Trailblazing Pathways to Success Scholarships Now Available
'This is a fantastic way to kick off our year of big, bold actions to welcome the next generation of appraisers to the profession,' said The Appraisal Foundation President Kelly Davids. 'Today fulfills a long-held dream for our organization to financially support those committed to joining the ranks of our nation's appraisers. We will continue to advance impactful steps that build public trust and advance excellence in the appraiser workforce.'
You can access the application on the Appraisal Institute's Appraiser Diversity Initiative. Click here to visit the site.
The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), familial status, or disability. The Act also makes it unlawful to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of their having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted or protected by the Act. If you believe you have experienced discrimination, you have the right to file a complaint with HUD by phone at 1-800-669-9777 or online at https://www.hud.gov/fairhousing/fileacomplaint.
Background: The Appraisal Foundation is the nation's foremost authority on the valuation profession. The organization sets the Congressionally-authorized standards and qualifications for real estate appraisers, and provides voluntary guidance on recognized valuation methods and techniques for all valuation professionals. This work advances the profession by ensuring appraisals are independent, consistent, and objective. More information on The Appraisal Foundation is available at www.appraisalfoundation.org.
Media Contact:
direct phone 202.624.3048
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Deeply concerned' over India press censorship, says X as accounts blocked
X says it is 'deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India' after New Delhi ordered the social media platform to block more than 2,300 accounts, including two Reuters news agency handles. X restored the Reuters News account in India on Sunday, a day after it said it was asked by the Indian government to suspend it, citing a legal demand. Many other blocked accounts were also restored, with New Delhi denying its role in the takedown. In a post on Tuesday, X, promoted by billionaire Elon Musk, said the Indian government on July 3 ordered it to block 2,355 accounts in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act. 'Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action – within one hour – without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice,' X said. 'After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld.' A spokesperson for India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said the government did not issue 'any fresh blocking order' on July 3 and had 'no intention to block any prominent international news channels', including Reuters and Reuters World, according to a post on X by ANI news agency, Reuters' partner in India. 'The moment Reuters and Reuters World were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to X to unblock them,' the post said. 'The government continuously engaged and vigorously pursued with X from the late night of July 5, 2025.' The spokesperson said X had 'unnecessarily exploited technicalities involved around the process and didn't unblock' the accounts. India's IT law, passed in 2000, allows designated government officials to demand the takedown of content from social media platforms they deem to violate local laws, including on the grounds of national security or if a post threatens public order. X, formerly known as Twitter, has long been at odds with India's government over content-removal requests. In March, the company sued the federal government over a new government website the company says expands takedown powers to 'countless' government officials. The case is continuing. India, the world's biggest democracy, regularly ranks among the top five countries for the number of requests made by a government to remove social media content. Rights groups say freedom of expression and free press is under threat in India since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014. New Delhi has regularly imposed blanket internet shutdowns during periods of unrest. In April, the government launched a sweeping crackdown on social media, banning more than a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly spreading 'provocative' content following an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. Many of those have been restored. New Delhi has also imposed intermittent internet outages in the northeastern state of Manipur since 2023 in the wake of ethnic violence. The government has justified internet and social media bans as ways to curb disinformation in a country where hundreds of millions have access to some of the cheapest mobile internet rates in the world. In its post on Tuesday, X said it was exploring all legal options available over censorship, but added that it was 'restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges'. 'We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts,' it said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
MidCap Financial Investment Corporation Schedules Earnings Release and Conference Call for Quarter Ended June 30, 2025
NEW YORK, July 08, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- MidCap Financial Investment Corporation (NASDAQ: MFIC) (the 'Company') announced today that it will report results for the quarter ended June 30, 2025, after the closing of the Nasdaq Global Select Market on Monday, August 11, 2025. The Company will also host a conference call on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. All interested parties are welcome to participate in the conference call by dialing (800) 225-9448 approximately 5-10 minutes prior to the call; international callers should dial (203) 518-9708. Participants should reference either MidCap Financial Investment Corporation Earnings or Conference ID: MFIC0812 when prompted. A simultaneous webcast of the conference call will be available to the public on a listen-only basis and can be accessed through the Events Calendar in the Shareholders section of our website at Following the call, you may access a replay of the event either telephonically or via audio webcast. The telephonic replay will be available approximately two hours after the live call and through September 2, 2025, by dialing (800) 753-4652; international callers should dial (402) 220-4235. A replay of the audio webcast will also be available later that same day. To access the audio webcast please visit the Events Calendar in the Shareholders section of our website at About MidCap Financial Investment Corporation MidCap Financial Investment Corporation (NASDAQ: MFIC) is a closed-end, externally managed, diversified management investment company that has elected to be treated as a business development company ('BDC') under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the '1940 Act'). For tax purposes, the Company has elected to be treated as a regulated investment company ('RIC') under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the 'Code'). The Company is externally managed by Apollo Investment Management, L.P., an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries, a high-growth global alternative asset manager. The Company's investment objective is to generate current income and, to a lesser extent, long-term capital appreciation. The Company primarily invests in directly originated and privately negotiated first lien senior secured loans to privately held U.S. middle-market companies, which the Company generally defines as companies with less than $75 million in EBITDA, as may be adjusted for market disruptions, mergers and acquisitions-related charges and synergies, and other items. To a lesser extent, the Company may invest in other types of securities including, first lien unitranche, second lien senior secured, unsecured, subordinated, and mezzanine loans, and equities in both private and public middle market companies. For more information, please visit Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, statements as to our future operating results; our business prospects and the prospects of our portfolio companies; the impact of investments that we expect to make; our contractual arrangements and relationships with third parties; the dependence of our future success on the general economy and its impact on the industries in which we invest; the ability of our portfolio companies to achieve their objectives; our expected financings and investments; the adequacy of our cash resources and working capital; and the timing of cash flows, if any, from the operations of our portfolio companies. We may use words such as 'anticipates,' 'believes,' 'expects,' 'intends,' 'will,' 'should,' 'may' and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on currently available operating, financial and competitive information and are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our historical experience and our present expectations. Statements regarding the following subjects, among others, may be forward-looking: the return on equity; the yield on investments; the ability to borrow to finance assets; new strategic initiatives; the ability to reposition the investment portfolio; the market outlook; future investment activity; and risks associated with investing in real estate assets, including changes in business conditions and the general economy. Undue reliance should not be placed on such forward-looking statements as such statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements unless required by law. Contact Elizabeth BesenInvestor Relations ManagerMidCap Financial Investment Corporation(212) 822-0625ebesen@ in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
National Retail Federation Sues New York State Over Algorithmic Pricing Legislation
The National Retail Federation (NRF) has filed a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging that the New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law in May, is unconstitutional because it infringes on retailers' right to free speech. The law, set to take effect July 8, stipulates that retailers that have used algorithmic pricing, which the state defines as prices set by an algorithm that has ingested and uses individual consumer data, will need to disclose that to New York consumers. More from Sourcing Journal Dollar General Claims Yang Ming Owes $14.8M Over Failure to Fulfill Contract Lululemon Sues Costco Over 'Dupes' of Pants and Jackets Shein Faces Copyright Infringement Complaint from Brandy Melville The companies will be required to add a label which says, 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' to product listings, advertisements and other consumer-facing communications when algorithmic pricing has come into play. If retailers violate the law, they will face a fine per violation of up to $1,000. The NRF, in a complaint filed in the Southern District of New York on July 2, contends that such a practice would be 'misleading and ominous' to consumers and could negatively impact sales because of incorrect perception. In that complaint, the organization states its belief that the act violates the First Amendment because it requires companies to do the bidding of the government, calling the necessitated label a 'government-scripted opinion without justification.' It seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to halt the law from going into effect. 'If the Act is not enjoined, NRF members will be forced to endorse a baseless government opinion at war with their own convictions and that misrepresents their actual practices,' the organization wrote in its complaint. The trade group alleged that such labels could 'mislead consumers about the type of data NRF members use to set prices and the effect of personal data on prices.' 'Many if not most consumers will naturally but falsely conclude that an NRF member relied on sensitive personal information…in setting the price. Second, many if not most consumers will naturally but again falsely conclude that the NRF member used this information to increase the price offered,' NRF states in its complaint. It maintains that those kinds of consumer perceptions could negatively influence the trust shoppers have with retailers, even if 'innocuous information like zip codes or loyalty program status' is actually the way companies identify who's using their sites. It also said the idea that companies unfairly ramp up prices on consumers with algorithmic pricing is far from the actuality of the situation; the NRF states that 'algorithmic pricing mechanisms lower overall consumer prices in the aggregate,' in part because they help provide personalized offers to consumers interested in specific products and deals. That is to say, if a consumer has held a pair of sneakers in their cart for two weeks without purchasing, a retailer might use algorithmic pricing to offer that consumer a 15 percent discount on the shoes—or, if a consumer has previously purchased cotton T-shirts from a brand, that brand may use that consumer's shopping history to offer a discount on long-sleeve cotton shirts in the winter. Stephanie Martz, the NRF's chief administrative officer and general counsel, said the lawsuit infringes on retailers' rights. 'This law interferes with retailers' ability to provide their customers with the highest value and best shopping experience they can,' Martz said in a statement. 'Algorithms are created by humans, not computers, and they are an extension of what retailers have done for decades, if not centuries, to use what they know about their customers to serve them better. It's just done at the scale of the modern economy. Stigmatizing tools that drive prices down turns offering deals into a liability, and consumers will end up paying more.' The organization notes in the complaint that the requirements set forth in the law are 'based on speculative fear that retailers use sensitive data to discriminate and price gouge—practices the law already prohibits' and states that the conclusion that algorithmic pricing could hurt consumers is 'unsupported by any facts.' The NRF also argues that the process by which the legislation passed gave little time for lawmakers to do their due diligence on the potential ramifications it would have on businesses. The organization called the act's history 'sparse' and argues that it 'arbitrarily exempts' certain subsets of retailers, including insurance companies, rideshare apps, consumer financial products and subscription-based retail items. As of Monday, court records show that a judge had not issued a preliminary injunction in accordance with the NRF's request. James' office did not immediately return Sourcing Journal's request for comment on the complaint.
