|Bid||0.00 x 1200|
|Ask||0.00 x 900|
|Day's range||115.00 - 126.85|
|52-week range||103.00 - 233.48|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||N/A|
|PE ratio (TTM)||9.81|
|Earnings date||23 Jul 2020 - 27 Jul 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||240.50|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As Donald Trump left India after a largely unsuccessful visit last week, Senator Bernie Sanders, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, expressed himself on the subject with his accustomed vehemence. “Instead of selling $3 billion in weapons to enrich Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed, the United States should be partnering with India to fight climate change,” he tweeted. Sanders added: “We can work together to cut air pollution, create good renewable energy jobs, and save our planet.”Two parts of this tweet deserve attention. We can dispose of the first quickly: By the standards of international defense deals, $3 billion is not a lot, and the U.S. defense industry continues to view India as a missed opportunity. Sanders is turning a fairly low-key sale into something that looks like an unusual, and personal, achievement for Trump.The second and more worrying point is about “partnering with India to fight climate change.” This is a wonderfully warm and fuzzy sentiment. Yet there’s nothing in Sanders’s platform to back it up — in fact, quite the reverse.Sanders’s climate change plan is the most financially ambitious of any of the Democratic candidates. It devotes $16.3 trillion to reshaping the American economy through what the party’s left has come to call a “green New Deal.” That money would be spent on new and renewable energy ($2.5 trillion); energy efficiency subsidies for households and small businesses ($2 trillion); and so on. And, certainly, a reduction in U.S. emissions is vital if we are to keep global temperature rises under control.But the fact is that, if countries like India proceed on a carbon-intensive development path, those efforts would be moot. Any “partnership” with India to address climate change would have to ensure that Indian governments and companies have the finance and technology to build out infrastructure and industries that don’t triple or quadruple their carbon emissions per capita. (Currently, they don’t have access to either the money or the tech.)Does Sanders really want to address that problem? The numbers are stark: Out of the $16.3 trillion he promises for climate change, a mere $200 billion is to go to the Green Climate Fund for developing countries. That’s a tiny fraction (1.2%) of the $90 trillion that the world is expected to invest in infrastructure over the next decade—money that won’t go toward low-carbon, energy-efficient projects without significant steering and incentives. Sanders’s shortchanging of that effort is a reminder that real “partnerships” with countries like India are the last thing on his mind.India and much of Africa will only be set on a low-carbon development path if they have the resources to do so. And the West, and specifically Westerners’ savings, is the only hope for those resources. Clearly, rich-country governments will balk at scooping up these savings and sending them abroad; so we have to incentivize the private sector to do so instead. This could work, especially as the returns on green infrastructure in the emerging world can be quite attractive if properly packaged.Yet Sanders and other proponents of “Green New Deals” want to do the opposite. They want to put those savings to work at home, creating domestic jobs rather than solving the global problem of climate change. To do this they will restrict financial flows if necessary — and, in Sanders’ case, vastly expand the amount of U.S. income and investment controlled by the government. Their concern isn’t really the environment — it is, of course, domestic inequality. The climate crisis is merely a handy excuse for reshaping the economy. Which would be fine, if not for the fact that it’s also, well, a crisis. Greta Thunberg warned about exactly this in her speech to U.S. lawmakers last year: “Of course a sustainable transformed world will include lots of new benefits. But you have to understand. This is not primarily an opportunity to create new green jobs, new businesses or green economic growth. This is above all an emergency, and not just any emergency. This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.”Forcing U.S. savings and profits to stay home instead of putting them to work in the developing world is bad for the environment — and pretty immoral as well if you actually care about inequality, since the U.S. is one of the richest places on earth, the global equivalent of the “one percent.” Donald Trump has been a disaster for the fight against global warming. But Bernie Sanders cannot credibly claim to be a climate warrior, either. When it comes to the environment, as with trade and development, he would mostly leave the rest of the world to struggle alone. So please, just spare us the sanctimonious tweets about weapons and “partnership.”To contact the author of this story: Mihir Sharma at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Gibney at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was a columnist for the Indian Express and the Business Standard, and he is the author of “Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Palantir Technologies Inc. scored another win in Washington Tuesday, securing a contract worth as much as $823 million to provide software to the Department of Defense, according to communications reviewed by Bloomberg.The four-year deal represents more than a decade of work by the Palo Alto, California-based data mining startup to break into the club of existing defense contractors, and bolsters the company’s prospects as it prepares it to go public.The contract is the second half of a larger project. Palantir and Raytheon Co. won the first half of the deal in 2018, worth $876 million. This second part involves Palantir working with BAE Systems to replace the U.S. Army’s Distributed Common Ground System, used for aggregating and analyzing data, which has faced technical challenges. Palantir sued the Army in 2016 to win the right to compete for the new contract after the U.S. Government Accountability Office determined the old system was underperforming and over budget. It is unclear how revenue from the contract will be split between Palantir and BAE Systems. The deal will increase annual sales at Palantir’s government division from its current $500 million or so, according to people familiar with Palantir’s finances who asked not to be identified discussing private information. Investor Peter Thiel co-founded Palantir in 2004, and the company’s software has been used for controversial ends like enabling the immigration deportation policies championed by President Trump, as well as for philanthropic ones like preventing sex trafficking and finding missing children.About half of Palantir’s business relies on deals with large corporate customers like Merck KGaA and Airbus SE, which use the software to manage drug discovery and improve supply chain logistics.The company is exploring both an IPO and a direct listing, but does not yet have a target date for going public, Bloomberg has reported. To contact the author of this story: Lizette Chapman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Anne VanderMey at email@example.com, Alistair BarrFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
RTN vs. AJRD: Which Stock Is the Better Value Option?