Texas Google Antitrust Trial Delayed Pending Related DOJ Case
US District Judge Sean Jordan in Plano, Texas, will reschedule the trial after a related US Justice Department case is resolved. It's the second delay for the case, which was initially scheduled for late March.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Joby Aviation Stock Soars to an All-Time High: My Prediction for What Comes Next
Key Points Joby Aviation stock is soaring on optimism for its electric air taxi network. The company is aiming to ramp up manufacturing and finish its FAA certification. The stock trades at an expensive price versus any reasonable expectations for future revenue. 10 stocks we like better than Joby Aviation › Nobody enjoys sitting in traffic. And yet, the average American will sit in over two weeks of traffic each year. One company believes it has paved a way to help alleviate the traffic pressure in cities around the globe: Joby Aviation (NYSE: JOBY). It is manufacturing and testing electric air taxis, which can go point-to-point over cities more quietly than traditional helicopters, saving people time and frustration. Joby's air taxis are not operational yet, but the stock recently burst through to an all-time high of $17.50 a share on investor enthusiasm for its manufacturing progress and partnerships with large transportation players. It now has a market cap of $14.8 billion even though it generates zero dollars in revenue. Here's my prediction for what comes next with Joby Aviation stock. Betting big on air taxis Utilizing electric motor technology and innovations in aerodynamics, Joby Aviation has created a vertical takeoff vehicle that is quiet enough to leave from residential neighborhoods. It is manned by a pilot, can fit four riders, and has a top speed of 200 miles per hour. The company is planning to set up point-to-point networks in major cities such as New York, where customers will be able to hop from Manhattan directly to the airport, shaving off time that would have been spent sitting in traffic. The company is not officially operating its network yet, but it's working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the final stages of testing its aircraft. Multiple pilots have flown the Joby vehicle already, with its manufacturing facilities producing its fifth aircraft for pilots last quarter. Management recently announced an expansion of its factory in California, with plans to eventually produce 24 air taxis annually from this location. Multiple transportation companies have seen the promise in Joby Aviation. Toyota Motors has invested a total of $894 million in the company and is working directly with the company on manufacturing processes. Delta Air Lines is an investor, while Uber Technologies is a partner that will eventually add Joby flights to its ride-sharing application. Joby needs to get a lot of customer demand in order to get a return on its air taxi spending, which will require full operating schedules and high ticket prices. This is possible if its partners such as Uber and Delta drive customers to the upcoming service. The company is not just looking to expand in New York. It is working to add air taxis to Los Angeles, Dubai, and even Japan and the United Kingdom. Most major cities in the world have traffic issues and could see some (especially wealthier) citizens utilize this upcoming air taxi network. Aggressive spending and cash burn There is a lot of promise with Joby's air taxis, but the growth is all theoretical today. Joby does not generate any revenue, is still in the FAA certification process, and has manufactured only a few air taxis to date. Still, it is aggressively burning money on research, manufacturing, and overhead costs as it works to build up its vertically integrated factory network in the United States. In the first quarter of 2025, it spent $134 million on research and development. Over the last 12 months, free cash flow was negative $489 million. The company does have $813 million in cash and a $500 million commitment from Toyota, but this only gives it two to three years of cash burn at its current rate before it will need to raise more funds. My prediction for what comes next with Joby Aviation stock I like the idea of air taxi networks. As long as they can be operated safely, it is a path forward to help alleviate traffic on major highways in metro areas, and it looks like something people will pay up for in order to save time on the way to the airport or other societal hubs. My problem comes from Joby Aviation's market cap of $14.8 billion, making the stock wildly overvalued for a pre-revenue start-up. At its current manufacturing run-rate of 24 air taxis a year that could grow in the years to come, Joby Aviation may have 200 vehicles in operation by 2030. Assuming 20 flights per vehicle per day at $500 each split among the four passengers, that is $730 million in annual revenue for Joby Aviation. It is currently spending close to $500 million a year before generating any sales. There will be variable costs when its taxi network starts operating, along with more money spent to build each vehicle. It is unlikely that Joby Aviation will generate a profit by 2030 even if it can scale up its air taxi routes and charge an average of $500 per flight (which is more than the average round-trip airline ticket for comparable routes). Air taxis are an interesting idea, but that doesn't mean Joby Aviation is a buy with the stock trading at a market cap of $14.8 billion. I predict that pain is ahead for Joby Aviation shareholders for the rest of this decade, even if the company remains on track with its air taxi network buildout. Should you buy stock in Joby Aviation right now? Before you buy stock in Joby Aviation, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Joby Aviation wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends Delta Air Lines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Joby Aviation Stock Soars to an All-Time High: My Prediction for What Comes Next was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rivian vs. Lucid: Which EV Stock Is Winning in 2025?
Key Points Rivian and Lucid both disappointed early investors. Both companies face supply chain issues and intense competition. But one of these EV companies has clearer near-term advantages. 10 stocks we like better than Rivian Automotive › Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) and Lucid (NASDAQ: LCID) were both hot electric vehicle (EV) stocks. Rivian went public with an IPO price of $78 on Nov. 10, 2021, and its shares more than doubled to a record closing price of $172.01 just a week later. Lucid went public by merging with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) on July 26, 2021. Its shares started trading at $25.24, and more than doubled to a record closing price of $55.52 four months later. Both companies initially attracted a stampede of bulls with their ambitious growth targets, and the buying frenzy in emotion-driven meme stocks amplified their gains. But today, Rivian and Lucid trade at about $13 and $3, respectively. Both stocks fizzled out as they missed their own goals and racked up steep losses. Rising rates also popped their bubbly valuations. But when interest rates declined in 2024, Rivian and Lucid didn't bounce back even as investors pivoted back toward more speculative stocks. That sentiment is still chilly: Rivian's stock has only risen 5% since the beginning of 2025, while Lucid's stock dipped 3%. Should contrarian investors consider buying either of these EV stocks right now? Why did Rivian and Lucid disappoint the market? Rivian sells three EVs: its R1T pickup, its R1S full-size SUV, and an electric delivery van (EDV) for its top investor, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), and other companies. Before it went public, it claimed it could produce 50,000 vehicles in 2022. But in reality, it only produced 24,337 vehicles that year as it grappled with supply chain disruptions. Lucid sells two vehicles: its Air sedan and its new Gravity SUV. In its pre-merger presentation, it claimed it could deliver 20,000 vehicles in 2022. Unfortunately, it only delivered 4,369 vehicles in 2022 as it also struggled with supply chain constraints and production issues. At their record highs, Rivian's market cap hit $153.3 billion, or 92 times its 2022 revenue; while Lucid's market cap reached $91.4 billion, which was 150 times its 2022 revenue. Those sky-high valuations set both stocks up for steep declines when they missed their own rosy forecasts. What happened over the following years? In 2023, Rivian more than doubled its production to 57,232 vehicles as it overcame its supply chain issues. But in 2024, its production dipped to 49,476 vehicles as rising rates chilled the EV market, it faced tougher competition, and it temporarily shut down its main Illinois plant to upgrade its production capabilities. In 2025, it only expects to deliver 40,000 to 46,000 vehicles as it deals with higher tariffs on its raw materials and batteries, ongoing supply chain challenges, and another temporary shutdown to prepare for the launch of its smaller R2 SUV in 2026. Rivian is dealing with a lot of growing pains, but it's still supported by Amazon, Porsche (OTC: POAHY), Saudi Arabian conglomerate Abdul Latif Jameel, and other big investors. It ended its latest quarter with $8.5 billion in liquidity, and it expects the rollout of its smaller R2 SUV to significantly boost its sales and profits as it reaches a broader range of customers. Lucid's deliveries rose to 6,001 vehicles in 2023 and 10,241 vehicles in 2024, but those numbers were dismal compared to its original estimates. Lucid faced many of the same macro and competitive challenges as Rivian, and its CEO, Peter Rawlinson -- who attracted a lot of attention for his previous stint as Tesla's (NASDAQ: TSLA) chief vehicle engineer -- stepped down this February. Its board still hasn't appointed a permanent CEO yet. Rivian's founder and CEO, RJ Scaringe, remains in charge of his company. Lucid claims it can more than double its production to 20,000 vehicles this year as it ramps up its production of the Gravity SUV, but it doesn't have a great track record of meeting its own expectations. Yet Lucid is still firmly backed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign Public Investment Fund (PIF), which owns nearly two-thirds of its shares, and it ended its latest quarter with about $5.7 billion in liquidity, which it claims can carry it through its launch of the Gravity SUV. Which stock has more upside potential? From 2024 to 2027, analysts expect Rivian's revenue to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 32% as Lucid's revenue rises at a CAGR of 85%. Based on those estimates, which we should take with a grain of salt, Rivian and Lucid trade at 3.2 times and 6.9 times this year's sales, respectively. Neither company is expected to come close to breaking even, but Rivian's gross margins turned positive over the past two quarters as economies of scale kicked in. Lucid's gross margins are still negative. Rivian's higher production rates, healthier gross margins, and more stable leadership make it a stronger investment than Lucid right now -- even if its production wanes ahead of the R2's launch. As for Lucid, I'm not sure it can successfully ramp up its production of the Gravity and meet Wall Street's high expectations. If it falls short of that goal, its valuations will decline and its stock will drop even further. Should you buy stock in Rivian Automotive right now? Before you buy stock in Rivian Automotive, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Rivian Automotive wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $636,628!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,063,471!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,041% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Leo Sun has positions in Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends Porsche Automobil Se. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Rivian vs. Lucid: Which EV Stock Is Winning in 2025? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.
