Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Comerica Incorporated (CMA) to Post Q3 2018 Earnings of $1.78 Per Share, DA Davidson Forecasts

Comerica Incorporated (NYSE:CMA) – Equities research analysts at DA Davidson boosted their Q3 2018 earnings per share (EPS) estimates for shares of Comerica in a research report issued on Tuesday, July 17th. DA Davidson analyst G. Tenner now forecasts that the financial services provider will post earnings per share of $1.78 for the quarter, up from their prior estimate of $1.65.

Get Comerica alerts:

Several other equities analysts also recently commented on CMA. Nomura increased their target price on Comerica to $117.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research report on Monday, March 26th. B. Riley increased their target price on Comerica from $105.00 to $110.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research report on Tuesday, March 27th. Zacks Investment Research upgraded Comerica from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating and set a $105.00 target price for the company in a research report on Tuesday, April 3rd. ValuEngine upgraded Comerica from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating in a research report on Tuesday, April 3rd. Finally, Wedbush upgraded Comerica from a “neutral” rating to an “outperform” rating and increased their target price for the company from $103.00 to $111.00 in a research report on Monday, April 9th. Three research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, nine have assigned a hold rating and sixteen have given a buy rating to the company. Comerica has an average rating of “Hold” and an average target price of $99.34.

Comerica stock opened at $94.22 on Friday. The company has a quick ratio of 1.02, a current ratio of 1.02 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.69. The stock has a market capitalization of $16.12 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 19.92, a PEG ratio of 0.73 and a beta of 1.38. Comerica has a 12 month low of $64.04 and a 12 month high of $102.66.

Comerica (NYSE:CMA) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Tuesday, July 17th. The financial services provider reported $1.90 earnings per share for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $1.64 by $0.26. Comerica had a return on equity of 13.14% and a net margin of 27.28%. The business had revenue of $838.00 million during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $833.59 million. During the same period in the prior year, the company earned $1.13 EPS. Comerica’s revenue for the quarter was up 8.0% on a year-over-year basis.

The business also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Sunday, July 1st. Stockholders of record on Friday, June 15th were paid a $0.34 dividend. This is a boost from Comerica’s previous quarterly dividend of $0.30. The ex-dividend date of this dividend was Thursday, June 14th. This represents a $1.36 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 1.44%. Comerica’s dividend payout ratio is presently 28.75%.

Several hedge funds have recently modified their holdings of the company. BlackRock Inc. increased its stake in shares of Comerica by 3.3% in the first quarter. BlackRock Inc. now owns 12,276,183 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $1,177,655,000 after buying an additional 393,237 shares during the period. Millennium Management LLC increased its stake in shares of Comerica by 9.2% in the first quarter. Millennium Management LLC now owns 3,797,900 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $364,333,000 after buying an additional 318,602 shares during the period. Neuberger Berman Group LLC increased its stake in shares of Comerica by 31.6% in the first quarter. Neuberger Berman Group LLC now owns 3,584,624 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $343,868,000 after buying an additional 861,083 shares during the period. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company increased its stake in shares of Comerica by 11.5% in the first quarter. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company now owns 1,754,008 shares of the financial services provider’s stock valued at $168,263,000 after buying an additional 181,164 shares during the period. Finally, Rockefeller Capital Management L.P. acquired a new stake in shares of Comerica in the first quarter valued at about $142,568,000. 81.88% of the stock is owned by institutional investors.

Comerica Company Profile

Comerica Incorporated, through its subsidiaries, provides various financial products and services. The company operates through three segments: Business Bank, the Retail Bank, and Wealth Management. The Business Bank segment offers various products and services, such as commercial loans and lines of credit, deposits, cash management, capital market products, international trade finance, letters of credit, foreign exchange management, and loan syndication services to middle market businesses, multinational corporations, and governmental entities.

Featured Story: Short Selling Stocks, A Beginner��s Guide

Earnings History and Estimates for Comerica (NYSE:CMA)

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Brokerages Set Arch Coal Inc (ARCH) PT at $99.43

Arch Coal Inc (NYSE:ARCH) has earned a consensus rating of “Buy” from the eleven research firms that are currently covering the stock, MarketBeat Ratings reports. Five investment analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and five have assigned a buy rating to the company. The average 12-month price target among analysts that have covered the stock in the last year is $99.14.

A number of equities analysts have recently commented on the company. Stifel Nicolaus assumed coverage on Arch Coal in a research report on Wednesday, June 27th. They set a “hold” rating and a $83.00 price objective for the company. MKM Partners lowered their price objective on Arch Coal to $107.00 and set a “buy” rating for the company in a research report on Friday, April 27th. Seaport Global Securities set a $112.00 price objective on Arch Coal and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research report on Monday, April 23rd. B. Riley lowered their price objective on Arch Coal from $97.00 to $95.00 and set a “$79.11” rating for the company in a research report on Thursday. Finally, Zacks Investment Research raised Arch Coal from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating and set a $89.00 price objective for the company in a research report on Wednesday, June 27th.

Get Arch Coal alerts:

NYSE ARCH traded up $0.46 during trading on Friday, hitting $79.57. The stock had a trading volume of 129,200 shares, compared to its average volume of 340,976. The company has a market cap of $1.66 billion, a P/E ratio of 6.96 and a beta of 0.07. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.45, a current ratio of 2.89 and a quick ratio of 2.41. Arch Coal has a twelve month low of $68.95 and a twelve month high of $102.61.

Arch Coal (NYSE:ARCH) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, April 26th. The energy company reported $2.95 EPS for the quarter, missing the Zacks’ consensus estimate of $4.30 by ($1.35). Arch Coal had a return on equity of 39.10% and a net margin of 10.73%. The company had revenue of $575.30 million for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $594.04 million. During the same period in the prior year, the firm posted $2.55 earnings per share. The business’s quarterly revenue was down 4.3% compared to the same quarter last year. analysts anticipate that Arch Coal will post 9.47 EPS for the current fiscal year.

Several institutional investors have recently made changes to their positions in the company. First Trust Advisors LP purchased a new stake in Arch Coal during the fourth quarter worth approximately $2,223,000. Wells Fargo & Company MN lifted its stake in Arch Coal by 14.9% during the fourth quarter. Wells Fargo & Company MN now owns 54,097 shares of the energy company’s stock worth $5,039,000 after purchasing an additional 7,008 shares during the last quarter. Amalgamated Bank purchased a new stake in Arch Coal during the fourth quarter worth approximately $226,000. Allianz Asset Management GmbH lifted its stake in Arch Coal by 7.7% during the fourth quarter. Allianz Asset Management GmbH now owns 8,061 shares of the energy company’s stock worth $751,000 after purchasing an additional 575 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Alliancebernstein L.P. lifted its stake in Arch Coal by 6.9% during the fourth quarter. Alliancebernstein L.P. now owns 33,350 shares of the energy company’s stock worth $3,107,000 after purchasing an additional 2,150 shares during the last quarter. 92.61% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

Arch Coal Company Profile

Arch Coal, Inc produces and sells thermal and metallurgical coal from surface and underground mines. As of December 31, 2017, the company operated 9 active mines located in Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, Colorado, and Illinois. It also owned or controlled, primarily through long-term leases, approximately 28,292 acres of coal land in Ohio; 1,060 acres of coal land in Maryland; 10,108 acres of coal land in Virginia; 359,160 acres of coal land in West Virginia; 98,488 acres of coal land in Wyoming; 267,857 acres of coal land in Illinois; 34,446 acres of coal land in Kentucky; 9,840 acres of coal land in Montana; 21,802 acres of coal land in New Mexico; 358 acres of coal land in Pennsylvania; and 20,165 acres of coal land in Colorado, as well as owned or controlled through long-term leases smaller parcels of property in Alabama, Indiana, Washington, Arkansas, California, Utah, and Texas.

Recommended Story: Short Selling

Analyst Recommendations for Arch Coal (NYSE:ARCH)

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Could Funko Become the Next Hasbro or Mattel?

Pop culture collectibles company Funko (NASDAQ:FNKO) went public at $12 per share last November, which was well below its intended range of $14 to $16. The stock then plunged over 40% to $7 on the first day, marking the worst public debut of an IPO in 17 years.

Funko generated decent sales growth, but many investors were worried about its high debt levels and its dependence on high-royalty franchises. But then something remarkable happened: The stock rebounded, and more than doubled to sit at about $17 today.

Funko's Pop! figurines.

Image source: Funko.

Funko's stock was lifted by two quarters of impressive earnings beats and new licensing deals for Pok茅mon Go and Fortnite, two of the hottest games in recent history. This suddenly makes Funko -- which makes Pop vinyl figurines, bobbleheads, action figures, plush products, fashion accessories, and other products -- seem like a hipper version of toymakers Hasbro (NASDAQ:HAS) and Mattel (NASDAQ:MAT).

Could this small cap collectibles maker eventually grow out of its niche to challenge those market goliaths? Let's take a closer look at Funko's business to find out.

Understanding Funko's business

Funko was founded in 1998 as a bobblehead maker. It gained mainstream recognition with its lineup of collectible Pop vinyl figurines, which were inspired by the Japanese "super deformed" art style of large heads and small bodies.

The company signed licensing deals with top media and video game companies to produce Pop versions of their popular characters. It sells them through major retailers like Amazon, Target, and Hot Topic. A whopping 70% of Funko's sales came from the Pop brand in 2017, compared to 64% in 2016.

A Pop! figurine of Mega Man.

Image source: Funko.

Funko classifies some of its licensed products as "evergreen", indicating that they're established franchises (like Mickey Mouse or Batman) which are less likely to burn out than newer franchises. 45% of Funko's sales came from those evergreen products last year, while 33% of its sales came from newer TV or video game properties.

Funko's total sales rose 21% to $516.1 million in 2017. However, its net income tumbled 86% to $3.7 million due to the use of sales to extinguish $5.1 million in long-term debt, rising cost of sales, and a 24% jump in operating expenses. Its adjusted EBITDA also fell 7% to $89.9 million.

Funko's bottom line is weighed down by two things: First, it accumulated a lot of debt as it was passed between private equity firms, and it borrowed even more money to pay its owners $98 million in special dividends prior to its IPO. It finished 2017 with $215.2 million in long-term debt, with $200.2 million maturing in 2021.

Second, Funko pays out a lot of royalties. It paid its partners an average royalty rate of about 15% over the past three years. For comparison, Hasbro paid out less than 8% of its revenues as�royalties last year, while Mattel paid a royalty rate of�about 5%.�That's because Hasbro and Mattel produce more first-party products, like Transformers and Barbie, than Funko.

But accelerating sales growth could smooth things out

It's easy to dismiss Funko as a dangerous, debt-ridden company that�runs on fads. However, its accelerating sales growth tells a different story. Funko's sales rose 39% annually to $137.2 million during the first quarter, its gross margin expanded, and its net income of $2.2 million marked a big improvement from its loss of $5.6 million a year earlier.

Its adjusted EBITDA also grew 29% to $17.5 million, and it reduced its long-term debt by 7% sequentially to $200.1 million. During the conference call, Funko CEO Brian Mariotti attributed those�improvements to the company's "stylized designs, unique products and affordable prices" -- which helped it grow "at a time when traditional toy companies and retailers are struggling."

Wall Street expects Funko's sales to rise 19% this year as�its earnings rise nearly five-fold. Next year, analysts expect its sales and earnings to grow 12% and 31%, respectively. Based on those estimates, Funko trades at just 19 times next year's earnings.

For comparison, analysts expect Hasbro's sales to�fall 6% this year, and for Mattel's sales to slip 3% due to slumping demand for traditional toys. Hasbro's earnings are expected to drop 13%, and Mattel is�expected to post a full-year loss. Yet Hasbro still trades at 18 times forward earnings, while Mattel has a forward P/E of 41 (assuming it returns to profitability next year).

The key takeaway

Funko might eventually evolve into a big toymaker like Hasbro or Mattel. But for now, it's a unique niche player that has better growth prospects than either company. Whether or not that growth lasts, however, depends on the longevity of its Pop figures and its ability to secure reasonable royalty rates from media companies.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Why You Should Buy Facebook And Alphabet In September

&l;p&g;On September 28, Facebook and Alphabet will be reclassified from the Information Technology sector to the Communications Services sector. About 74% of Facebook and 80% of Alphabet is owned by mutual funds, ETFs and other institutions. The problem is that there are a lot more Technology funds that have to sell than Communications funds that will have to buy. Tony Mitchell, one of my managers, believes this imbalance will probably make it a good time to buy Facebook and Alphabet.

&l;strong&g;Ken Kam:&l;/strong&g; Tony, unlike most tech-fund managers it looks like you are planning to hold onto Facebook even after it is no longer classified as a tech stock. Is that right?

&l;img class=&q;dam-image getty size-large wp-image-962142728&q; src=&q;https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/dam/imageserve/962142728/960x0.jpg?fit=scale&q; data-height=&q;677&q; data-width=&q;960&q;&g; Facebook&s;s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Photo by Chesnot/Getty Images)

&l;strong&g;Tony Mitchell:&l;/strong&g; I will be holding Facebook. I would never sell a stock just because it is reclassified. The value of the company has nothing to do with its sector classification.

&l;strong&g;Kam:&l;/strong&g; With Facebook at about $209, are you a buyer?

&l;strong&g;Mitchell:&l;/strong&g; I believe the upcoming sector changes may provide a buying opportunity, as there may be some short term volatility with Facebook being held by so many funds that will have to sell.

&l;strong&g;Kam:&l;/strong&g; There are 25 Technology ETFs and only 2 Communications ETFs, so I can see that there will be a lot more managers selling than buying when the reclassification takes effect. How much do you think Facebook and Alphabet will fall before you step in and buy?

&l;strong&g;Mitchell:&l;/strong&g; I&a;rsquo;m not looking for a specific price. It is enough to know that I will be buying when the Street&a;rsquo;s sell orders are big relative to the buy orders. Whatever discount this order imbalance creates, it will be short-lived. I like it when you can make a trade that has a high probability of turning profitable in a few days.

&l;strong&g;Kam:&l;/strong&g; What kind of return are you expecting to get from Facebook?

&l;strong&g;Mitchell:&l;/strong&g; I still see growth and value in Facebook. I believe that we will see Facebook trade above $300 within two years. That would equate to a 20% annual return over the next two years from its now all-time highs.

I&s;m going out on a limb here since I believe the highest target on the street right now is $270, but I&s;ve been going out on a limb with Facebook since it was $16 and it hasn&s;t missed my targets yet!

&l;strong&g;Kam:&l;/strong&g; Google&a;rsquo;s parent company, Alphabet, is also going to be reclassified from Tech to Communications at the same time. Would you also buy Alphabet for the same reasons?

&l;strong&g;Mitchell:&l;/strong&g; Google is another opportunity. As with Facebook, I believe there is still value and growth in Google (Alphabet).

&l;strong&g;My Take:&l;/strong&g; It is not often that you can foresee an order imbalance coming&a;nbsp;while there is time to plan for it.&l;/p&g;

Facebook and Alphabet may get more volatile in September, as Technology Funds and ETFs all have to sell at the same time. But by the end of September it will all be over and prices should return to normal.

If you would rather have a&a;nbsp;someone with an excellent track record with Facebook and Alphabet manage your exposure during this period, consider Tony Mitchell who manages a fund for my firm Marketocracy.

Tony&s;s&a;nbsp;fund is up&a;nbsp;over 17.32% this year through June 30. He has outperformed all U.S. equity mutual fund managers over the past 10 years. Facebook is currently his top holding.

If you would like to be notified when I write about&a;nbsp;Facebook or other stocks you are following,&a;nbsp;&l;a href=&q;https://paths.marketocracy.com/lists/?p=subscribe&a;amp;id=1&q; target=&q;_blank&q;&g;click here&l;/a&g;.

To be notified when I write about Tony Mitchell, &l;a href=&q;https://paths.marketocracy.com/lists/?p=subscribe&a;amp;id=423&q; target=&q;_blank&q;&g;click here&l;/a&g;.&l;/p&g;

Monday, July 16, 2018

What city has extreme poverty in your state?

The Department of Health and Human Services sets the poverty threshold at $25,100 for a family of four in the contiguous United States. While the hardships associated with such financial strain are significant and pervasive, about 5.5 million Americans living in poverty face the additional strain that comes with living in an extremely poor neighborhood -- one with a poverty rate of 40 percent or greater.

Despite near record-low unemployment, a booming stock market, and nearly the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history, conditions are not improving for all Americans. The share of Americans living in poverty climbed from 13.8 percent to 15.1 percent between 2010 and 2016.

Encouragingly, the share of Americans living both below the poverty line and in a neighborhood with a poverty rate of at least 40 percent -- referred to as concentrated poverty or extreme poverty -- declined from 14.0 percent to 11.6 percent. However, some cities did not track with the national trend. In 41 states there was at least one metro area that reported an uptick in concentrated poverty between 2010 and 2016.

In an exchange with 24/7 Wall Street, Alan Berube, senior fellow and deputy director for the Metropolitan Policy Program at nonprofit public policy organization Brookings Institution, explained the problems extreme poverty can pose. ��People who live in concentrated poverty have to deal not only with the challenges their own low incomes bring, but also with the challenges of their neighbors' low incomes,�� Berube said. Such challenges can include fewer job opportunities, stressed schools, elevated crime, and inadequate public infrastructure and health services.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 24/7 Wall Street compared the percentage point change in concentrated poverty rates in U.S. metro areas in each state between 2010 and 2016 to identify the cities where concentrated poverty is increasing the most. Despite spanning cities from coast to coast, neighborhoods facing extreme poverty tend to share multiple characteristics.

More:Population migration patterns: US cities Americans are abandoning

Alabama: Dothan2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4.5 ppts (4.0% to 8.5%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,452 people (920 to 2,372)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.0% (Alabama: +0.8%)Unemployment: 22.6% (poor neighborhoods) 8.2% (all other)

The share of poor residents in the Dothan, Alabama, metro area living in neighborhoods with at least a 40% poverty rate -- also referred to as the concentrated poverty rate -- rose from 4.0% in 2010 to 8.5% in 2016, the largest increase of any city in the state. Over the same period, the statewide concentrated poverty rate rose from 10.4% to 14.1%, one of the larger increases of any state.

Areas with high concentrations of low-income families and individuals often face a range of challenges, including lower quality schools, limited access to health care, higher crime rates, and fewer job opportunities. As the share of poor residents living in poor neighborhoods in Dothan rose over the past several years, so did the unemployment rate in extreme poverty areas. While the unemployment rate outside of extreme poverty tracts in Dothan rose slightly from 7.3% in 2010 to 8.2% in 2016, the jobless rate in extreme poverty tracts rose from 16.2% to 22.6%.

Alaska: no city with concentrated poverty increase

Poverty is relatively uncommon in Alaska. The state's poverty rate of 9.9% is well below the national rate of 15.1%. In its two major metropolitan areas, Anchorage and Fairbanks, there has not been a single census poverty tract in which more than 40% of the population lives in poverty in either 2010 or 2016. The overall poverty rates in those two metro areas are 8.5% and 7.8%, respectively.

3. Arizona: Flagstaff     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +13.6 ppts (0.0% to 13.6%)     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,823 people (0 to 3,823)     • 2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.9% (Arizona: +1.7%)     • Unemployment: 14.0% (poor neighborhoods) 7.5% (all other)     Two neighborhoods in the Flagstaff metro area crossed the extreme poverty threshold -- a poverty rate of at least 40% -- between 2010 and 2016. Some 13.6% of Flagstaff's 28,200 poor residents live in those two neighborhoods, higher than the national concentrated poverty rate of 11.6% yet far less than Arizona's concentrated poverty rate of 21.7%.     As is the case in most metro areas on this list, economic growth has been slow in Flagstaff. From 2010 to 2016, Flagstaff's economy grew at an average annual rate of just 0.9%, below the comparable growth rates statewide of 1.7% and nationwide of 2.0%. (Photo: Thinkstock)

Arizona: Flagstaff2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +13.6 ppts (0.0% to 13.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,823 people (0 to 3,823)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.9% (Arizona: +1.7%)Unemployment: 14.0% (poor neighborhoods) 7.5% (all other)

Two neighborhoods in the Flagstaff metro area crossed the extreme poverty threshold -- a poverty rate of at least 40% -- between 2010 and 2016. Some 13.6% of Flagstaff's 28,200 poor residents live in those two neighborhoods, higher than the national concentrated poverty rate of 11.6% yet far less than Arizona's concentrated poverty rate of 21.7%.

As is the case in most metro areas on this list, economic growth has been slow in Flagstaff. From 2010 to 2016, Flagstaff's economy grew at an average annual rate of just 0.9%, below the comparable growth rates statewide of 1.7% and nationwide of 2.0%.

Arkansas: Hot Springs2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +12.6 ppts (4.9% to 17.5%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,621 people (812 to 3,433)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.6% (Arkansas: +1.2%)Unemployment: 16.2% (poor neighborhoods) 8.4% (all other)

The number of neighborhoods in which at least 40% of residents live in poverty the Hot Springs metro area rose from one in 2010 to three in 2016. Over the same period, the share of poor residents living within such neighborhoods in the metro area rose from 4.9% to 17.5%, the largest increase of any city in Arkansas.

Individuals living in concentrated poverty areas are less likely to complete high school and college. While in 2010 Hot Springs was one of the few metro areas nationwide in which college attainment was actually higher within extreme poverty tracts than outside, this has reversed as concentrated poverty increased over the last several years. Today, some 15.5% of adults within extreme poverty neighborhoods in Hot Springs have a bachelor's degree, compared to 21.0% outside the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods.

California: Visalia-Porterville2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +17.5 ppts (14.4% to 31.9%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +26,603 people (13,945 to 40,548)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.4% (California: +3.0%)Unemployment: 14.8% (poor neighborhoods) 9.7% (all other)

In the Visalia-Porterville metro area, the number of neighborhoods where at least 40% of the population lives in poverty more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, increasing from 6 to 16. Over the same period, the share of poor residents living in such neighborhoods rose from 14.4% to 31.9% -- the largest increase of any city in California, and today one of the highest concentrated poverty rates in the nation.

Individuals in low-income areas are far less likely to complete high school and college. While some 16.0% of adults living outside of extreme poverty neighborhoods in Visalia-Porterville have a bachelor's degree, just 4.5% do in the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods.

More:Which manufacturers are bringing the most jobs back to America?

Colorado: Boulder2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.4 ppts (0.0% to 10.4%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,234 people (0 to 4,234)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.2% (Colorado: +2.7%)Unemployment: 7.2% (poor neighborhoods) 5.3% (all other)

As recently as 2010, there were no neighborhoods in the Boulder metro area with poverty rates of 40% or above. As of 2016, however, over 4,000 low-income Boulder residents lived in such neighborhoods. Boulder's poorest neighborhoods are characterized by widespread joblessness. The unemployment rate across the metro area's high poverty neighborhoods of 7.2% is far higher than the jobless rate of 5.3% in the the city's remaining neighborhoods.

Concentrated poverty increased in Boulder as the metro area's economy expanded slower than the state's as a whole. Boulder's average annual GDP growth of 2.2% from 2010 to 2016 is half a percentage point below the 2.7% average annual growth across Colorado.

Connecticut: Norwich-New London2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5.9 ppts (0.0% to 5.9%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,519 people (0 to 1,519)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.5% (Connecticut: -0.5%)Unemployment: 9.2% (poor neighborhoods) 7.6% (all other)

Some of Norwich-New London's poorest residents have become increasingly economically isolated in the last few years. As recently as 2010, none of the city's low-income residents lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 40% or above. Now, about 1,500 do.

Poor neighborhoods are often characterized by low educational attainment rates, and the Norwich-New London metro area is no exception. Just 22.2% of area adults have a bachelor's degree, and only 72.6% have a high school diploma -- well below the respective 32.5% and 91.8% shares across the metro area's remaining neighborhoods.

Delaware: no city with concentrated poverty increase

While concentrated poverty tends to be worse in urban areas, Delaware's only metro area is not home to any extreme poverty neighborhoods. The Dover metro area has an overall poverty rate of 13.2%, less than the 15.1% national poverty rate but above the state rate of just 11.7%. Still Delaware is home to four neighborhoods where the poverty rate is at least 40%. Some 4.5% of the Delaware's poor residents live in such extreme poverty neighborhoods -- an increase from the state's concentrated poverty rate of 4.0% in 2010 yet far below the 11.6% national concentrated poverty rate.

9. Florida: Sebring     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +27.2 ppts (0.0% to 27.2%)     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5,136 people (0 to 5,136)     • 2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.6% (Florida: +2.0%)     • Unemployment: 16.4% (poor neighborhoods) 11.7% (all other)     While Florida's poverty rate fell from 16.5% in 2010 to 14.7% in 2016, the poverty rate in the Sebring metro area rose from 16.9% to 19.4%. Two neighborhoods in Sebring crossed the threshold into extreme poverty over that time, and they are now home to 27.2% of the city's poor population -- the highest concentrated poverty rate in Florida. The jump in concentrated poverty from 0.0% to 27.2% between 2010 and 2016 was the largest increase of any metro area nationwide and more than 10 times the percentage point increase in concentrated poverty for Florida as a whole. (Photo: Thinkstock)

Florida: Sebring2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +27.2 ppts (0.0% to 27.2%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5,136 people (0 to 5,136)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.6% (Florida: +2.0%)Unemployment: 16.4% (poor neighborhoods) 11.7% (all other)

While Florida's poverty rate fell from 16.5% in 2010 to 14.7% in 2016, the poverty rate in the Sebring metro area rose from 16.9% to 19.4%. Two neighborhoods in Sebring crossed the threshold into extreme poverty over that time, and they are now home to 27.2% of the city's poor population -- the highest concentrated poverty rate in Florida. The jump in concentrated poverty from 0.0% to 27.2% between 2010 and 2016 was the largest increase of any metro area nationwide and more than 10 times the percentage point increase in concentrated poverty for Florida as a whole.

Georgia: Macon2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +14.4 ppts (30.3% to 44.7%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10,386 people (13,428 to 23,814)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.7% (Georgia: +2.3%)Unemployment: 22.4% (poor neighborhoods) 7.9% (all other)

While nationwide the share of poor Americans living in poor neighborhoods fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016, the concentrated poverty rate in Macon rose from 30.3% to 44.7%. The 14.4 percentage-point increase was the largest of any metro area in Georgia and pushed Macon's concentrated poverty rate from the 11th highest in the nation to third highest.

Concentrated poverty is far more common among minority populations. While just 10.5% of poor white residents in Macon live in poor neighborhoods, 58.2% of poor black residents and 44.1% of poor Hispanic residents do.

Hawaii: no city with concentrated poverty increase

Neither of Hawaii's two metro areas had an increase in concentrated poverty from 2010 to 2016. The Kahului-Wailuku-Lahaina metro area has no neighborhoods where the poverty rate is 40% or higher, and the number of extreme poverty neighborhoods in the Urban Honolulu metro area fell from five to two over that period. The share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods in Urban Honolulu fell from 5.3% to 2.3%, greater than the 2.4 percentage-point decline in concentrated poverty nationwide. The concentrated poverty rate for Hawaii as a whole remains unchanged at 4.4%, the 10th lowest concentrated poverty rate of any state.

More:Per capita government spending: How much does your state spend on you?

Idaho: Pocatello2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +15.9 ppts (0.0% to 15.9%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,363 people (0 to 2,363)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.2% (Idaho: +1.9%)Unemployment: 9.7% (poor neighborhoods) 6.9% (all other)

Each of Idaho's five metro areas recorded an uptick in poverty between 2010 and 2016 -- but in none poverty increased as much as that of Pocatello. Located in the Southeastern Idaho, the metro area's poverty rate of 18.3% is up from 13.8% in 2010. Due in part to Pocatello's climbing poverty rate, the metro area is now home to two neighborhoods in which at least 40% of residents live in poverty. Increasing poverty is likely due in part to a stagnant economy. The metro area's average annual economic growth rate from 2010 to 2016 was -0.2%, compared to the 1.9% average annual growth rate across the state as a hole.

Boise City is the only other metro area in the state with extremely poor neighborhoods. Some 6,800 Boise City residents live on poverty level income and in neighborhoods where at least 40% of the population also lives on poverty level incomes

Illinois: Decatur2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +14.1 ppts (26.3% to 40.3%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,484 people (4,435 to 7,919)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.9% (Illinois: +1.3%)Unemployment: 20.5% (poor neighborhoods) 8.6% (all other)

While nationwide the share of poor Americans living in poor neighborhoods fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016, the concentrated poverty rate in the Decatur metro area rose from 26.3% to 40.3%. The 14.1 percentage-point increase was the largest of any metro area in Illinois and pushed Decatur's concentrated poverty rate from 23rd to seventh highest in the nation.

People living in low-income neighborhoods face a wide range of obstacles to good health, education, and economic mobility. In Decatur's poor neighborhoods, just 9.3% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and 20.5% of the labor force is unemployed. Outside of the city's poor neighborhoods, 25.0% of adults have a bachelor's degree and 8.6% of the labor force is unemployed.

14. Indiana: Bloomington     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +15.0 ppts (0.0% to 15.0%)     • 2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5,263 people (0 to 5,263)     • 2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.8% (Indiana: +1.4%)     • Unemployment: 8.6% (poor neighborhoods) 6.0% (all other)     Bloomington's 23.5% poverty rate is by far the highest of any metro area in Indiana and well above the U.S. poverty rate of 15.1%. Some 15% of those more than 35,100 poor Bloomington residents live in extreme poverty. Like many other metro areas on this list, Bloomington has not benefited from the same economic growth that the country as a whole has enjoyed in recent years. Bloomington's GDP contracted by an annual average of 0.8% between 2010 and 2016, compared to a national 2.0% average annual growth rate and Indiana's 1.4% average GDP growth rate.     ALSO READ: Cities Where Crime Is Soaring in Every State (Photo: Yahala / Wikimedia Commons)

Indiana: Bloomington2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +15.0 ppts (0.0% to 15.0%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5,263 people (0 to 5,263)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.8% (Indiana: +1.4%)Unemployment: 8.6% (poor neighborhoods) 6.0% (all other)

Bloomington's 23.5% poverty rate is by far the highest of any metro area in Indiana and well above the U.S. poverty rate of 15.1%. Some 15% of those more than 35,100 poor Bloomington residents live in extreme poverty. Like many other metro areas on this list, Bloomington has not benefited from the same economic growth that the country as a whole has enjoyed in recent years. Bloomington's GDP contracted by an annual average of 0.8% between 2010 and 2016, compared to a national 2.0% average annual growth rate and Indiana's 1.4% average GDP growth rate.

Iowa: Dubuque2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.1 ppts (0.0% to 10.1%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,169 people (0 to 1,169)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.8% (Iowa: +2.6%)Unemployment: 5.1% (poor neighborhoods) 4.0% (all other)

While Dubuque is one of the wealthier metro areas nationwide, over the past several years poverty in the area has become more common and concentrated. Today, the city has one neighborhood in which at least 40% of residents live at or below the poverty line, compared to no such neighborhoods in 2010. Some 10.1% of Dubuque's poor population resides in the city's extreme poverty tract, the highest concentrated poverty rate of any Iowa metro area. Dubuque's overall poverty rate rose from 9.1% in 2010 to 12.5% in 2016.

Kansas: Manhattan2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +9.9 ppts (0.0% to 9.9%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,631 people (0 to 1,631)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.8% (Kansas: +1.5%)Unemployment: 7.7% (poor neighborhoods) 6.1% (all other)

While as of 2010 Manhattan, Kansas, was not home to any extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of the population lives in poverty -- one census tract crossed that threshold during the past several years. Today, some 9.9% of the metro area's poor population lives in its extreme poverty neighborhood, located in Riley County in downtown Manhattan, the second highest concentrated poverty rate in Kansas.

It can be very difficult for individuals living in poor neighborhoods to get a good education. In Manhattan, however, the presence of Kansas State University may be the reason for the small educational attainment gap between low and high income areas. Some 39.9% of adults within extreme poverty neighborhoods in Manhattan, and 41.2% of adults outside of the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods, have a bachelor's degree, each among the highest such college attainment rates nationwide.

Kentucky: Owensboro2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +9.6 ppts (0.0% to 9.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,800 people (0 to 1,800)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.5% (Kentucky: +0.8%)Unemployment: 18.3% (poor neighborhoods) 6.4% (all other)

While the Owensboro metro area had no extreme poverty neighborhoods several years ago, today there is one neighborhood in the city where at least 40% of residents live at or below the poverty line. Some 9.6% of the metro area's poor population lives in the city's extreme poverty neighborhood, one of the lower concentrated poverty rates in Kentucky yet a major increase from 2010.

Individuals in low-income areas are less likely to have access to education and employment opportunities. Just 5.3% of adults living in Owensboro's poor neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, and 18.3% of the labor force is unemployed. Outside of the city's poor neighborhoods, 19.9% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and only 6.4% of the labor force is unemployed.

More:Wage potential: Highest paying jobs you can get without a college degree

Louisiana: Monroe2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +6.7 ppts (31.6% to 38.2%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,400 people (11,316 to 15,716)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.1% (Louisiana: -1.0%)Unemployment: 16.4% (poor neighborhoods) 6.1% (all other)

The share of poor Monroe residents living in neighborhoods where at least 40% of the population earns poverty wages rose from 31.6% in 2010 to 38.2% in 2016, the largest increase of any metro area in Louisiana. Concentrated poverty is far more prevalent among minority populations. While just 9.7% of poor white residents in Monroe live in extreme poverty neighborhoods, some 55.5% of the metro area's poor black residents live in extreme poverty neighborhoods.

Income segregation can also create large disparities in education, unemployment, and other socioeconomic indicators. Just 8.4% of adults living in Monroe's poor neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, far less than the 25.6% college attainment rate in the metro area's remaining neighborhoods.

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

Maine: Bangor2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4.9 ppts (6.1% to 11.0%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,221 people (1,394 to 2,615)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.1% (Maine: +0.4%)Unemployment: 10.2% (poor neighborhoods) 7.1% (all other)

Bangor's poverty rate rose from 15.7% in 2010 to 16.3% in 2016. As poverty became more common in the metro area, it also became more concentrated. The share of poor city residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods rose from 6.1% in 2010 to 11.0% in 2016, the largest increase in Maine.

The concentration of poverty can impede upward income mobility and limit positive outcomes in education, employment, and homeownership. While some 71.0% of heads of household own their homes outside of extreme poverty neighborhoods in Bangor, the homeownership rate is just 34.8% within the city's poorest neighborhoods.

Maryland: Hagerstown-Martinsburg2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2.9 ppts (3.7% to 6.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,245 people (901 to 2,146)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.5% (Maryland: +1.3%)Unemployment: 15.0% (poor neighborhoods) 7.8% (all other)

The share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods in the Hagerstown-Martinsburg metro area nearly doubled over the past several years, rising from 3.7% in 2010 to 6.6% in 2016. Despite the increase, Hagerstown's concentrated poverty rate remains well below the 11.6% national figure.

Segregation by income in an urban area often leads to large disparities in education and employment. Just 9.7% of adults in Hagerstown's poor neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, far less than the 20.4% college attainment rate in the metro area's non-extreme poverty neighborhoods. Similarly, 15.0% of the labor force in extreme poverty neighborhoods are unemployed, compared to the 7.8% unemployment rate in the metro area's remaining neighborhoods.

Massachusetts: Springfield2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +9.9 ppts (23.8% to 33.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +11,781 people (22,014 to 33,795)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.2% (Massachusetts: +1.8%)Unemployment: 18.1% (poor neighborhoods) 7.3% (all other)

The number of neighborhoods in the Springfield metro area in which at least 40% of the population lives in poverty rose from 14 in 2010 to 19 in 2016. The share of the metro area's 100,400 poor residents living in those neighborhoods rose from 23.8% to 33.6% over the same period, the largest increase of any metro area in Massachusetts. Springfield's concentrated poverty rate is now more than three times greater than the state's 10.9% concentrated poverty rate.

The concentration of poor residents in high poverty neighborhoods can hinder upward income mobility and reduce positive outcomes in education, employment, and homeownership. In Springfield's extreme poverty neighborhoods, just 18.9% of heads of household own their homes, 14.0% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and 18.1% of the labor force is unemployed. Outside of the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods, 68.1% of heads of household own their homes, 32.3% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and unemployment stands at 7.3%.

Michigan: Jackson2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +12.5 ppts (20.8% to 33.3%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,595 people (4,740 to 8,335)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.4% (Michigan: +2.0%)Unemployment: 19.7% (poor neighborhoods) 7.6% (all other)

Of the 38 Census tracts in the Jackson, Michigan, metro area, seven have poverty rates of 40% and above, up from five in 2010. The number of poor Jackson metro area residents living in extremely poor neighborhoods nearly doubled from 4,740 in 2010 to 8,335 in 2016.

Poorer neighborhoods are typically home to less educated populations, and the poorest parts of Jackson are no exception. Just 12.3% of adults in the metro area's poorest neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, and 79.9% have a high school diploma -- compared to 21.4% and 90.7% of adults in Jackson's remaining neighborhoods.

Minnesota: St. Cloud2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +17.1 ppts (0.0% to 17.1%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,313 people (0 to 4,313)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.5% (Minnesota: +2.0%)Unemployment: 6.7% (poor neighborhoods) 4.5% (all other)

While in 2010 St. Cloud had no extreme poverty tracts, one neighborhood crossed that threshold over the past several years. The city's extreme poverty neighborhood is home to 17.1% of the city's poor population -- the highest rate of concentrated poverty in Minnesota and more than twice the state's concentrated poverty rate of 8.3%.

While individuals in low-income areas tend to have less educational attainment than those in high-income areas, the presence of St. Cloud State University can help explain the smaller achievement gap between the two demographics in the metro area. Some 24.4% of adults in St. Cloud's extreme poverty neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, nearly in line with the 25.1% college attainment rate outside of the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods.

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

Mississippi: Jackson2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +6.0 ppts (25.6% to 31.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +8,948 people (25,829 to 34,777)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.0% (Mississippi: +0.4%)Unemployment: 17.7% (poor neighborhoods) 7.5% (all other)

Both the poverty rate and concentrated poverty rate in Jackson, Mississippi, increased in recent years. Nearly 32% of the 110,000 Jackson residents who below the poverty line live in neighborhoods in which over 40% of the population is poor. In 2010, 25.6% of the metro area's 101,000 residents living below the poverty line lived in extremely poor neighborhoods. Over that same period, economic growth was relatively slow in Jackson. Average annual GDP growth in the metro area was just 1% between 2010 and 2016, half the comparable national growth rate.

As is often the case in poor neighborhoods nationwide, joblessness is a considerable problem in parts of Jackson. Across the metro area's 24 census tracts with high concentrations of poverty, 17.7% of the workforce are unemployed.

More:How much did a personal computer cost the year you were born?

Missouri: Cape Girardeau2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +14.5 ppts (13.1% to 27.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,241 people (1,830 to 5,071)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.4% (Missouri: +0.5%)Unemployment: 16.5% (poor neighborhoods) 4.7% (all other)

The share of Cape Girardeau's poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of residents are also poor -- more than doubled over the last several years, from 13.1% in 2010 to 27.6% in 2016. The increase in concentrated poverty was particularly stark for the metro area's black residents. The share of poor black residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods rose from 45.3% in 2010 to 78.1% in 2016, the highest black concentrated poverty rate of any U.S. city and nearly eight times the 9.8% national figure.

Montana: Great Falls2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.7 ppts (0.0% to 10.7%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +1,254 people (0 to 1,254)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.9% (Montana: +1.8%)Unemployment: 5.1% (poor neighborhoods) 5.0% (all other)

The number of Great Falls residents living in poverty climbed from about 10,600 to nearly 11,700 between 2010 and 2016. The increase was not spread evenly across the city, however. There were no neighborhoods with a 40% or greater concentration of poverty in Great Falls in 2010. But as of 2016, 1,254 of poor metro area residents lived in a region with highly concentrated poverty.

More poverty and higher concentrations of it are likely due in part to a sluggish economy. Great Falls' average annual GDP growth rate of 0.9% since 2010 is below both the state 1.8% rate and the national 2.0% average economic growth rate.

Nebraska: Omaha-Council Bluffs2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5.5 ppts (4.9% to 10.4%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +6,429 people (4,444 to 10,873)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.1% (Nebraska: +2.3%)Unemployment: 14.6% (poor neighborhoods) 4.3% (all other)

As recently as 2010, fewer than 5% of Omaha-Council Bluffs' poorest residents lived in extremely poor communities. But as of 2016, over 10% do. A lack of available jobs likely prevents some of those living in poor neighborhoods from pulling themselves out of poverty. The jobless rate across the nine neighborhoods with a high concentration of poverty is just shy of 15% -- more than triple the 4.3% unemployment rate in the rest of the city.

Despite reporting the greatest uptick in concentrated poverty since 2010, Omaha has the lowest poverty rate of Nebraska's three metro areas. Some 11.8% of Omaha-Council Bluffs residents live below the poverty line compared to Grand Island's 13.4% poverty and Lincoln's 14.0% rate.

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

Nevada: Reno2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +6.2 ppts (7.6% to 13.8%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5,088 people (3,899 to 8,987)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.7% (Nevada: +1.2%)Unemployment: 16.0% (poor neighborhoods) 7.6% (all other)

The share of the Reno metro area's poor population living in extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of the population is also poor -- rose from 7.6% in 2010 to 13.8% in 2016, the largest increase of any city in Nevada. Over the same period, the metro area's poverty rate climbed from 12.5% to 14.9%.

The increase in concentrated poverty affected the area's black community the most. The share of Reno's poor black residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods nearly tripled from 7.1% in 2010 to 21.0% in 2016.

New Hampshire: no city with concentrated poverty increase

Manchester-Nashua is the only major metropolitan area in New Hampshire. Currently, none of the metro area's poor residents live in extreme poverty, down from 4.2% in 2010. Strong economic growth may partially explain the decline of extreme poverty in the metro area. The Manchester-Nashua metro area's economy grew at an average rate of 2.3% per year from 2010 to 2016, compared to a 2.0% national growth rate and a 1.4% statewide rate over that time.

Across New Hampshire, just 7.3% of the population lives below the poverty line, the lowest poverty rate of any state in the country.

More:Are these the worst cities to live in? Study looks at quality of life across the U.S.

New Jersey: Trenton2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.7 ppts (7.5% to 18.2%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,556 people (2,669 to 7,225)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.5% (New Jersey: +0.8%)Unemployment: 21.3% (poor neighborhoods) 8.1% (all other)

While nationwide the share of Americans living in extreme poverty neighborhoods fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016, in Trenton the concentrated poverty rate more than doubled from 7.5% to 18.2%. The increase was the largest of any metro area in New Jersey, and pushed Trenton's concentrated poverty rate from second highest in the state to highest.

The concentration of poor residents in high poverty neighborhoods can hinder upward income mobility and contribute to geographic disparities in education, employment, and homeownership. In Trenton's extreme poverty neighborhoods, just 25.4% of heads of household own their homes, 10.0% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and 21.3% of the labor force is unemployed. Outside of the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods, 66.0% of heads of household own their homes, 41.5% of adults have a bachelor's degree, and 8.1% of the workforce is unemployed.

New Mexico: Farmington2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +8.7 ppts (4.3% to 13.0%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,118 people (1,113 to 3,231)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.2% (New Mexico: +0.6%)Unemployment: 17.9% (poor neighborhoods) 9.8% (all other)

A large portion of the Farmington, New Mexico, metropolitan area consists of the Navajo Nation reservation that extends into Arizona and Utah as well. This reservation, like the American native population in general, has long faced conditions that contribute to poverty and other socioeconomic difficulties. However, the area's concentrated poverty rate as of 2010 was relatively low, at just 4.3%, compared to a national rate of 14.0%. That rate rose by 8.7 percentage points since 2010, the largest uptick in concentrated poverty in the state. Farmington now has the second highest concentrated poverty rate of any metro area in New Mexico, trailing only Las Cruces.

 (Photo: Stilfehler 19:28, 9 July 2007 (CEST) / Wikimedia Commons)

New York: Elmira2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +19.6 ppts (18.2% to 37.8%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,677 people (2,302 to 4,979)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -1.4% (New York: +1.2%)Unemployment: 10.9% (poor neighborhoods) 4.8% (all other)

Many cities in upstate New York struggle with slow and even negative economic growth and few U.S. metro areas reported a larger economic contraction than Elmira, New York. The metro area's GDP shrank by an annual average of 1.4% between 2010 and 2016, even as the state and national economies grew at average annual rates of 1.2% and 2.0%, respectively.

Over the same period, the share of poor metro area residents living in a neighborhood characterized by concentrated poverty more than doubled from 18.2% to 37.8%.

North Carolina: Greenville2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +16.8 ppts (6.5% to 23.3%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +7,232 people (2,415 to 9,647)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.6% (North Carolina: +1.4%)Unemployment: 14.2% (poor neighborhoods) 10.8% (all other)

The concentrated poverty rate in the Greenville metro area rose by 16.8 percentage points from 5.9% in 2010 to 23.3% in 2016, the largest increase of any city in North Carolina and the sixth largest nationwide. Greenville's concentrated poverty rate rose from eighth highest in North Carolina to the highest, and it is now more than double the 11.6% national figure.

While segregation of residents by income in urban areas can contribute to large geographic disparities in education, the presence of East Carolina University in Greenville likely helps reduce the achievement gap between high- and low-income neighborhoods. Some 27.8% of adults in Greenville's extreme poverty neighborhoods have a bachelor's degree, roughly in line with the 29.2% college attainment rate outside of the city's extreme poverty neighborhoods.

North Dakota: no city with concentrated poverty increase

Since 2010, concentrated poverty in North Dakota's three major metro areas has either remained unchanged or declined. The largest decline was in Bismarck, where the share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods fell from 16.9% in 2010 to 0.0% in 2016. Meanwhile, the metro area's poverty rate fell from 10.5% to 9.0%.

Over the same period, the concentrated poverty rate for North Dakota as a whole fell from 4.5% to 2.5%, the largest decline of any state other than Vermont. One factor contributing to the decline in poverty in North Dakota was the state's oil production boom, which peaked in 2015. The state's average annual GDP growth rate of 5.5% between 2010 and 2016 is by far the highest of any state.

Ohio: Mansfield2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.8 ppts (0.0% to 10.8%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,027 people (0 to 2,027)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.7% (Ohio: +1.9%)Unemployment: 19.2% (poor neighborhoods) 7.9% (all other)

While in 2010 Mansfield had no extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of the population lives in poverty -- two census tracts crossed that threshold over the last several years. Some 10.8% of the city's 19,000 poor residents now live in extreme poverty. While Mansfield experienced the largest increase in concentrated poverty of any metro in Ohio, the share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods remains below the comparable share statewide of 17.6% and the share nationwide of 11.6%, and it is the lowest of any city in the state.

More:Who is getting paid more? 16 states where personal incomes are booming

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

Oklahoma: Oklahoma City2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +5.4 ppts (7.1% to 12.5%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +12,025 people (12,396 to 24,421)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.7% (Oklahoma: +3.2%)Unemployment: 10.6% (poor neighborhoods) 5.1% (all other)

The number of extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of residents live at or below the poverty line -- in Oklahoma City rose from 14 to 20 between 2010 and 2016. Over the same period, the share of the city's poor who live in such neighborhoods rose from 7.1% to 12.1%, the largest increase of any metro area in Oklahoma. The national concentrated poverty rate, meanwhile, fell from 14.0% to 11.6%.

Like in most major urban areas, there is a large geographic disparity in education between Oklahoma City's high- and low-income neighborhoods. While 29.9% of adults outside of extreme poverty neighborhoods in Oklahoma City have a bachelor's degree, just 9.0% of adults within extreme poverty neighborhoods do.

Oregon: Salem2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +6.7 ppts (0.0% to 6.7%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,412 people (0 to 4,412)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.3% (Oregon: +1.4%)Unemployment: 20.2% (poor neighborhoods) 9.0% (all other)

In the majority of metro areas in Oregon, concentrated poverty rates either declined or remained flat from 2010 to 2016. Salem is a notable exception. In 2010, there were no neighborhoods in the Salem metro area with poverty rates of 40% or above. As of 2016, there were two, home to just over 4,400 people living below the poverty line.

Concentrated poverty climbed in Salem despite relatively rapid economic growth in recent years. The metro area reported nearly the highest-in-the-state GDP growth rates of 5.0% in 2014 and and 6.6% in 2015, largely offsetting weaker growth in previous years. Between 2010 and 2016, the average annual economic growth in the metro area was 2.3% -- higher than the comparable national 2.0% growth rate and the statewide 1.4% average growth.

Pennsylvania: Johnstown2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +14.2 ppts (8.3% to 22.5%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,004 people (1,555 to 4,559)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -1.6% (Pennsylvania: +1.7%)Unemployment: 17.6% (poor neighborhoods) 7.8% (all other)

While the national concentrated poverty rate fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016, the share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods in Johnstown rose from 8.3% to 22.5%, the largest increase of any metro area in Pennsylvania.

The increase in concentrated poverty affected the city's minority population the most. While the white concentrated poverty rate in Johnstown rose from 6.8% in 2010 to 15.0% in 2016, the black concentrated poverty rate rose from 23.6% to 71.5% -- today the highest such figure in Pennsylvania and the third highest in the nation.

Rhode Island: no city with concentrated poverty increase

While concentrated poverty nationwide has increased faster in suburban areas than in rural areas over the past several years, concentrated poverty in Rhode Island's one metro area fell even as it increased throughout the state as a whole. The share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods in the Providence-Warwick metro area declined from 7.2% in 2010 to 5.4% in 2016, while the state's concentrated poverty rate rose from 6.9% to 7.2%. The overall poverty rate, however, increased from 11.9% to 13.4% in Providence and decreased from 14.0% to 12.8% for Rhode Island as a whole.

South Carolina: Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2.6 ppts (10.5% to 13.1%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,807 people (12,529 to 17,336)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.5% (South Carolina: +2.1%)Unemployment: 11.0% (poor neighborhoods) 7.1% (all other)

The share of poor residents in the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin metro area who live in extreme poverty neighborhoods -- where at least 40% of the population is also poor -- rose from 10.5% in 2010 to 13.1% in 2016, the largest increase of any metro area in South Carolina.

While increases in concentrated poverty can contribute to large socioeconomic disparities between low- and high-income areas, the regional gap in unemployment actually fell in Greenville over the past several years. The 2010 unemployment rate of 17.9% for extreme poverty neighborhoods in Greenville was more than twice the 8.6% unemployment rate for the city's non-extreme poverty neighborhoods. Today, 11.0% of the labor force in extreme poverty neighborhoods is unemployed, compared to 7.1% outside of extreme poverty neighborhoods.

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

South Dakota: no city with concentrated poverty increase

While the concentrated poverty rate in South Dakota as a whole rose from 14.6% in 2010 to 15.9% in 2016, the share of poor residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods fell or remained unchanged in the state's metro areas. The largest decline occurred in the Rapid City metro area, where the concentrated poverty rate fell from 11.5% to 0.0%. While poverty became more concentrated in South Dakota, the state's overall poverty rate declined from 14.4% to 13.3%, even as the U.S. figure rose from 13.8% to 15.1%.

Tennessee: Cleveland2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +15.1 ppts (6.5% to 21.6%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +3,414 people (1,177 to 4,591)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.4% (Tennessee: +2.5%)Unemployment: 20.2% (poor neighborhoods) 8.3% (all other)

While the share of poor Americans living in extreme poverty neighborhoods nationwide fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016, the concentrated poverty rate in Cleveland rose from 6.5% to 21.6% -- the largest increase of any metro area in Tennessee and the ninth largest in the country.

Income segregation can contribute to large disparities in homeownership, employment, and other socioeconomic outcomes, particularly in urban areas. In Cleveland, just 32.2% of heads of household living in extreme poverty neighborhoods own their homes, and 20.2% of the labor force is unemployed. By comparison, 70.3% of heads of household outside of extreme poverty neighborhoods in the metro area own their homes, and 8.3% of the labor force is unemployed.

More:Public sector jobs: States where the most people work for the government

Texas: Laredo2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +15.0 ppts (44.1% to 59.1%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +18,464 people (31,275 to 49,739)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +0.8% (Texas: +3.6%)Unemployment: 7.0% (poor neighborhoods) 5.5% (all other)

The share of poor Laredo residents living in extreme poverty neighborhoods -- where at least 40% of residents live at or below the poverty line -- rose from 44.1% in 2010 to 59.1% in 2016. The increase was the largest of any metro area in Texas, the 10th largest of any city nationwide, and pushed Laredo's concentrated poverty rate from third highest in the country to the highest.

The rise in concentrated poverty affected the metro area's minority communities the most. While the concentrated poverty rate for white residents in Laredo rose from 35.2% in 2010 to 39.7% in 2016, the concentrated poverty rate for black residents rose from 27.7% to 62.4%, and for Hispanic residents from 44.4% to 59.7%.

Utah: Logan2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +24.0 ppts (0.0% to 24.0%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +4,546 people (0 to 4,546)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.3% (Utah: +2.9%)Unemployment: 6.5% (poor neighborhoods) 4.0% (all other)

While in 2010 the Logan metro area had no extreme poverty neighborhoods -- in which at least 40% of residents are poor -- two census tracts have crossed that threshold over the past several years. Today, some 24.0% of Logan's 19,000 poor residents live in extreme poverty -- the highest concentrated poverty rate of any Utah metro area.

Logan's increasing concentrated poverty rate may be partially the result of slower than average economic growth. Between 2010 and 2016, Logan's economy grew at an average annual rate of 1.3% -- the slowest of any metro area in the state and below the U.S. GDP growth of 2.0% for that time.

Vermont: no city with concentrated poverty increase

No metro areas in Vermont reported an increase in concentrated poverty from 2010 to 2016. Burlington-South Burlington, the state's only metro area, was home to two extreme poverty neighborhoods in 2010. However, the share of poor metro area residents living in neighborhoods where at least 40% of the population is poor declined from 15.0% to 0.0% as the two poorest tracts fell below the extreme poverty threshold. As a result, the concentrated poverty rate for Vermont as a whole fell from 4.1% to 0.0%, the largest decline of any state.

 (Photo: dougtone / Flickr)

Virginia: Harrisonburg2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +10.3 ppts (0.0% to 10.3%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,444 people (0 to 2,444)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.4% (Virginia: +0.6%)Unemployment: 1.7% (poor neighborhoods) 5.1% (all other)

One neighborhood in the Harrisonburg metro area crossed the extreme poverty threshold between 2010 and 2016. Today, some 10.3% of the metro area's 23,600 poor residents live in that neighborhood, nearly twice the 5.6% concentrated poverty rate for Virginia as a whole.

As is often the case among the cities on this list, economic growth has been weak in Harrisonburg in recent years. The metro area's average annual GDP growth rate of -0.4% between 2010 and 2016 is below both the state annual growth rate of 0.6% and the national rate of 2.0%.

More:What's the richest town in every state?

Washington: Kennewick-Richland2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +0.9 ppts (8.4% to 9.3%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +752 people (2,952 to 3,704)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: -0.6% (Washington: +2.9%)Unemployment: 13.7% (poor neighborhoods) 6.4% (all other)

While the share of poor Americans living in extreme poverty neighborhoods -- where at least 40% of residents also live below the poverty line -- fell from 14.0% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2016 nationwide, the concentrated poverty rate in the Kennewick-Richland metro area rose from 8.4% to 9.3%.

Low-income areas tend to have less access to education and employment opportunities than high-income areas. In Kennewick's extreme poverty neighborhood, just 8.0% of adults have a bachelor's degree and 13.7% of the labor force are unemployed. By comparison, 25.9% of adults have a bachelor's degree and 6.4% of the labor force is unemployed in the metro area's remaining neighborhoods.

West Virginia: Morgantown2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +8.2 ppts (0.0% to 8.2%2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,137 people (0 to 2,137)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +2.1% (West Virginia: +0.1%)Unemployment: 1.1% (poor neighborhoods) 6.3% (all other)

Since 2010, one neighborhood in Morgantown has crossed the 40% poverty rate threshold. Morgantown's extreme poverty neighborhood is home to 8.2% of the city's poor population, the second highest concentrated poverty rate of any metro area in West Virginia yet less than the 11.6% national figure.

While Morgantown's poor residents are not as densely concentrated in poor neighborhoods as many of the other U.S. cities where extreme poverty is on the rise, it is still one of the poorest metro areas nationwide. Overall, some 20.5% of Morgantown residents live in poverty, more than the 15.1% national poverty rate and the vast majority of U.S. metro areas.

 (Photo: Thinkstock)

Wisconsin: Oshkosh-Neenah2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +13.1 ppts (0.0% to 13.1%)2010-2016 increase in concentrated poverty: +2,559 people (0 to 2,559)2010-2016 avg. annual GDP growth: +1.5% (Wisconsin: +1.7%)Unemployment: 7.1% (poor neighborhoods) 4.3% (all other)

While in 2010 no neighborhoods in the Oshkosh-Neenah metro area met the criteria for extreme poverty, one census tract has crossed that threshold in the last several years. Oshkosh's extreme poverty neighborhood is home to 13.1% of the city's 20,000 poor residents, a higher concentrated poverty rate than both the state 12.3% rate and the national 11.6% rate.

Joblessness is a bigger problem in Oshkosh-Neenah's poorest neighborhood than it is in the rest of the metro area. Some 7.1% of the labor force living in the area's concentrated poverty neighborhood is unemployed, compared to 4.3% of the labor force living in the rest of the city.

Wyoming: no city with concentrated poverty increase

Wyoming is a relatively high-income state, and none of its census tracts meet the 40% poverty threshold required to be considered an extreme poverty neighborhood. Statewide, some 11.3% of Wyoming residents live at or below the poverty line, far less than the 15.1% national poverty rate and less than a majority of states.

Despite increasing over the last several years, poverty is less prevalent in Wyoming's two metro areas than it is statewide. The share of residents living in poverty in the Cheyenne metro area rose from 9.6% in 2010 to 10.4% in 2016, and in the Casper area from 8.4% to 10.5%.

CLOSE

The President��s economic approval rating has hit an all time high since he took office, a new Survey shows. Susana Victoria Perez has more. Buzz60

Detailed findings

The relationship between education and income has grown increasingly apparent in recent years. According to the Social Security Administration, the median lifetime earnings for men with a bachelor��s degree is $900,000 more than the median income for men with a high school diploma. Among women, the difference is $630,000.

This connection is apparent in the neighborhoods with high concentrated poverty rates. The national bachelor��s attainment rate in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty is 11.6%, compared to the 30.8% attainment rate in all other neighborhoods.

Joblessness also tends to be a bigger problem in extremely poor neighborhoods than in those with lower poverty rates. Unemployment is higher in the poorest neighborhoods than it is in the remaining parts of the city in all but two metro areas on this list. In neighborhoods without concentrated poverty, the average annual unemployment rate is 7.2%. In concentrated poverty neighborhoods, unemployment averages 16.4%.

Declining job availability may partially explain the upticks in concentrated poverty. In the majority of metro areas on this list for which comparable data is available, unemployment in the poorest neighborhoods climbed between 2010 and 2016.

Both declining job availability and upticks in extreme poverty rates are often partially the result of weak economic growth. Eleven cities on this list reported negative average annual GDP growth between 2010 and 2016, even as the U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 2.0% over the same period.

Not all states are home to a metro area with upticks in concentrated poverty. Metro areas in Hawaii, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Vermont reported declining rates of extreme poverty from 2010 to 2016.

Meanwhile, Alaska, Delaware, and Wyoming had no metro areas with extreme poverty neighborhoods in either 2010 or 2016.

More:25 richest cities in America: Does your metro area make the list?

Methodology

To identify the metropolitan areas where poverty is concentrating the fastest in each state, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data on poverty rates at the tract level. We list for each state the metro area with the largest percentage point increase in residents living in extreme poverty. The concentrated poverty rate is the share of a metropolitan area��s poor population that lives in a census tract characterized by extreme poverty �� having a poverty rate of 40% or higher. The concentrated poverty rate was reviewed for 2010 �� represented as a five-year average for 2006-2010, and 2016 �� a five-year average for 2012-2016. Census tracts in which more than 50% of the population is enrolled in postsecondary school or where the total population is fewer than 500 were excluded from consideration of extreme poverty. We also reviewed other data from the American Community Survey, including educational attainment rates and unemployment rates for both groups in concentrated poverty and those not in poverty. These data are also averages of the 2006-2010 and 2012-2016 five-year periods. Average annual GDP growth came from the Bureau Economic Analysis.

24/7 Wall Street is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Aston Martin put a V8 in this silly, tiny car

Aston Martin just added ridiculous horsepower to a create a monstrously fast one-off version of the silliest, tiniest car it ever made.

The Aston Martin Cygnet was produced between 2011 and 2012 as a sort of side vehicle for owners of other Aston Martins to drive in tight, crowded city streets. You could get one of these 拢31,000 ($40,000) to go along with your other higher end Aston Martins.

The diminutive vehicle was actually a reworked version of a Toyota (TM) iQ, which was sold as the Scion iQ in the United States. Aston Martin added its famous grill and trimmed the interior in expensive leather.

One customer, apparently, thought it needed more power. A lot more power.

So Aston Martin built a single, custom Cygnet V8.

Technicians took out the original 1.0-liter, four cylinder engine and installed an engine from the Aston Martin V8 Vantage S -- a 4.7 liter engine capable of producing 430 horsepower.

The Cygnet V8 can accelerate zero to 60 in 4.2 seconds and reach a top speed of 170 miles an hour, 60 miles an hour faster than before.

Aston Martin has announced no plans to market a car like this more broadly but automakers will sometimes participate in making extreme custom cars like this for their headline-grabbing potential.

The Cygnet V8 will run in a hillclimb event at the Goodwood Festival of Speed in England this weekend. Modern automakers often show off their wares at the popular vintage racing event to gain the attention of well-off car enthusiasts.

02 aston martin cygnet v8 rear For safety, the Cygnet V8 has a built-in roll cage, four-point seatbelts and a fire extuingisher.

The original Cygnet was a front wheel drive car, but this modified version is rear-wheel-drive. The body required significant amounts of work to fit in the new engine and transmission.

For safety, the Cygnet V8 has a full roll cage, a fire extinguisher and Recaro seats with four-point seatbelts.

Aston Martin would not identify the customer for whom the car was built. Original Cygnets have become collectibles, according to Aston Martin, and their market value is increasing.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Buy AIA Engineering, target Rs 1855: Aditya Agarwala

Aditya Agarwala

On the weekly chart, AIA Engineering is on the verge of a breakout from an Ascending Triangle pattern (as indicated on chart) neckline placed at Rs 1,645. The breakout above Rs 1645 with healthy volumes can resume the uptrend taking it to levels of Rs 1,750-1,855.

On the daily chart, it has broken out from a Cup and Handle pattern affirming bullishness dominant in the stock. Moreover, RSI turned upwards after taking support at the lower end of the bull zone i.e. 40 level suggesting higher levels in the coming trading sessions.

The stock may be bought in the range of Rs 1,605-1,615 for a target of Rs 1,750-1,855 and a stop loss below Rs 1,500.

Disclaimer: The author Technical Analyst at YES Securities (I) Ltd. The views and investment tips expressed by investment expert on Moneycontrol.com are his own and not that of the website or its management. Moneycontrol.com advises users to check with certified experts before taking any investment decisions. First Published on Jul 11, 2018 02:51 pm

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Starbucks to scrap plastic straws by 2020

Starbucks plans to eliminate plastic straws globally by 2020.

The coffee-shop giant announced Monday that it will use�recyclable strawless lids and an alternative-material straw option in its more than 28,000�stores around the world. The move will eliminate more than 1 billion plastic straws per year from Starbucks stores, the company said.

"For our partners and customers, this is a significant milestone to achieve our global aspiration of sustainable coffee, served to our customers in more sustainable ways," Kevin Johnson, president and CEO of Starbucks, said in a statement.

The chain�joins a growing number of companies�making similar pledges, including Alaska Airlines, hotel chains Hilton and AccorHotels, cruise lines Royal Caribbean and�Cunard, and food-service giant Bon Appetit Management, whose 1,000-plus�locations in 33 states�include universities and museums.

Last month, McDonald's announced that it would�start�testing plastic-straw alternatives at certain U.S. locations this year.

Americans use an estimated 500 million single-use straws�daily, according to Eco-Cycle.�

CLOSE

Starbucks, citing the environment threat to oceans, will ban plastic straws from all of its stores globally in less than two years. Time

Starbucks' newly designed strawless lid will be used for all iced coffee, tea and espresso beverages. The environmentally friendly lid is now available in more than 8,000 of its stores in the U.S. and Canada for select beverages, including Draft Nitro and Cold Foam. Cold beverages now account�for more than 50 percent of Starbucks' beverage mix in the U.S., up from 37 percent�five years ago, the company said.

The coffee retailer will also begin offering straws made from alternative materials �� including paper or compostable plastic �� for Frappuccino beverages. These new straws will also be made available upon request to customers who prefer or need a straw, the company said.

Starting this fall, Starbucks customers in Seattle and Vancouver will be the first to receive the strawless lids, with phased roll-outs in the U.S. and Canada coming�in fiscal year 2019. A global roll-out will follow, starting in�Europe where the strawless lids will arrive in select stores in France, the Netherlands and the U.K.

Starbucks' new strawless lid. (Photo: Starbucks)

More: U.S. trade war with China, other countries: Layoffs, reduced hours, slimmer profits

More: Could a tsunami of robocalls be heading to our cellphones?

More: Trump vs. Red Hen restaurant: Eateries in Trump properties also dinged for violations

A plastic-straw ban in Seattle, Starbucks' hometown, took effect July 1, making it the first major city to take action.�Malibu, California;�Miami�Beach, Florida;�and Monmouth Beach, New Jersey,�also prohibit single-use sippers.

Other municipalities mulling over the same kind of measure include Portland and�New York City; California is considering a statewide ban.

Fueling the movement is increased consumer environmentalism and concern about the many straws that end up polluting oceans and waterways.�

Anti-straw activists often suggest using straws made of paper, metal or glass �� or simply drinking without one. Among the big names advocating for straw bans are actor Adrian Grenier,�New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady�and actor�Kendrick Sampson.

Grenier, best known for his role in the TV show�Entourage, urged�Starbucks at its�March shareholders meeting in Seattle to take action.

"Starbucks taught the world how to drink coffee, and I firmly believe that Starbucks can teach the world how to make the environment its ultimate business partner," Grenier said.�"The siren is calling. I hope all of you will listen to her."

An online petition calling on Starbucks to say goodbye to plastic straws has close to 150,000 signatures.

This isn't the first time Starbucks has considered the environmental effect its customers' waste has. In March, for example, the company announced a $10 million challenge to design a disposable coffee cup that is compostable.

Starting July 10, Starbucks will also add two new permanent additions to its cold coffee menu in the U.S. and Canada: Salted Cream Cold Foam Cold Brew, featuring a strawless lid;�and�Iced Vanilla Bean Coconutmilk Latte, which consists of vanilla bean and coconut milk shaken with ice, with shots of Starbucks' signature espresso poured on top.

CLOSE

A bill proposed in California would make it illegal for restaurant servers to give guests plastic straws unless requested �� with the threat of a $1,000 fine or jail time attached. Buzz60

Follow USA TODAY reporter Zlati Meyer on Twitter: @ZlatiMeyer

Monday, July 9, 2018

Baozun (BZUN) Receiving Somewhat Positive News Coverage, Report Shows

Media coverage about Baozun (NASDAQ:BZUN) has been trending somewhat positive this week, according to Accern. The research firm rates the sentiment of media coverage by analyzing more than twenty million news and blog sources. Accern ranks coverage of publicly-traded companies on a scale of -1 to 1, with scores nearest to one being the most favorable. Baozun earned a news sentiment score of 0.13 on Accern’s scale. Accern also assigned headlines about the technology company an impact score of 46.232409758338 out of 100, meaning that recent media coverage is somewhat unlikely to have an effect on the stock’s share price in the next few days.

Here are some of the headlines that may have effected Accern’s rankings:

Get Baozun alerts: Baozun Buy Signal Could Rattle Short Sellers (schaeffersresearch.com) These Metrics Continue to Support Higher BZUN Stock Prices (profitconfidential.com) Baozun Inc (BZUN) Receives Average Rating of “Buy” from Analysts (americanbankingnews.com) Baozun Inc. (BZUN) crosses 200-SMA up 32.74% (nasdaqplace.com) Should Investors Be Concerned About Baozun Inc. (BZUN) (connectinginvestor.com)

Baozun traded up $0.34, reaching $55.44, during midday trading on Friday, MarketBeat reports. The company had a trading volume of 1,286,589 shares, compared to its average volume of 2,158,449. The company has a quick ratio of 2.09, a current ratio of 2.48 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.03. Baozun has a fifty-two week low of $24.76 and a fifty-two week high of $67.41. The company has a market cap of $3.05 billion, a P/E ratio of 100.80 and a beta of 3.97.

Baozun (NASDAQ:BZUN) last issued its earnings results on Thursday, May 17th. The technology company reported $0.04 EPS for the quarter, missing the Zacks’ consensus estimate of $0.10 by ($0.06). The company had revenue of $921.20 million during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $884.38 million. Baozun had a net margin of 5.00% and a return on equity of 12.23%. The business’s revenue was up 14.4% on a year-over-year basis. During the same quarter in the previous year, the firm earned $0.54 earnings per share. analysts expect that Baozun will post 0.97 EPS for the current fiscal year.

A number of brokerages have commented on BZUN. BidaskClub downgraded Baozun from a “strong-buy” rating to a “buy” rating in a research note on Tuesday, June 26th. Zacks Investment Research downgraded Baozun from a “buy” rating to a “sell” rating in a research note on Wednesday. Vetr downgraded Baozun from a “hold” rating to a “sell” rating and set a $44.90 target price for the company. in a research note on Monday, March 12th. TheStreet upgraded Baozun from a “c” rating to a “b-” rating in a research note on Monday, May 21st. Finally, ValuEngine upgraded Baozun from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating in a research note on Wednesday, May 2nd. One research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, one has issued a hold rating and five have given a buy rating to the company’s stock. Baozun currently has a consensus rating of “Buy” and a consensus price target of $42.68.

Baozun Company Profile

Baozun Inc provides e-commerce solutions for brand partners in the People's Republic of China. It offers end-to-end e-commerce solutions, including IT infrastructure setup and integration, online store design and setup, store operations, visual merchandizing and marketing campaigns, customer services, warehousing, and order fulfillment.

Insider Buying and Selling by Quarter for Baozun (NASDAQ:BZUN)

Saturday, July 7, 2018

ValuEngine Downgrades New York & Company, Inc. (NWY) to Hold

ValuEngine lowered shares of New York & Company, Inc. (NYSE:NWY) from a buy rating to a hold rating in a research report report published on Monday.

Separately, Roth Capital began coverage on shares of New York & Company, Inc. in a research note on Monday, April 2nd. They issued a buy rating and a $5.00 target price on the stock.

Get New York & Company Inc. alerts:

Shares of NYSE:NWY opened at $4.86 on Monday. The company has a market cap of $308.57 million, a P/E ratio of 48.60 and a beta of 1.44. New York & Company, Inc. has a twelve month low of $1.29 and a twelve month high of $5.34.

New York & Company, Inc. (NYSE:NWY) last issued its earnings results on Thursday, May 24th. The specialty retailer reported $0.06 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $0.03 by $0.03. The firm had revenue of $218.83 million for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $217.98 million. New York & Company, Inc. had a net margin of 1.39% and a return on equity of 15.66%. During the same quarter in the prior year, the firm posted ($0.07) earnings per share. equities analysts forecast that New York & Company, Inc. will post 0.2 earnings per share for the current year.

In other news, EVP Faeth Bradley sold 33,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, June 26th. The shares were sold at an average price of $5.07, for a total value of $167,310.00. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is accessible through this link. Also, Director Arthur E. Reiner sold 75,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, April 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $4.16, for a total transaction of $312,000.00. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. In the last quarter, insiders sold 128,500 shares of company stock worth $564,795. Insiders own 53.80% of the company’s stock.

Several hedge funds and other institutional investors have recently modified their holdings of the company. Millennium Management LLC lifted its stake in shares of New York & Company, Inc. by 2,019.5% in the first quarter. Millennium Management LLC now owns 460,886 shares of the specialty retailer’s stock worth $1,558,000 after buying an additional 439,141 shares in the last quarter. Wynnefield Capital Inc. lifted its stake in shares of New York & Company, Inc. by 179.0% in the first quarter. Wynnefield Capital Inc. now owns 724,805 shares of the specialty retailer’s stock worth $2,449,000 after buying an additional 465,000 shares in the last quarter. Element Capital Management LLC bought a new position in shares of New York & Company, Inc. in the first quarter worth approximately $183,000. Tibra Equities Europe Ltd bought a new position in shares of New York & Company, Inc. in the first quarter worth approximately $226,000. Finally, Dimensional Fund Advisors LP lifted its stake in shares of New York & Company, Inc. by 3.1% in the first quarter. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP now owns 2,491,262 shares of the specialty retailer’s stock worth $8,420,000 after buying an additional 75,510 shares in the last quarter. Hedge funds and other institutional investors own 32.77% of the company’s stock.

New York & Company, Inc. Company Profile

New York & Company, Inc operates as a specialty retailer of women's fashion apparel and accessories in the United States. It offers a merchandise assortment, including wear-to-work, casual apparel, and accessories comprising pants, dresses, jackets, knit tops, blouses, sweaters, denims, T-shirts, active wear, handbags, jewelry, and shoes under the New York & Company, NY&C, NY Style, Soho New York & Company Jeans, Lerner, Lerner New York, and Fashion to Figure brand names for women between the ages of 25 and 49.

To view ValuEngine’s full report, visit ValuEngine’s official website.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Why Veon Ltd. (ADR) Jumped Tuesday

What happened

Shares of communications and technology company Veon (NASDAQ:VEON) rose as much as 25.5% on Tuesday after the company announced the sale of its 50% stake in Italian mobile network Wind Tre for 2,450 euro, or approximately $2.9 billion. Veon's sale of its Wind Tre stake to CK Hutchison will enable Veon to fully exit the Italian mobile network.

In its announcement on Tuesday, Veon said it is offering to acquire the assets of Global Telecom Holdings S.A.E's (HTG) assets in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The acquisition of the international telecommunications company's Pakistan and Bangladesh assets would require only a fraction of the proceeds that Veon receives from the sale of its Wind Tre stake. Veon notably already owns 57.7% of GTH.

At the time of this writing, Veon is up 17.2% on Monday. But shares haven't recovered from declines earlier this year.

A chart with a stock price moving higher

Image source: Getty Images.

So what

Proceeds from the sale will ultimately help Veon simplify its business structure, reduce debt, and build shareholder value, the company said in a press release explaining the two transactions.

Along with the announcement of these strategic transactions, Ursula Burns, Veon's executive chairman, detailed "four immediate priorities" for the company: "simplifying the Group's structure, increasing our operational focus on emerging markets, strengthening the Group's balance sheet and supporting the company's current dividend policy."

Now what

Investors should keep in mind that both Veon's sale of Wind Tre and its offer to acquire GTH's Pakistan and Bangladesh assets are not done deals yet. Veon's sale of its Wind Tre stake "is subject to EU merger control clearance and necessary Italian regulatory approvals," Veon said. And Veon's offer to acquire GTH's Pakistan�and Bangladesh assets must still be approved by GTH shareholders. Veon expects to close on its transaction with GTH during the fourth quarter of 2018, however.

Burns said the company will "provide a more comprehensive update on VEON's strategy in the coming weeks."