, which could eventually lead to its being modified or rolled back, but that was unrelated to the proceedings in Dallas.

Financial interests said they were disappointed by the court ruling but are holding out hope that Trump will come through for them.

"This ruling is disappointing but should have no bearing on President Trump's decision to review the fiduciary rule. Both Democrats and Republicans have rightly expressed concern about the devastating effects the fiduciary rule could have on access to investment options and advice for poor and middle-class savers," said John Berlau, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Libertarian think tank in Washington.

The Justice Department had asked for a stay in the Dallas proceedings but Judge Lynn denied the motion only hours after it was filed.

In her ruling, Judge Lynn said the Labor Department did not exceed its authority in promulgating the regulation and said it was "not arbitrary or capricious," as the financial services industry had alleged.

The ruling was the third loss in court for industry challenges to the rule.

Frequently yelling, hitting, or threatening your child with physical consequences could have a negative impact on their behavior at school, a new study has found.

From an analysis of more than 1,000 students, researchers found that kids raised by harsh parents were more likely to find their peer group more important than other responsibilities.

This mindset led them to engage in negative behaviors, including delinquency and early sexual behavior, during adolescence. As a result, children brought up by harsh parents often had lower educational achievement by the age of 21.

"In our study, harsh parenting was related to lower educational attainment through a set of complex cascading processes that emphasised present-oriented behaviours at the cost of future-oriented educational goals," said lead author Rochelle F. Hentges from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania.

Peer validation

Students in the study were followed over the course of nine years, beginning in seventh grade and ending three years after high school graduation.

Researchers found that females raised by harsh parents were more likely to engage in more frequent early sexual behaviour, while males were more likely to turn to hitting and stealing. Both genders were more likely to drop out of high school or college.

Hentges says kids whose needs have not been met by their parents may choose to engage in such behaviors as a way of seeking validation from their peers. Children who rely heavily on their peer group for support may feel that there’s nothing wrong with breaking rules to keep friends.

"This may include turning to peers in unhealthy ways, which may lead to increased aggression and delinquency, as well as early sexual behavior at the expense of long-term goals such as education," she said.

Prevention and intervention programs

Although the study found an association between harsh parenting and poor classroom performance, it didn't prove a cause-and-effect relationship. Still, the authors say interventions could help to improve the educational attainment of students raised by harsh parents. 

Possible interventions could include programs that offer education and help in relation to sexual behavior, delinquency, and unhealthy relationships with peers. Adolescents raised by harsh parents may also benefit from teaching techniques that focus on hands-on learning or group activities, the researchers suggested.

Findings from the study were published recently in the journal Child Development.

Last week, President Trump met at the White House with corporate executives he had invited to advise him on business and economic matters.

In the days leading up to the meeting, one executive -- Uber's Travis Kalanick -- came under heavy pressure from some consumers to withdraw from the group. There was even a #deleteuber campaign on social media, threatening a boycott if he attended the meeting.

The day before the meeting, Kalanick bowed to the consumer pressure and told Trump he would not be part of the group.

Interestingly, however, most of the other executives taking part of the meeting got little or no consumer pushback. The CEOs of IBM and General Motors, for example, took part with no ill consequences.

Why the difference?

So what was the difference? Could it be that Uber's customer base tends to be young, urban, politically liberal, and determined to delegitimize a Trump presidency?

Could it be that these consumers don't really use IBM or GM products very much, don't identify with them, and don't hold these companies to the same standard?

A new Harris Poll suggests there could be something to that. It found that consumers tend to want the values of the companies they patronize to align with their own. Republicans tend to favor Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby for that reason. Democrats tend to look more favorably on Target and Starbucks.

Divided times

"In such divided times, as companies scurry to figure out if and how to respond to the issues and commentary of the new administration, we find that corporate reputation perceptions can be just as polarizing," said Wendy Salomon, vice president of reputation management and public affairs at The Harris Poll.

She says companies that take very public stands for their values are usually rewarded by their customers who have the same values. Starbucks, for example, has been one of the corporations that has spoken out vigorously against Trump's executive order blocking immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries. Apple is another.

Salomon says these companies stand to be rewarded by their like-minded customers, but risk alienating consumers who hold opposite views. But if a company believes its base is overwhelmingly liberal, it is more likely to take a liberal public stand, and vice-versa.

What the poll found

Here's what the poll found: Chick-fil-A scores highest among Republicans than any other company, with Republicans liking it 17.4 points more than Democrats. Target, on the other hand, scores 11.8 points better among Democrats than Republicans.

"Values play a bigger role than ever before in corporate reputation, and the business significance of a company's reputation has never been higher," said Mark J. Penn, managing partner and president of The Stagwell Group LLC, which owns The Harris Poll.

He adds that consumers are now more interested than ever in how companies engage with the world. As the country becomes more polarized, he says he expects businesses will do the same.

Companies from the U.S. and abroad are increasingly choosing to pump up domestic manufacturing efforts and create more jobs to fall in line with President Trump’s proposed regulatory policies.

Last month, Amazon vowed to add 100,000 U.S.-based jobs by mid-2018 by creating additional warehouses in Texas, Florida, California, and New Jersey. It followed that up last week when it announced plans to build a $1.5 billion cargo airline hub in Northern Kentucky. Several South Korean companies have also considered building operations in the U.S. to avoid future import taxes.

Now, after meeting with the President on Wednesday, Intel has announced that it will be building a chip manufacturing plant in Arizona, according to the New York Times. The $7 billion project will reportedly create “approximately 3,000 high-tech, high-wage Intel jobs” in the state.

“The people of Arizona will be very happy. It’s a lot of jobs,” said Trump, stating that Intel had called several weeks ago to coordinate the announcement.

Treading carefully

The move by Intel mirrors what other tech companies are trying to do to stay in line with proposed policy changes under the new administration. While the deal was received amicably by Trump and his staff, Intel has lined up against the new commander-in-chief on other issues.

Intel was one of many companies that signed a legal brief challenging Trump's executive order that sought to ban immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries. CEO Brian Krzanich spoke out against the order online in support of immigration.

“As a company co-founded by an immigrant, we support lawful immigration,” he said in a Twitter post. Similarly, the company has spoken out against Trump’s desire to end free-trade agreements, saying that it cares “about exporting our products all over the world.”

Still, Intel has vowed to take a non-political stance, despite the up-and-down relationship it has developed with Trump since his days on the campaign trail. Executive vice president Stacy J. Smith said that the company will continue to engage with the government. “Intel engages, whatever the administration. We focus on the issues that we care about,” she said in an interview.

And some of those issues that the company cares about seem to fall in line with the Trump agenda. The company has supported proposals that would reduce corporate taxes and regulations, after all.

Creating the “most powerful computer chips”

But whatever the stance, the new chip factory that Intel proposed could be a boon to the economy. The project was undertaken in 2011, but it stymied in 2014 after sales of personal computers that used its chips began to slip.

However, the company’s new focus on internet-connected devices, cars, and tablets have resulted in growing sales. The new factory will be used to create ultradense chips that are faster and more energy-efficient – products that Krzanich says are “the most powerful computer chips on the planet.”

“Intel is a global manufacturing and technology company, yet we think of ourselves as a leading American innovation enterprise. America has a unique combination of talent, a vibrant business environment and access to global markets, which has enabled U.S. companies like Intel to foster economic growth and innovation,” the CEO said in a company statement.

Customer values can often change the way a company does business, and no one knows that better than ALDI. Last year, the grocery store chain began catering to health-conscious shoppers by offering more organic food options, which led some to speculate that it was trying to take on competitor Whole Foods.

While the jury is still out on that point, the retailer has continued trying to improve its stores to appeal to young, frugal shoppers. In an announcement made on Wednesday, it stated that it will be investing $1.6 billion to remodel and expand over 1,300 U.S. stores by 2020.

“The new ALDI store look delivers on its customers’ desire for a modern and convenient shopping experience with a focus on fresh items, including more robust produce, dairy and bakery sections,” the company said.

Making upgrades

The company stated that the remodeled stores will feature a modern design that includes open ceilings and more natural lighting. The materials used to remodel the stores will be made from recycled and environmentally-friendly building materials.

In addition to the revamped aesthetic, CEO Jason Hart says that ALDI will also be improving its products to make them more natural, without creating additional costs for shoppers.

“We’ve also made a number of improvements to our products – such as removing added MSG, certified synthetic colors and partially hydrogenated oils from all our ALDI exclusive brand foods. But the one thing that hasn’t changed is that our customers still save money on the groceries they buy most,” he said.

Serious contender

ALDI currently operates in 35 states in the U.S., and boasts that it serves over 40 million customers each month. The chain has grown by 60% since 2013, and with its focus on low prices and organic foods, it stands to be a serious contender for consumers’ grocery dollars.

The company plans to open 650 new stores in the near future, and states that it will operate nearly 2,000 stores in the U.S. by the end of 2018.

“ALDI customers know we stand out from our competitors for a reason: we offer high-quality affordable food that they can feel good about serving their families. Our unmatched combination of exceptional quality and everyday low prices is why we’re one of the fastest growing retailers in the US,” said Hart.

“With this significant investment in our stores, what we’re really doing is continuing to invest in ALDI customers,” the CEO concluded.

Confession time. I throw plastic into the garbage.

What? Don’t you recycle plastic?

No. I most certainly do not. You see, I care about the environment.

Coming soon to an alternative theatre near you, the eco-documentary "Midway" invites you to take a journey “across an ocean of grief, and beyond.” Sea birds die agonizing deaths after ingesting bits of plastic that collect in gigantic oceanic whirlpools called gyres. For years this has prompted environmentalists to ask, “Do we have the courage to face the realities of our time?”

Before we get to that reality, can I first ask, is there a shortage of sea birds I’m not aware of? There must be billions of them along the coastlines of the United States alone. But all right… I don’t want animals to suffer. And besides, the plastic debris is also fatal to fish. So, here’s the reality.

The notion that recycling plastic will prevent sea birds from dying is false. It turns out recycling is the source of the problem here, not the solution.

Trash discarded into landfills is perfectly safe, buried under layer upon layer of tons of soil. Very little plastic trash escapes a landfill, thus protecting sea birds everywhere. And besides, plastic originates in the soil from fossilized plants, so it’s best to put it right back in the soil when we’re done with it.

By contrast, there are many points in the recycling process where recyclables escape into the environment, beginning right at your curbside, followed by the sorely imperfect processes of transportation, handling, and storage, all of which occurs outdoors since it would be extremely cost-ineffective to handle and store plastic trash indoors. It’s just trash, after all.

Wind blows plastic trash for miles, literally… into waterways and hence right into the world’s oceans. Then there’s the biggest breakdown in the whole recycling system. Fraud.

Since it does not pay to recycle most materials, especially plastics, subsidies keep the nation’s “green” recycling systems running every step of the way. And once such “green” subsidies are paid, is it such a leap to imagine the odd recycling tycoon choosing to avoid the expense of actually recycling all the plastic he receives? Government inspectors aren’t going to check. What would they check for? A few hundred tons of plastic missing out of thousands of tons? It’s not as if recyclable material is traceable; it’s not labelled.

Of course, if a recycler dumps a few tons of plastic into the ocean every now and then, he’ll have less recycled plastic to sell. But subsidies are paid to move plastic INTO recycling facilities, while the amount leaving is left to the whims of the open market. Meanwhile, the raw material from which new plastic is made, fossilized plants, also known as oil, costs ten times LESS than the actual expense of recycling used plastic! So, who in his right mind is bothering to pay anything close to the production cost for recycled plastic anyway?

The more plastic a recycler recycles, the more money he’s losing.

As long as the public sees government officials supporting the recycling industry, most of us remain blissfully ignorant in the belief that millions upon millions of tons of plastic are being chipped-up, melted down, and made into new plastic products somewhere by someone. It MUST be true, because recycling is good! The result, we assume, is a bit less plastic in our landfills, but the reality is more plastic in the ocean.

And for those who refuse to believe there’s fraud in the sacrosanct recycling industry, the fact remains that nothing escapes a landfill. Nothing, except maybe a few plastic bags here and there, but certainly not any of the heavy plastic bits found in the carcasses of dead sea birds.

And besides… what are all those millions of birds that live off our nation’s landfills? Oh yeah… sea birds.

Landfills are the solution here, not the problem.

---

Mischa Popoff is a Policy Advisor at The Heartland Institute, and is the author of "Is it Organic? The inside story of the organic industry."

Steve Forbes is no stranger to either economics or politics. His name is associated with one of America's preeminent business publications. He sought the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000.

So it turns out Forbes has some definite ideas about his party's proposed border adjustment tax, which he shared during an appearance on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"It's insane," Forbes said.

He points out a number of problems with the tax, but says first and foremost that it will end up punishing consumers to the tune of $100 billion a year. It's not a direct tax on consumers, but Forbes said it will make things imported into the U.S. more expensive; since the companies aren't going to absorb the tax, they're going to add it to the price of goods.

'Punish American consumers'

"So the Republicans are now proposing this crazy tax, they're going to punish American consumers over $100 billion a year, give subsidies to Boeing and GE, so we're going to help foreign consumers in China and Iran but punish American consumers. It's insane!"

Forbes points out such a tax would hurt middle class consumers the most, the very people who voted for Donald Trump. Bad economics and bad politics, he said.

Backers of the border tax say it's part of an overall package to reform corporate taxes, lowering the rate businesses pay. They say the result would be a stronger dollar, meaning importers wouldn't have to raise prices, or if they did it wouldn't be my much.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has not firmly committed to the idea, with White House officials saying a wide range of economic options are still being considered.

How a border tax would work

Under a border adjustment tax, U.S. companies would not be able to write off the cost of imported goods, which would make those goods more expensive and reduce the incentive to import them. At the same time, they would pay no taxes on the goods they export to other countries.

Republicans in Congress initially embraced the idea because of the money it would raise, which could be used to offset the losses in revenue from cutting the corporate tax rate.

Late last week, Business Insider reported that some GOP lawmakers have begun walking back their enthusiastic support for the border tax, worried that it could harm specific industries. U.S. retailers, oil refiners, and auto manufacturers are among the industries that have spoken up against it.

A magazine subscription service that allegedly tricked consumers into signing up for expensive subscriptions has been ordered to pay more than $23 million by a Nevada federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ordered Publishers Business Services and six other defendants to pay the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) $23,773,147.78 for unfair and deceptive trade practices while selling magazine subscriptions, Courthouse News Service reported.

Testimony in the case indicated that Publishers Business Services placed more than 25 million calls to consumers and told them they would get a "surprise" for participating in a survey.

“The surprise was that the defendants were selling the consumer magazine subscriptions,” Judge Gordon wrote in his 13-page ruling.

Gordon said fast-talking telemarketers gave consumers the impression that they would get free magazines, paying only a shipping and handling fee when in fact they were agreeing to pay hundreds of dollars in subscription fees.

The FTC filed its initial lawsuit in 2008, and a federal court found in the FTC’s favor in 2011. The $23 million figure was “based on the presumption that all first-time orders were made in reliance on the deceptive practices,” Judge Gordon's ruling said.

Publishers argued the federal court does not possess the authority to award financial damages and said the FTC had not proven the company's revenues were the result of widespread deception, but in his ruling, Gordon said “evidence showed consumers were confused about the transaction.” 

Gordon said the FTC proved Publishers made widely disseminated material misrepresentations, and people bought the products. He also turned aside the argument that some consumers were happy with their magazines.

A Washington State judge has ordered the makers of 5-hour Energy to pay nearly $4.3 million in penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs for multiple violations of the state Consumer Protection Act.

“The makers of 5-hour Energy broke the law in pursuit of profit, and now they are paying for it,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said.

Ferguson filed a lawsuit against the companies in 2014, alleging violations of the state Consumer Protection Act. After a three-week trial last September, Judge Beth Andrus ruled in the state’s favor, finding that claims in the companies’ advertising were deceptive.

The deceptive claims — that the popular flavored energy shots are superior to coffee, that doctors recommend 5-hour Energy, and that its decaffeinated formula provides energy, alertness, and focus that lasts for hours — appeared in press releases, on the internet, and in thousands of print and broadcast ads.

"Scant evidence"

In a ruling issued late Tuesday, Judge Andrus ordered defendants Living Essentials LLC and Innovation Ventures LLC to pay nearly $2.2 million in civil penalties for violations of the Consumer Protection Act, as well as $2.1 million in costs.

“Defendants spent more time trying to justify the science behind their ads after-the-fact than they did before marketing the products in Washington,” Judge Andrus wrote in her Tuesday order. “The Court was struck by the fact that Defendants presented no testimony from a single scientist actually involved in developing the contents of this product.”

“There was scant evidence as to what science anyone at Living Essentials had ever seen or relied on before it began to sell this product,” she continued.

The penalties and fees ordered Tuesday include more than $64,000 in sanctions against Living Essentials and Innovation Ventures for “willful” discovery violations in the lead-up to the September trial. Andrus ruled that the defendants improperly “cherry-picked” the documents they produced to the Attorney General’s Office, impeding the ability of the Attorney General’s Office to prepare for trial.

Working late at night can be a daunting task, and there aren’t many out there who relish heavy lifting and manual labor. Now a new study shows that women who want to have children should avoid both.

Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health have found that women who lift heavy loads or work non-daytime work schedules are at risk of decreased fertility.

“Our study suggests that women who are planning pregnancy should be cognizant of the potential negative impacts that non-day shift and heavy lifting could have on their reproductive health,” said lead author Lidia Minguez-Alarcón.

Work and fertility

To come to their conclusions, the researchers studied approximately 500 women who sought out infertility treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2004 and 2015. Due to similar natures, each subject was able to be analyzed by biomarkers related to fertility that are normally unmeasurable in women who can conceive naturally.

After collecting the data, Minguez-Alarcón and her colleagues evaluated the associations between the biomarkers and the physical demands and schedules of each woman’s job. They found that, on average, women who moved or lifted heavy loads at work had 8.8% fewer eggs and 14.1% fewer mature eggs compared to women who did not lift heavy objects, indicating that the activity negatively affected fertility.

Additionally, the researchers found that women had fewer eggs if they worked at night or had a rotating schedule.

Solving the problem

While the researchers aren’t sure what the exact cause is behind the relationship, they found that women who were obese or over the age of 37 were much more likely to have fewer eggs if they lifted heavy loads. However, they have speculated that working non-day shifts could negatively affect egg production because of disruptions to circadian rhythm.

While the study does corroborate some findings from past studies, it is the first to concretely tie egg production and quality to working conditions rather than ovarian age. The researchers hope that their findings will lead to future solutions to the problem.

“Future work. . . is needed to determine whether egg production and quality can be improved, and if so, how quickly, if these exposures are avoided,” said research associate Audrey Gaskins.

The full study has been published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

A number of recent surveys have found anxiety among Baby Boomers about retirement, primarily concerns about not having enough money.

The NHP Foundation, a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing, has drilled a little deeper into those concerns. It says a poll of Americans aged 55 and older found the cost of putting a roof over their heads is a major issue.

The survey found 30% of Boomers worry at least once a month that they won't be able to afford their home. About 42% of retired people in the survey say they worry about it at least once a day.

While Millennials are known to have housing anxiety, caught between high rent and rising home prices, Boomers were thought to be more housing secure. But it turns out many Boomers who don't worry about their own housing costs do worry about those of their adult children.

Multi-generational anxiety

"The anxiety is now multi-generational," said NHPF CEO Richard Burns. "So we are working today to increase our stock of affordable housing to ensure that this and future generations are able to afford desirable places to live."

Previous NHP surveys have uncovered other concerns about housing affordability. One discovered that up to 75% of the U.S. population is worried at any given moment about losing their home. One that focused exclusively on Millennials found 76% of the younger generation had made compromises to secure affordable housing.

"These findings underscore the urgency to make housing affordability solutions a priority in America, especially for those most vulnerable," said Ali Solis, President and CEO of MakeRoom, a national renter's advocacy group.

As you might expect, there are geographical differences in the level of housing worries. There is less concern in the Midwest, where real estate prices are lower. There's more concern in the South, where incomes are lower, and in the Northeast, where real estate is more expensive.