Thinking of buying an EV? Your tax credit window is closing
Psychologists now know exactly what makes someone cool. Turns out, the definitions are universal
3% mortgage rates aren't dead—housing market sees 127% increase in buyers taking over old loans
There's a reason your Sam's Club rotisserie chicken looks different
On Thursday, Congress approved legislation, which Trump has called the 'big, beautiful bill.' The bill will give tax breaks to corporations and cut spending on Medicaid by $1.2 trillion. After Trump signs it into law on the 4th of July, it also will end tax credits on buying or leasing EVs, effective Sept. 30.
Since 2008, purchasing an electric vehicle has come with an incentive: a $7,500 federal tax credit for new vehicles. The incentive was expanded in 2022 to include up to $4,000 on used EVs.
While EVs cost an average of $9,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle, not paying for gas means you'll eventually make up the cost. Plus, the environmental impacts are well-known. However, despite the benefits of EVs, the incentive, which helped boost American sales, will soon be a thing of the past.
While the bill does away with the tax incentive, it also eliminates penalties for failing to meet Corporate Average Fuel Economy shortfalls, making it easier for automakers to build gas-powered vehicles.
On Thursday, the Electrification Coalition, an EV advocacy group, said the bill will have negative impacts on the American EV market, giving other markets like China a competitive advantage. In a July 3 statement, it warned, that 'as EVs secure a growing share of the global automotive market, it is obvious that the future of transportation is electric; this bill forfeits America's role in that future to China.' And as other markets lean into the EV market, the U.S. is already lagging behind.
Electrification Coalition Vice President of Policy Anne Blair echoed the same sentiment, saying, 'Without a competitive U.S. EV industry, we will remain dependent on volatile oil markets to power our vehicles and reliant on China for the critical minerals used in most advanced technologies. We are incredibly disappointed that Congress has made a choice to entrench these vulnerabilities.'Experts are predicting escalated sales leading up to the Sept. 30 deadline. Dan Levy, Barclays' auto analyst, wrote in a research note, that without the incentive sales will take a steep downturn. 'We believe the bill reiterates the slowdown ahead for EV penetration in the US, with both the 'carrot' (i.e. tax credits/incentives) and the 'stick' (i.e. emissions regulations) softened,' Levy said, per Reuters.
One study from Harvard University projected that ending the incentive will save the U.S. government $129 billion in the next 10 years. However, it will reduce EV market penetration by 6% over the next five years. That downturn could have big environmental impacts like dirtier air and greater greenhouse gas emissions.
This post originally appeared at fastcompany.comSubscribe to get the Fast Company newsletter: http://fastcompany.com/newsletters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A Look At The Fair Value Of Balchem Corporation (NASDAQ:BCPC)
The projected fair value for Balchem is US$164 based on 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity With US$165 share price, Balchem appears to be trading close to its estimated fair value Our fair value estimate is 17% lower than Balchem's analyst price target of US$197 Does the July share price for Balchem Corporation (NASDAQ:BCPC) reflect what it's really worth? Today, we will estimate the stock's intrinsic value by taking the forecast future cash flows of the company and discounting them back to today's value. This will be done using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model. Don't get put off by the jargon, the math behind it is actually quite straightforward. We would caution that there are many ways of valuing a company and, like the DCF, each technique has advantages and disadvantages in certain scenarios. Anyone interested in learning a bit more about intrinsic value should have a read of the Simply Wall St analysis model. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. We are going to use a two-stage DCF model, which, as the name states, takes into account two stages of growth. The first stage is generally a higher growth period which levels off heading towards the terminal value, captured in the second 'steady growth' period. To start off with, we need to estimate the next ten years of cash flows. Where possible we use analyst estimates, but when these aren't available we extrapolate the previous free cash flow (FCF) from the last estimate or reported value. We assume companies with shrinking free cash flow will slow their rate of shrinkage, and that companies with growing free cash flow will see their growth rate slow, over this period. We do this to reflect that growth tends to slow more in the early years than it does in later years. Generally we assume that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar in the future, so we discount the value of these future cash flows to their estimated value in today's dollars: 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Levered FCF ($, Millions) US$189.0m US$202.7m US$214.8m US$225.7m US$235.7m US$245.1m US$254.1m US$262.8m US$271.5m US$280.1m Growth Rate Estimate Source Analyst x2 Est @ 7.27% Est @ 5.97% Est @ 5.06% Est @ 4.42% Est @ 3.98% Est @ 3.67% Est @ 3.45% Est @ 3.30% Est @ 3.19% Present Value ($, Millions) Discounted @ 6.9% US$177 US$177 US$176 US$173 US$169 US$164 US$159 US$154 US$149 US$144 ("Est" = FCF growth rate estimated by Simply Wall St)Present Value of 10-year Cash Flow (PVCF) = US$1.6b We now need to calculate the Terminal Value, which accounts for all the future cash flows after this ten year period. For a number of reasons a very conservative growth rate is used that cannot exceed that of a country's GDP growth. In this case we have used the 5-year average of the 10-year government bond yield (2.9%) to estimate future growth. In the same way as with the 10-year 'growth' period, we discount future cash flows to today's value, using a cost of equity of 6.9%. Terminal Value (TV)= FCF2035 × (1 + g) ÷ (r – g) = US$280m× (1 + 2.9%) ÷ (6.9%– 2.9%) = US$7.2b Present Value of Terminal Value (PVTV)= TV / (1 + r)10= US$7.2b÷ ( 1 + 6.9%)10= US$3.7b The total value is the sum of cash flows for the next ten years plus the discounted terminal value, which results in the Total Equity Value, which in this case is US$5.4b. In the final step we divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding. Compared to the current share price of US$165, the company appears around fair value at the time of writing. The assumptions in any calculation have a big impact on the valuation, so it is better to view this as a rough estimate, not precise down to the last cent. We would point out that the most important inputs to a discounted cash flow are the discount rate and of course the actual cash flows. If you don't agree with these result, have a go at the calculation yourself and play with the assumptions. The DCF also does not consider the possible cyclicality of an industry, or a company's future capital requirements, so it does not give a full picture of a company's potential performance. Given that we are looking at Balchem as potential shareholders, the cost of equity is used as the discount rate, rather than the cost of capital (or weighted average cost of capital, WACC) which accounts for debt. In this calculation we've used 6.9%, which is based on a levered beta of 0.919. Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility, compared to the market as a whole. We get our beta from the industry average beta of globally comparable companies, with an imposed limit between 0.8 and 2.0, which is a reasonable range for a stable business. Check out our latest analysis for Balchem Strength Earnings growth over the past year exceeded the industry. Debt is not viewed as a risk. Weakness Dividend is low compared to the top 25% of dividend payers in the Chemicals market. Expensive based on P/E ratio and estimated fair value. Opportunity Annual earnings are forecast to grow for the next 2 years. Threat Annual earnings are forecast to grow slower than the American market. Valuation is only one side of the coin in terms of building your investment thesis, and it ideally won't be the sole piece of analysis you scrutinize for a company. The DCF model is not a perfect stock valuation tool. Preferably you'd apply different cases and assumptions and see how they would impact the company's valuation. For instance, if the terminal value growth rate is adjusted slightly, it can dramatically alter the overall result. For Balchem, there are three pertinent aspects you should assess: Financial Health: Does BCPC have a healthy balance sheet? Take a look at our free balance sheet analysis with six simple checks on key factors like leverage and risk. Future Earnings: How does BCPC's growth rate compare to its peers and the wider market? Dig deeper into the analyst consensus number for the upcoming years by interacting with our free analyst growth expectation chart. Other High Quality Alternatives: Do you like a good all-rounder? Explore our interactive list of high quality stocks to get an idea of what else is out there you may be missing! PS. Simply Wall St updates its DCF calculation for every American stock every day, so if you want to find the intrinsic value of any other stock just search here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
It's Déjà Vu for Option Traders as Markets Calm Into Tariffs Day
In the days leading up to President Donald Trump's July 9 tariffs deadline, equity investors having flashbacks of Liberation Day showed little concern. The MSCI All-Country World Index reached a peak last week, while gauges of volatility expectations from the US to Europe and Hong Kong have more than halved from their highs in April.


The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'