Top CEOs opposed Trump’s 2020 election lies. Now some are softening toward him

David Becker/Getty Images

(WASHINGTON) — When then-President Donald Trump falsely declared victory days after Election Night in 2020, dozens of CEOs at the nation’s top companies assembled on a Zoom call to prevent what they feared could be the end of democracy in the U.S.

As Trump stands poised to win the Republican nomination in the 2024 contest, however, some prominent chief executives appear to have softened their stance toward him.

Rattling off Trump’s policies on topics ranging from the economy to China, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told CNBC earlier this month that Trump “wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues.” Dimon did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Former company executives and advocacy group leaders expressed concern to ABC News about the posture toward Trump taken up by prominent CEOs in recent weeks, saying the executives appear to be prioritizing the short-term interests of their companies over the long-term health of the nation’s democracy and, in turn, a stable free market economy.

In private, many CEOs acknowledge that Trump poses a threat to democracy, but they likely remain reluctant to weigh in out of fear for an appearance of partisanship or even backlash from Trump should he become president, some of the former executives and advocacy group leaders said.

“CEOs are hedging their bets,” Tom Rogers, the founder of CNBC and an attendee at the Zoom call in November 2020, told ABC News.

“People think being on the wrong side of Trump was a bad move for individual companies. People may fear that if he is unleashed in a second term, his willingness to take on individual companies could be even more extreme,” Rogers added.

As another presidential election nears, Trump continues to deny the outcome of the previous election and vows to vigorously fight scores of felony charges, including allegations in two separate indictments of an illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election outcome.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has denied wrongdoing in response to all related allegations.

In recent weeks, a series of high-profile CEOs have spoken confidently about the prospects for their businesses or the country under Trump.

“The reality is, hey, we are the same company, regardless of when that election is going to occur. And regardless of who that president will be,” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff told Bloomberg earlier this month.

Also speaking this month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Bloomberg, “I believe America is going to be fine no matter what happens in this election.”

Benioff did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Neither did Altman.

Tom Glocer, the former CEO of Thomson Reuters, who also attended the November 2020 Zoom meeting, said some of the public comments from CEOs suggest that they’re “backing away.”

“It worries me,” Glocer told ABC News, citing what he considers Trump’s politicization of the judicial system and denial of the 2020 election.

“That’s bad for U.S. business,” he added.

Last year, a rating agency downgraded U.S. credit for the second time in the nation’s history. Fitch Ratings cited the ballooning U.S. debt load and a weakening of governance, as well as the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, as considerations in their decision.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who convened the November 2020 conference call with top CEOs, rebuked the notion that the recent remarks from chief executives about Trump suggest a shift in their posture. “None whatsoever,” Sonnenfeld told ABC News.

Business leaders do not consider it their role to weigh in on partisan issues, Sonnenfeld added, saying their willingness to defend democracy in 2020 aligns with the views expressed in recent weeks.

The former executives and advocates have also warned about overstating the alarm.

“We shouldn’t take it as the overarching or final perspective from the business community,” said Daniella Ballou-Aares, CEO and co-founder of the Leadership Now Project, a membership organization made up of business leaders concerned about the future of U.S. democracy.

Business leaders have spearheaded efforts to safeguard democracy in swing states where the election will likely be decided, Ballou-Aares added. Last week, for example, nearly 70 business leaders in Ohio signed a public letter aiming to remove politicians from the redistricting process.

Elizabeth Doty, the director of the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at the University of Michigan, echoed this view.

“We’ll see fewer dramatic statements but more quiet commitments,” Doty told ABC News.

For his part, Glocer said worried onlookers risk overstating the importance of statements from CEOs. Their capacity to influence public sentiment, Glocer added, pales in comparison to that of a pop superstar like Taylor Swift.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

IRS launching new programs to make filing easier as 2024 tax season begins

courtneyk/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — As the 2024 tax season kicked off across the nation Monday, the Internal Revenue Service is offering some new services it says will help make filing easier for taxpayers.

The IRS is now offering Free File and Direct File for qualifying taxpayers and expanded in-person services through its Taxpayer Assistance Centers.

The new programs come after an infusion of supplemental funding provided to the IRS through the Inflation Reduction Act.

“As our transformation efforts take hold, taxpayers will continue to see marked improvement in IRS operations in the upcoming filing season,” IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said. “IRS employees are working hard to make sure that new funding is used to help taxpayers by making the process of preparing and filing taxes easier.”

Free File offers taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $79,000 or less access to IRS-partnered tax softwares enabling them to file for free. All taxpayers are eligible to use Free File Fillable Forms, though this option does not come with as much guidance.

The Direct File option is a pilot program offering free federal tax return filing with step-by-step guidance. The 2024 season will see a phased roll out plan, so it won’t be available to all taxpayers immediately.

Only a small number of taxpayers will be able to access the program at the start of filing season, but it is expected to be more widely available by mid-March in 12 participating states: Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington state and Wyoming.

The IRA funding has also allowed the IRS to expand its in-person services. Fifty Taxpayer Assistance Centers have been opened or reopened using the funds and will be operating with expanded hours for the 2024 filing season.

For a quick and easy return, the IRS says electronic filing with direct deposit is still the best option for taxpayers, but regardless of how people file, it’s important to hold off until they’ve received all of their income-related documents.

The IRS anticipates almost 129 million individual tax returns to be filed this season.

Taxpayers living in Maine and Massachusetts have until April 17 this year to file, but most returns must be filed by the April 15, 2024, tax deadline.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A potential Trump-Biden contest could hinge on the economy. Here’s how their plans differ.

Anton Petrus/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Former president Donald Trump trounced his Republican opponents in the first two primary contests, setting the course for a potential general election rematch with likely Democratic nominee President Joe Biden.

The decisive issue, according to polls, may prove to be the economy. Seventy-four percent of Americans say the economy is very important to them, making it the top concern among voters, an ABC News/Ipsos poll in November found.

Biden and Trump contrast sharply on topics that intimately affect everyday people’s finances, including taxes, jobs and trade. Neither candidates’ campaign responded to ABC News’ request for comment.

Here’s what to know about key economic proposals put forward by the rival presidential candidates:

Taxes

Biden has sought to raise taxes on wealthy people and some corporations in what he considers an effort to bring fairness to the tax code.

On the other hand, Trump appears poised to preserve or deepen tax cuts that he views as a catalyst for economic growth.

Trump is committed to extending the tax cuts signed into law during his first term when they begin to phase out in 2025, Stephen Moore, who served as an economic adviser to Trump and says he has helped shape Trump’s agenda for a possible second term, previously told ABC News.

The administration may seek to cut taxes further but details of such a proposal remain uncertain, Moore said.

“This is all in motion,” Moore added. “Nothing has been decided.”

By contrast, the Biden administration has proposed tax hikes for wealthy people and indicated a preference for allowing some of the Trump tax cuts to lapse.

For example, Biden could oversee the expiration of a 20% tax deduction for specific income generated at pass-through businesses, such as sole proprietorships, that file taxes through a personal owner. The move would effectively amount to a tax increase for those companies.

Targeting high-net worth individuals, meanwhile, Biden could impose a first-of-its kind wealth tax.

Last year, Biden proposed a 2024 tax plan that included a 25% tax on the wealth of individuals with a net worth exceeding $100 million. The plan, Biden said, would apply to 0.01% of Americans.

“I’m a capitalist, but pay your fair share,” Biden said in his State of the Union address last year.

The currently divided Congress may not pass such a tax hike but Biden could pursue it if granted a second term.

Trade

While the Biden campaign has not put forward an agenda for trade policy under a second term, his administration has so far taken up an aggressive posture toward some adversarial countries like China while reaching trade deals with others.

Biden preserved the tariffs imposed by Trump on Chinese imports, escalating the confrontation with China through additional measures, such as a ban on the export of advanced chips to the country.

On the other hand, the U.S. in recent years has reached trade agreements for some goods with neighboring countries Taiwan and Japan. In December, the Biden administration extended a suspension of Trump-era tariffs on steel and aluminum from Europe, but the White House has established a permanent agreement to do away with the levy.

For his part, Trump plans to ratchet up the confrontational trade policy instituted during his first term, promising to impose tariffs on most imported goods.

Speaking with Fox Business in August, Trump said the tax on imported items could ultimately stand at 10%.

Trump also plans to tighten constraints on China-made products, including a “4-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods,” according to a set of proposals released in February.

Jobs and manufacturing

Both candidates tout their bonafides as job creators who nurture the growth of U.S. manufacturing. But they have carried out very different approaches to doing so.

The Trump campaign has presented its tariff policy as a means of protecting U.S. businesses, thereby ensuring a robust job market and a bolstered domestic supply chain.

“Trump wants jobs here in America,” Moore said. “He wants things made in America.”

The Biden administration, by contrast, has enacted federal legislation that brings investment to U.S. companies and in turn boosts the demand for workers.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago last week, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pointed to several measures signed into law by Biden that have brought investment to projects focused on infrastructure, computer chips and clean energy.

“These investments will fuel our economic growth and increase our economic security,” Yellen said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Electric vehicles are a ‘huge manufacturing and jobs win’ for America: Energy secretary

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm addresses Americans’ concerns about owning an electric vehicle in an interview with ABC News’ Morgan Korn. — ABC News

(NEW YORK) — You’ve seen them on the roads, at the local Walmart, maybe in your neighbor’s driveway.

Electric vehicles are proliferating across the nation, yet so many Americans still have questions about these battery-powered trucks and cars: Where do I charge them? What if I run out of range? Can I afford one?

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, a two-term governor of Michigan and longtime EV owner, recently sat down with ABC News to address the many concerns and anxieties surrounding EVs. She offered a clear message for Americans still deciding whether to buy or lease one: They’re better for the environment and your pocketbook. And building them in the U.S. will produce jobs and reduce the dependency on Chinese-made parts.

Still, Granholm said there’s work to be done to make charging more accessible around the country.

The interview below has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Q: Electric vehicles are a hot topic in Washington and around the country. Range anxiety is a real concern for drivers who are new to this technology. How do we solve this problem – is it building vehicles with more than 300 miles of range or is it putting charging stations in every town and on every highway?

A: It’s both actually. So the range anxiety issue — I totally get this. I mean, who wants to buy a car if you can’t fill it up in whatever way, right? So that’s why the Biden administration has put $7.5 billion into building out these charging stations in places where the private sector is not already going. We’ve got about 170,000 charging stations across America right now. They’re adding about 900 per week. With the money that has come from the president’s agenda … we think we’re going to get to 500,000 by 2026. And more after that.

I think it’s important for people to know that if they have a garage, they have a charging station. Just plug it in at home. I think a lot of times people who are considering buying EVs aren’t aware that is an option.

Q: Skepticism over public charging availability is the primary reason consumers reject EVs, according to J.D. Power. You personally experienced charging difficulties this summer on your EV roadshow. The Department of Transportation recently said it was granting $149 million to repair or replace non-operational EV chargers. What are you doing to hold private charging companies accountable for these offline and broken chargers?

A: First of all, that funding goes to states to make sure they identify which chargers are out and put in ones that work. We do not want to see having spent all the money to install a charger … and it not be working. Now let me just say this, we are trying to fill in all of these gaps. And we know that right now there aren’t enough chargers in the United States.

And the whole goal of the president was to add 500,000 chargers just from the public money in places where we don’t already have them. And it also means replacing those chargers that don’t work. But if you are able to park along a street and pull down a charger from a lamp post and plug it in, if you don’t have other options, if you’re able to just go to a Walmart and plug in and go shopping and come out, you can imagine that the accessibility of chargers will be more abundant than if you drive a gas-powered vehicle and have to find a gas station.

If you can charge in convenient places — at a library, at a park – you will see this range anxiety issue dropped. But I understand that it’s there right now. And that’s why we’re working very fast to get these chargers out right now.

Q: What type of chargers are we talking about? Are they Level 2? Level 3?

A: Along the freeway, we want them to be high-speed chargers. We want people to know that because of the federal funding, they will be every 50 miles, not more than one mile off of the freeway or a transportation corridor. We are very focused on fast charging so that people feel comfortable.

Also, kudos to those entities in the private sector who are actually putting electric vehicle charging stations at gas stations because they see that as an opportunity, especially if they got a snack store. If you’re charging, you might spend a little bit of time in the snack store while [the vehicles] is charging to be able to get whatever Kit Kats you need.

Q: President Biden said he’d like EVs to make up at least 50% of new vehicle sales by 2030. Last year, EVs accounted for 7% of the U.S. market. How is the administration going to accomplish this goal in six years?

A: Last year, the number of sales were 1.4 million — a record — and it was 50% more than the year before. Last year, I think, the EV revolution launched across America. This year, you’re gonna see it spread all across.

I mean, honestly, it’s not about what the president says. It’s about what people who buy an EV say. The satisfaction rate of EV owners is through the roof — like 95%. People who have driven an EV won’t go back because it’s so better. It’s so much cheaper to operate. I mean, if you fill up your average gas tank today, an average car, it’s about $49. If you charge and go that same distance, it’s about $15. If you fill up every week, that is a huge savings for your average citizen.

So just on the savings of operating an EV alone, they’ve become more affordable. I think that as people decide to replace their vehicles, EVs will become something that more people will look at once they’ve heard their neighbors say, ‘You know what, this is really great.’

Q: The Inflation Reduction Act drastically reduced the number of EVs and plug-in hybrids that were eligible for the full $7,500 federal tax credit. Moreover, the average price paid for a new EV was nearly $51,000 last year. How can middle and low-income Americans afford an EV when they’re so expensive and so few meet the revised federal tax credit requirements?

A: A couple of points on this. The reason why the types of models available was reduced was because we also want these vehicles to be made in America. There’s a great opportunity to bring back manufacturing to this country so that people can qualify for a fully American-made vehicle. And that is actually what’s happening.

We see now a build-out of these EV companies, of battery companies — it is so exciting the manufacturing revolution that has been triggered by the incentives associated with it. So right now, yes, there are fewer models. But there will be many more EV models available this year, next year.

You can get an EV tax credit for a used electric vehicle as well, which is $4,000. The dealers have all registered now to take the tax credit at the dealership, which is very, very important. You can lease an electric vehicle and you don’t need to have it all made in America. It’s a question about whether that’s a loophole or not, but the fact is, if you lease you can still qualify. So many states have tax credits on top of the federal tax credit.

If you bought a car in Maine, for example, you’d have the $7,500 tax credit and you would have another $7,500. Last year, the low-end Bolt was less than $30,000. If you have $15,000 off from state and federal tax credits, you’re now financing a $15,000 car. That is totally affordable. So there are options and many of these tax credits are all income dependent [and] geared toward middle and lower-end folks.

Q: The White House said it would provide a tax credit to help reduce the cost of home chargers. What is the White House doing to help Americans who want an EV but don’t own their home or live in urban areas?

A: This is why the funding for charging in places along the street is very important. The funding for putting charging near or at multifamily dwellings, apartments, etc, is very important. And then, of course, the funding to put charging where people normally spend a little bit of time, whether it’s at rest stops, or stores, or parks or anything like that.

We want charging to be more accessible than what it would be if you had to go fill up your tank. And let’s just say, if you have to fill up your tank, you’re not filling that up at home. And if you can ‘fill up’ your car at home, that’s a convenience that we want people to enjoy.

Q: So which pockets of the country need these chargers most? Obviously not California.

A: Well, California has got a plan. In fact, all 50 states have a plan for installing EV chargers based upon the president’s funding. But the plan is to fill up the gaps. So there are a lot of states where there isn’t a lot of EVs at all. And so those states have a plan … and they’ve gotten their funding to be able to build out these EV chargers.

You know, we’re particularly concerned about those travel corridors. And we’re particularly concerned about rural areas where there are not a lot of EVs and urban areas where people can’t afford an EV or where there just isn’t a big uptake. So those are the gaps that this funding from the National Electric Vehicle [Infrastructure] initiative is attempting to fill. And people are going to really start seeing these EV charging stations pop up in places where they have not been before.

Q: Ford and GM have both pulled back on their EV targets. Production of the Silverado EV, for example, was moved to late 2025. Ford said it was scaling back plans for an EV battery plant in Michigan and is moving workers at its F-150 Lightning plant because demand for the truck is dropping. What’s your reaction to these announcements?

A: They may have over projected where things were going to be. But this movement toward electrification, I think, is inexorable. It is happening. If you just look at the 50% increase year-over-year in EV uptake, the automaker CEOs will tell you they’re not pulling back or reversing trend in their investments. They may be slowing a little bit, but honestly, I think this is a snowball that is only going to accelerate.

Q: You’re a longtime EV owner. So when people stop you and say, ‘What’s your experience like in the Bolt or Mach-E’, what do you tell them?

A: I tell them I love it, I love it. I leased two different Chevy Bolts. Great car and it was so cheap to operate. Now, I also lease solar panels. And so I was just driving my Chevy Bolt on sunshine. But that was because I had a garage, not everyone can do it, I totally understand that. But even going to a charging station and filling up even with a fast charger is so much cheaper than operating. I love that these vehicles are so quiet. Even with a Chevy Bolt, which was, you know, not a luxury vehicle … the quietness of it makes it feel sort of like a luxury vehicle, like you’d be inside of a Cadillac or something like that, because it was so quiet.

Q: Have you experienced any of these charging anxieties that so many Americans have experienced?

A: Oh, sure, I have. We did a road trip earlier this year where we had difficulty accessing charging in the South where there wasn’t enough charging stations. That goes to the point of us really accelerating the buildout of these charging stations.

Q: Do you think electric vehicles will be a topic on the campaign trail this year?

A: It could be. All of those factories that I was talking about — building electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries — 60% of them are going into red states. So, you know, people in red states love their EVs, too, and are working at these factories. So I think, again, I just think that over time, the political nonsense about it will die down and people’s experience will speak much more loudly.

I think it’s important, you know, for those who care about global warming, climate change, and doing their part, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about cost, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about power, EVs are a solution for them. I mean, people just have to get used to it and understand it.

Q: What else would you like Americans to know about electric vehicles?

A: I think people need to understand that the whole supply chain for building these electric vehicles is coming back to the United States. And there’s a lot of talk, I know, in the political space about EV batteries being made in China, etc. That’s the whole point of these tax credits — to incentivize bringing back that full supply chain in the United States. And so whereas China has had domination over batteries, and that’s true, whether it’s a gas-powered vehicle or electric vehicle, we are now bringing this back.

The Department of Energy is funding companies to fill in the gaps in the supply chain to build that full system here. And that means jobs. People are going to have jobs doing responsible extraction of minerals, they’re going to have jobs processing those critical minerals, they’re going to have jobs building the batteries — the anode, the cathode, the separator material — all of those are businesses that go into a battery. Then they’re going to have jobs assembling the battery into the vehicle.

It’s really a huge manufacturing and jobs win for the country to be able to build this ecosystem here. That, to me, is a very important benefit of the president’s agenda.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

What to know about Vermont’s wealth tax

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

(MONTPELIER, Vt.) — In a yellow-walled conference room at the Vermont statehouse this week, one attendee ate ice cream and another bounced a toddler on her lap — but all were focused on a bill that would tax personal wealth for the first time in U.S. history.

At the committee meeting, legislators took up a measure that would tax the capital gains of people with more than $10 million in net worth, even if the gains have not been cashed out.

In other words, if a wealthy person’s stock or real estate holdings go up in value over a given year, the individual would have to pay taxes on those gains, even if he or she doesn’t sell the underlying asset.

The bill, one of an array of similar measures introduced by state-level Democrats nationwide, takes up a cause championed on Capitol Hill by progressives like Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Here’s what to know about the proposed wealth tax in Vermont and other efforts nationwide:

How would the Vermont wealth tax work?

The wealth tax would impose a levy upon the capital gains of a subset of the Vermont population who boast a net worth of more than $10 million.

For reference, some 1,000 tax returns in Vermont associated with about 2,800 people — including partners and dependents — reached income of $1 million or more in 2022, according to Federal Reserve data presented this week by Kirby Keeton, a nonpartisan legislative counsel for the Vermont assembly.

Those top earners made up 0.32% of tax returns but 20% of all income paid in Vermont that year, Keeton said.

Under the proposed bill, a smaller set of people who hold more than $10 million in net worth would pay a tax on the increased value of assets like stocks, bonds and real estate.

In addition, legislators have proposed a second bill that would impose a 3% tax on income earned beyond a threshold of $500,000.

Fair Share for Vermont, an advocacy group in support of the measure, says it could generate nearly $100 million in annual revenue or roughly 5% of the state budget.

Are other states considering wealth taxes?

The nonprofit Tax Justice Initiative is pushing for wealth taxes in California, Washington and Pennsylvania, according to the group’s website.

An additional sought-after measure would initiate a wealth tax study in Nevada, the group says.

Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland and New York are among a wider set of states in which the group is carrying campaigns seeking taxes on wealthy corporations or individuals.

The state-level push has elicited a backlash from some lawmakers, however.

In Texas, voters passed a constitutional amendment in November that bans the potential adoption of wealth or net worth taxes.

Earlier this month, in California, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsome dismissed the notion of using a wealth tax to address a budget deficit that has ballooned to nearly $40 billion.

Still, the wealth tax appears to have gained some traction among Democrats at the federal level.

Last year, President Joe Biden proposed a 2024 tax plan that included a 25% tax on the wealth of individuals with a net worth exceeding $100 million. The plan, Biden said, would apply to 0.01% of Americans.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Car insurance rates have soared 36% since 2020. Here’s why.

Koichi Kamoshida/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — As car prices have climbed in recent years, bright-colored signs at dealerships and boldface headlines have blared warnings to buyers.

But less attention has been paid to the jump in price for a stiff expense that comes along with the vehicle: insurance.

Car insurance rates have climbed 36% since January 2020, according to an ABC News analysis of consumer price data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Within the past year alone, rates for car insurance have soared more than 20%, BLS data shows.

“Prices for a lot of things have gone up over the last few years,” Tom Simons, an economist at Jefferies who studies the auto industry, told ABC News. “The difference with car insurance is that it’s still going up while others have subsided.”

The rate increases tie directly to the surge in vehicle prices, analysts told ABC News, noting that the elevated car prices left owners more likely to seek repairs for their current vehicle than opt to buy a new one.

In turn, a spike in demand for car repairs sent up the price of such services, which led to ballooning insurance rates, analysts added. Those rates have continued to rise as repair shops weather expenses like pay increases for in-demand workers and high costs for parts, even as the supply shortages have begun to ease.

The average cost of car insurance in the U.S. stands at roughly $2,500 per year, personal finance site Bankrate found. In 2021, the average cost ran some $1,700, according to Bankrate data reviewed by ABC News.

The source of the rate increases took hold during the pandemic, when a global chip shortage snarled auto production, which sent prices skyward for new and used cars. The elevated prices made it more expensive for insurers to provide replacement vehicles after a major wreck.

Even more, the surge in prices altered the mentality of car owners focused on the “break-even point” at which it becomes more costly to repair a car than buy a new one, Simons said. As the prices of new and used cars skyrocketed, car owners became more willing to swallow high repair costs.

That dynamic caused a rush of demand for car repairs, leading to a shortage of workers and parts, raising the costs faced by repair shops and the prices charged to insurers.

Car repair prices climbed 7% over the past year, a rate more than double the overall pace of inflation during that period, BLS data showed.

Insurers have struggled to make up for expenses amid the sky-high prices for new vehicles and repairs, Jeff Rieder, head of insurance at research firm Aon, told ABC News.

“As much as people are being impacted by the increase in their insurance costs, it’s still not enough for insurers to cover their losses,” Rieder said. “Auto insurance has become an unprofitable business for most companies.”

Despite the forces pushing rates up, the pace of increases is expected to slow in the coming months, analysts said.

After rebounding from the pandemic-era car shortage, the auto industry has built up a glut of new vehicles, which should slow price increases for new cars, Simons said. That will ease the pain for insurers when a plan calls for a replacement vehicle and could soften demand for repairs as customers shift their break-even point, he added.

The labor and parts shortage facing repair shops is likely to persist, however, Simons said. Wider adoption of electric vehicles could also complicate the future of insurance rates, Simons added, since such cars require fewer parts but each one is relatively costly to replace or fix when compared with the components of a combustion vehicle.

“That’s a wild card,” Simons said. “I’m not 100% sure how this will go.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Apple Vision Pro: Why does it cost $3,499 and will people pay it?

In this June 5, 2023, file photo, Apple CEO Tim Cook stands next to the new Apple Vision Pro headset, displayed during the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in Cupertino, Calif. — Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, FILE

(NEW YORK) — Apple Vision Pro, a mixed reality headset, arrives in stores next week promising a personal movie theater wherever users go and screen navigation at the tap of a finger.

The buzzy product, however, bears a price sure to deflate some customers. The most affordable model runs $3,499 while a higher-powered version reaches nearly $4,000.

The high price owes to costs associated with production of the Vision Pro, as well as an initial focus on reaching professionals such as developers who could enhance the product with additional apps, analysts said.

“It’s a very early product,” Ben Bajarin, analyst at research firm Creative Strategies, told ABC News. “There’s a scale and manufacturing challenge that Apple is up against.”

Apple did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Here’s what to know about why the Vision Pro costs $3,499 and whether customers will pay it:

Why is the Vision Pro priced at $3,499?

The price reflects the costly development and production behind the Vision Pro, which required the company to build components specifically for the headset, analysts said.

Laminated glass operates as a surface for the cameras and sensors on the device, while a flexible Light Seal helps mold the product to a user’s face, Apple says. A brand-new R1 chip, Apple says, allows the machine to process inputs from a person’s eye and hand motions.

“If anything, the price is on the low side given the technology that’s packed into this,” Avi Greengart, lead analyst at research firm Techsponential, told ABC News.

Speaking to ABC’s Good Morning America in July, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the price of the Vision Pro is rooted in the high costs of producing what he considers a technological breakthrough.

“The engineering and depth of engineering in it is mind blowing,” Cook said. “Does it come for free? It costs something to do that. But I think it’s a great value.”

Since Apple has yet to build full-scale manufacturing for the product, the company faces difficulty making the large quantity of headsets necessary to quench a mass market at a lower price point, analysts added.

Plus, they said, initial uptake among developers and other professionals most willing to pay a premium for the Vision Pro will enhance its offerings when it reaches a wider audience.

“Apple has been pretty clear in positioning this product as a blank canvas for developers to create and make something brand new,” Bajarin said.

The price also aligns with Apple’s typical role as a maker of items that cost more than their competitors’ products but aim to make up for the disparity with a better user experience, Angelo Zino, senior industry analyst at CFRA Research, told ABC News, noting a similar dynamic with its smartphone.

“Apple is being who Apple is,” Zino said.

Will customers pay the high price for a Vision Pro?

Initial response to the Vision Pro suggests customers are willing to pay the high price — at least some of them.

The product won’t be available in stores until next week, but pre-orders sold out almost immediately when they opened on Jan. 19, Ming-Chi Kuo, an analyst at TF International Securities, said in a Medium post on Monday. Within hours, shipping times jumped to as long as seven weeks, he added.

In all, Kuo found, the company sold as many as 180,000 headsets in the first weekend they were available for preorder.

Consumer appetite appeared to ebb quickly, however, Kuo said. Within 48 hours, shipping times had stabilized, contrasting with the prolonged extensions of shipping delays that typically come in response to iPhone model releases, Kuo added.

“The inability to sustain a steady increase in pre-order demand is a major concern,” he said.

Analysts who spoke to ABC News said they expect the company to sell roughly 500,000 headsets this year. By comparison, Apple sold roughly 232 million iPhones in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available.

“They’ll sell every Vision Pro they can make,” Bajarin said, pointing to the production challenges as the primary impediment to higher sales.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is confident more Americans will love electric vehicles

ABC News

(WASHNGTON) — Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm can relate to Americans’ anxiety over electric vehicles.

The former governor of Michigan and longtime EV owner (who currently drives a Ford Mach-E) says she has experienced her own challenges with public charging on road trips. She has heard from drivers who are reluctant to give up their eight-cylinder engines and large trucks and SUVs for an electric model. But she is convinced that more Americans will soon realize the benefits of owning one, helping to change the current anti-EV rhetoric in this country.

“The Ford F-150 is a great example of a big car that has gone electric. But people have to make their own decisions,” Granholm told ABC News in an interview Thursday. “I get it — nobody is gonna force anybody to make these decisions. I honestly think … as the price of the electric vehicle comes down, and it has dropped 23% year-over-year, and the price of operating the car and not having to go to the gas station and being able to ‘fill it up’ for much less and more conveniently, honestly, I think it’s going to sell itself.”

She added, “People love their cars. And I think they’ll love their EVs, too.”

Tesla, which commands 56% of the U.S. electric vehicle market, has largely been responsible for the boost in EV sales, which hit a record of nearly 1.2 million units in 2023. According to data from Edmunds, the average transaction price of a new EV last December was $62,526 versus the industry average of $48,408.

Tesla on Wednesday said it sold 1.8 million vehicles in 2013, a 35% jump from 2022, but warned that sales growth would be “notably” slower this year. The carmaker has slashed prices on its popular Model 3 and Model 7 models to maintain its market share. The company’s shares tanked on Thursday even with the announcement of a “next generation low-cost vehicle” coming in late 2025.

Electrifying the U.S. auto industry is a top priority for President Joe Biden. The federal government has provided millions of dollars in funding for the expansion of the nation’s public charging infrastructure, including the maintenance of broken or nonfunctioning chargers. Sales of new electric vehicles totaled 7% of the U.S. market in 2023 though Biden’s goal is to reach at least 50% by 2030.

Owning an electric vehicle and supporting the industry’s push to go green eclipses blue state and red state politics, Granholm argued.

She pointed to the thousands of workers in the South who work on assembly lines building electric SUVs and batteries for major automakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Ford, Volkswagen, Volvo and Genesis. Mercedes-Benz, for example, invested $1 billion in a state-of-the-art battery factory in Alabama. Hyundai Motor Group has teamed up with LG Energy Solution on a $4.3 billion electric vehicle battery plant in Georgia.

“All of those factories that I was talking about regarding building electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries, 60% of them are going into red states. So, you know, people in red states love their EVs, too, and are working at these factories,” Granholm said. “I just think that over time, the political nonsense about it will die down and people’s experience will speak much more loudly.”

She went on, “For those who care about global warming [and] climate change, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about cost, EVs are a solution for them. For those who care about power, EVs are a solution.”

ABC News’ complete interview with Secretary Granholm will be published on Monday, Jan. 29.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Tesla stock plummets more than 10% after earnings miss expectations

lvcandy/Getty Images

(NEW YORK) — Shares of Tesla plummeted more than 10% in afternoon trading on Thursday, less than 24 hours after the company reported earnings that fell short of expectations and cautioned of sluggish sales over the duration of this year.

Revenue and profits missed analyst expectations over the three months ending in December, according to the earnings report released on Wednesday.

In all, the company delivered 1.81 million cars in 2023, more than it had in any previous year, the earnings report said. However, Tesla has cut prices as it faces increased competition, putting downward pressure on the company’s revenue.

Further, the company’s vehicle delivery growth “may be notably lower” in 2024, Tesla said in the earnings release.

“Tesla is nothing more than a struggling car company,” Gordon Johnson, CEO and founder of data firm GLJ Research, who is bearish on Tesla, told investors in a note Thursday reviewed by ABC News.

For its part, Tesla said the slowdown owes to the company’s focus on developing a “next-generation vehicle” that will arrive as soon as the second half of 2025. That improved vehicle will supercharge sales, the company said.

“Our company is currently between two major growth waves,” the earnings report said. “The first one began with the global expansion of the Model 3/Y platform and the next one we believe will be initiated by the global expansion of the next-generation vehicle platform.”

The explanation, echoed during a conference call Wednesday, failed to allay the concerns of Dan Ives, a managing director of equity research at the investment firm Wedbush, who is typically bullish on the company.

The conference call, Ives told ABC News in a statement, amounted to a “trainwreck.”

The earnings report has shaken the “near-term confidence” previously endorsed at Wedbush, Ives added. “But we remain firm on a long-term bull thesis around Tesla and the broader AI story set to take hold,” he added.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk drew attention last week when he said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that he’s seeking greater voting control of the electric carmaker, threatening to otherwise pursue major projects such as artificial intelligence outside of the company.

The Tesla board, Musk said, should grant him 25% voting control, an amount that would nearly double the vote share currently afforded to Musk through his stake in the company.

The company has also faced government inquiries over risks posed by some of the technology in its vehicles.

In December, Tesla agreed to recall about 2 million cars over a safety issue tied to its autopilot system, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. Earlier this month, the company recalled an additional 1.6 million vehicles exported to China, citing a problem with the car’s assisted steering system.

The uncertainty that looms over the company, Ives said, amounts to a “bitter pill to swallow for the bulls.”

 

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Dunkin’ faces potential class-action lawsuit for alleged discriminatory upcharge on nondairy milks

An exterior view of the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant in Muncy, Pennsylvania, June 10, 2023. (Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

(NEW YORK) — Lactose intolerant coffee drinkers who opt for nondairy alternatives like soy, almond or oat milk in their drinks at Dunkin’ may pay as much as $2 more for the alternatives, which a new potential class-action lawsuit claims could constitute discrimination.

The suit, filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks class certification and represents 10 Dunkin’ customers who say they purchased beverages “that contained non-dairy milk alternatives” between 2018 and 2023, and “paid a surcharge” for either “plant-based or lactose-free milk” in California, New York, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.

According to legal documents obtained by ABC News, the plaintiffs named in the suit all suffer from lactose intolerance and milk allergies, making it medically necessary “to avoid consuming drinks that contain milk.”

Depending on the date and location, the customers were charged anywhere from 50 cents to $2.15 extra for the substitution, the filing states.

The lawsuit seeks damages amounting to no less than $5,000,000, and plaintiffs demanded a jury trial.

On Friday, Dunkin’ filed a waiver that acknowledged the lawsuit. The company has until March 4 to respond.

The lawsuit specifically points to the “allergen statement” displayed in Dunkin’ stores that advises customers to inform a barista if they have a food allergy before placing an order.

“Dunkin will modify its regular beverage offerings to remove sugar or use sugar-free sweeteners at no additional charge for those persons with diabetes or who need to control weight,” the lawsuit states. “However, they only accommodate those with lactose intolerance or allergies to milk by imposing a surcharge. There is no expertise or additional work required of Dunkin employees that would substitute whole milk or fat-free milk in place of 2% regular milk, or who would make caffeine-free or sugar-free beverages, to also be able to substitute Non-Dairy Alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other lactose-free ‘milk’ in place of 2% regular milk.”

The lawsuit claims that because lactose intolerance and milk allergies are both considered disabilities, Dunkin’s “conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,” as well as state anti-discrimination laws where the respective customers purchased their beverages.

The ADA states that public entities are required to make “reasonable modifications” to policies or practices when it’s necessary for an individual with a disability to afford their goods, services, facilities, privileges or advantages.

As cited in the lawsuit, the ADA also states that “a public accommodation may not impose a surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier removal, and reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, that are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.”

In this case, plaintiffs claimed Dunkin’ violated the ADA due to the failure “to make modifications that are necessary to afford goods and services to persons with lactose intolerance but instead imposes a surcharge on this group, purportedly to cover the cost of such measures.”

Dunkin’ did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the lawsuit. The Massachusetts-based coffee chain has not yet issued a public statement on the matter.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.