Equity

Growing up in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Mahnoor Omer remembers the shame and anxiety she felt in school when she had periods. Going to the toilet with a sanitary pad was an act of stealth, like trying to cover up a crime.

“I used to hide my pad up my sleeve like I was taking narcotics to the bathroom,” says Omer, who comes from a middle-class family – her father a businessman and her mother a homemaker. “If someone talked about it, teachers would put you down.” A classmate once told her that her mother considered pads “a waste of money”.

“That’s when it hit me,” says Omer. “If middle-class families think this way, imagine how out of reach these products are for others.”

Now 25, Omer has gone from cautious schoolgirl to national centrestage in a battle that could reshape menstrual hygiene in Pakistan, a country where critics say economics is compounding social stigma to punish women – simply for being women.

In September, Omer, a lawyer, petitioned the Lahore High Court, challenging what she and many others say is effectively a “period tax” imposed by Pakistan on its more than 100 million women.

Pakistani governments have, under the Sales Tax Act of 1990, long charged an 18 percent sales tax on locally manufactured sanitary pads and a customs tax of 25 percent on imported ones, as well as on raw materials needed to make them. Add on other local taxes, and UNICEF Pakistan says that these pads are often effectively taxed at about 40 percent.

Omer’s petition argues that these taxes – which specifically affect women – are discriminatory, and violate a series of constitutional provisions that guarantee equality and dignity, elimination of exploitation and the promotion of social justice.

In a country where menstruation is already a taboo subject in most families, Omer and other lawyers and activists supporting the petition say that the taxes make it even harder for most Pakistani women to access sanitary products. A standard pack of commercially branded sanitary pads in Pakistan currently costs about 450 rupees ($1.60) for 10 pieces. In a country with a per capita income of $120 a month, that’s the cost of a meal of rotis and dal for a low-income family of four. Cut the cost by 40 percent – the taxes – and the calculations become less loaded against sanitary pads.

At the moment, only 12 percent of Pakistani women use commercially produced sanitary pads, according to a 2024 study by UNICEF and the WaterAid nonprofit. The rest improvise using cloth or other materials, and often do not even have access to clean water to wash themselves.

“If this petition goes forward, it’s going to make pads affordable,” says Hira Amjad, the founder and executive director of Dastak Foundation, a Pakistani nonprofit whose work is focused on promoting gender equality and combating violence against women.

And that, say lawyers and activists, could serve as a spark for broader social change.

The court docket describes the case as Mahnoor Omer against senior officials of the government of Pakistan. But that’s not what it feels like to Omer.

“It feels like women versus Pakistan.”

‘It’s not shameful’

Bushra Mahnoor, founder of Mahwari Justice, a Pakistani student-led organisation whose name translates to “menstrual justice”, realised early just how much of a struggle it could be to access sanitary pads.

Mahnoor – no relation to Omer – grew up in Attock, a city in the northwestern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province, with four sisters. “Every month, I had to check if there were enough pads. If my period came when one of my sisters had hers too,” finding a pad was a challenge, she says.

The struggle continued in school, where, as was the case with Omer, periods were associated with shame. A teacher once made one of her classmates stand for two entire lectures because her white uniform was stained. “That was dehumanising,” she says.

Mahnoor was 10 when she had her first period. “I didn’t know how to use a pad. I stuck it upside down; the sticky side touched my skin. It was painful. No one tells you how to manage it.”

She says that shame was never hers alone, but it’s part of a silence which starts at home and accompanies girls into adulthood. A study on menstrual health in Pakistan shows that eight out of 10 girls feel embarrassed or uncomfortable when talking about periods, and two out of three girls report never having received information about menstruation before it began. The findings, published in the Frontiers in Public Health journal in 2023, link this silence to poor hygiene, social exclusion and missed school days.

In 2022, when floods devastated Pakistan, Mahnoor began Mahwari Justice to ensure that relief camps did not overlook the menstrual needs of women. “We began distributing pads and later realised there’s so much more to be done,” she says. Her organisation has distributed more than 100,000 period kits – each containing pads, soap, underwear, detergent and painkillers – and created rap songs and comics to normalise conversations about menstruation. “When you say the word ‘mahwari’ out loud, you’re teaching people it’s not shameful,” she says. “It’s just life.”

The same floods also influenced Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, though her nonprofit has been around for a decade now. Its work now also includes distributing period kits during natural disasters.

But the social stigma associated with menstruation is also closely tied to economics in the ways in which its impact plays out for Pakistani women, suggests Amjad.

“In most households, it’s the men who make financial decisions,” she says. “Even if the woman is bringing the money, she’s giving it to the man, and he is deciding where that money needs to go.”

And if the cost of women’s health feels too high, that’s often compromised. “[With] the inflated prices due to the tax, there is no conversation in many houses about whether we should buy pads,” she says. “It’s an expense they cannot afford organically.”

According to the 2023 study in the Frontiers in Public Health, over half of Pakistani women are not able to afford sanitary pads.

If the taxes are removed, and menstrual hygiene becomes more affordable, the benefits will extend beyond health, says Amjad.

School attendance rates for girls could improve, she said. Currently, more than half of Pakistan’s girls in the five to 16 age group are not in school, according to the United Nations. “We will have stress-free women. We will have happier and healthier women.”

‘Feeling of justice’

Omer says her interest in women’s and minority rights began early. “What inspired me was just seeing the blatant mistreatment every day,” she says. “The economic, physical, and verbal exploitation that women face, whether it’s on the streets, in the media, or inside homes, never sat right with me.”

She credits her mother for making her grow up to be an empathetic and understanding person.

After completing school, she worked as a gender and criminal justice consultant at Crossroads Consultants, a Pakistan-based firm that collaborates with NGOs and development partners on gender and criminal justice reform. At the age of 19, she also volunteered at Aurat March, an annual women’s rights movement and protest held across Pakistan on International Women’s Day – it’s a commitment she has kept up since then.

Her first step into activism came at 16, when she and her friends started putting together “dignity kits”, small care packages for women in low-income neighbourhoods of Islamabad. “We would raise funds with bake sales or use our own money,” she recalls.

The money she was able to raise enabled her to distribute about 300 dignity kits that she and her friends made themselves. They each contained pads, underwear, pain medication and wipes. But she wanted to do more.

She got a chance when she started working at the Supreme Court in early 2025, first as a law clerk. She’s currently pursuing postgraduate studies in gender, peace and security at the London School of Economics and says that she will go back to Pakistan to resume her practice after she graduates.

She became friends with fellow lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, who specialises in taxation and constitutional law. The plan to challenge the “period tax” emerged from their conversations.

“He pushed me to file this petition and try to get justice instead of just sitting around.”

Khan, who is a co-petitioner in the case, says that fighting the taxes is about more than accessibility and affordability of sanitary pads – it’s about justice. “It’s a tax on a biological function,” he says.

Tax policies in Pakistan, he says, are written by “a privileged elite, mostly men who have never had to think about what this tax means for ordinary women”. The constitution, he adds, “is very clear that you cannot have anything discriminatory against any gender whatsoever”.

To Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, the fight for menstrual hygiene is closely tied to her other passion – the struggle against climate change. The extreme weather-related crisis, such as floods, that Pakistan has faced in recent times, she says, hit women particularly hard.

She remembers the trauma many women she worked with after the 2022 floods described to her. “Imagine that you are living in a tent and you have mahwari [menstruation] for the first time,” she says. “You are not mentally prepared for it. You are running for your life. You don’t have access to safety or security. That trauma is a trauma for life.”

As temperatures rise on average, women will need to change sanitary pads more frequently during their periods – and a lack of adequate access will prove an even bigger problem, Amjad warns. She supports the withdrawal of taxes on sanitary pads – but only those made from cotton, not plastic ones that “take thousands of years to decompose”.

Amjad is also campaigning for paid menstruation leave. “I have come across women who were fired because they had pain during periods and couldn’t work,” she says. “When you are menstruating, one part of your brain is on menstruation. You can’t really focus properly.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the taxes are hoping that Omer’s petition will pressure the Pakistani government to follow other nations such as India, Nepal and the United Kingdom that have abolished their period taxes.

Taking on that mantle against the government’s policies didn’t come easily to Omer. Her parents, she says, were nervous at first about their daughter going to court against the government. “They said it’s never a good idea to take on the state,” she says.

Now, they’re proud of her, she says. “They understand why this matters.”

To her, the case is not just a legal fight. “When I think of this case, the picture that comes to mind … It’s not a courtroom, it’s a feeling of justice,” she says. “It makes me feel a sense of pride to be able to do this and take this step without fear.”

Are all dividend funds the same? They often are, even if each one is structurally and strategically unique. There’s only so much difference possible when a company and its stock’s primary purpose is just generating cash flow.

And yet, owners of the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD -1.70%) know all too well that dividend-oriented exchange-traded funds can at times be considerably different than one another. Their fund has measurably underperformed other dividend ETFs like the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF, the iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF, and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF over the course of the past three years. Indeed, the disparity’s been wide enough to leave them wondering if they made a mistake that should be corrected as soon as possible.

Well, they didn’t make the wrong choice, so there’s no correction to be made. The very reason this dividend ETF has underperformed of late, in fact, is the very same reason income-seeking investors might want to buy the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF now.

The same, but different — and more different than the same

What’s Schwab’s U.S. Dividend Equity ETF? It’s meant to mirror the performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend Index, which, just as the name suggests, is dividend-focused. So is the Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index that serves as the basis for iShares’ Core Dividend Growth ETF, though, along with the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF’s underlying S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index, for that matter.

They’re not all the same, though. And it matters.

Take a comparison of the S&P U.S. Dividend Growers Index behind Vanguard’s Dividend Appreciation fund to the iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF’s Morningstar US Dividend Growth Index as an example. The former consists of U.S.-listed companies that have raised their dividend payments for at least the past 10 years, but it excludes the very highest-yielding tickers (on concerns that the high yields are unsustainable). The latter only requires five years of uninterrupted dividend growth, although it also generally excludes stocks with suspiciously high yields.

End result? The Vanguard fund’s top three holdings right now are Broadcom, Microsoft, and JPMorgan Chase, while the iShares ETF’s biggest three positions at this time are Apple, Microsoft, and Johnson & Johnson. They’re more different than alike, even if there is some overlap.

Image source: Getty Images.

The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF’s underlying FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, by the way, currently holds Broadcom, JPMorgan, and Exxon-Mobil as its top three positions — three names that offer the high yield that the index prioritizes. Even so, the fund’s trailing yield is a modest 2.45% at this time, versus the iShares ETF’s yield of 2.2% and the trailing dividend yield of 1.6% currently offered by the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation fund.

Where does Schwab’s U.S. Dividend Equity ETF stand? The Dow Jones U.S. Dividend Index’s biggest three positions right now are AbbVie, Lockheed Martin, and Cisco Systems, followed closely by Merck and ConocoPhillips. In fact, you won’t start seeing any serious overlap between this fund and the other three dividend ETFs in focus here until those positions are so small that they don’t really matter.

That’s why this ETF has underperformed the other three funds in question since early 2023; it’s not holding many of the market’s most popular growth names right now. Indeed, it currently holds a bunch of the market’s least popular value stocks.

SCHD Total Return Level data by YCharts

But that’s exactly why income-minded investors might want to dive into the Schwab ETF at this time, particularly in light of its sizable trailing dividend yield of right around 3.7%.

What went wrong for dividend-paying value names?

In retrospect, the fund’s recent underperformance actually makes a lot of sense. The few technology stocks that pay any dividend at all have performed exceedingly well since the launch of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, setting off an artificial intelligence arms race that sent a bunch of these stocks sharply higher. The dynamic was also bullish for financial stocks like JPMorgan, which helps companies raise funds or make the acquisitions they need to take full advantage of the AI revolution.

At the other end of the spectrum, most of the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF’s holdings have been on the wrong side of one force or another. Regulatory headwinds and the impending expiration of key patents have proven problematic for pharmaceutical outfits AbbVie and Merck, for instance.

Inflation and the subsequent rise in interest rates are another one of these forces, and arguably the biggest. Although both have historically been more of a challenge for growth stocks than value names, in this instance, the opposite has been (mostly) true.

Just bear in mind how incredibly unusual the past three years have been. The bulk of growth stocks’ leadership has been fueled by the aforementioned advent of artificial intelligence, creating a secular growth opportunity that wouldn’t be stymied by any economic backdrop.

Also know that the so-called “Magnificent Seven” stocks have done the vast majority of the market’s recent heavy lifting, so to speak, fueled by AI. Data from Yardeni Research suggests that without the help of these seven tech-centric tickers, the S&P 500‘s would be about one-third less than what it’s actually been since early 2023.

It would also be naïve to pretend that value stocks like Merck, Cisco, and ConocoPhillips just haven’t offered the excitement that most investors have craved in the post-pandemic, AI-centered environment.

Here comes the pendulum

As is always the case, though, the cyclical pendulum will eventually swing back the other way. And that’s likely to happen sooner or later. As number-crunching done by Morningstar analyst David Sekera recently prompted him to note, “By style, value remains undervalued, trading at a 3% discount, whereas core stocks are at a 4% premium and growth stocks are at a 12% premium.” He adds, “Since 2010, the growth category has traded at a higher premium only 5% of the time.”

This dynamic, of course, works against dividend ETFs’ growth names, and works for dividend ETFs like the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF, which almost exclusively holds value stocks. The market just needs a catalyst to start such a shift.

That may be in the offing, though. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently lamented in an interview with the BBC, “I am far more worried about that [a market correction] than others… I would give it a higher probability than I think is probably priced in the market and by others.” And this worry follows Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s recent comment that U.S. stocks are “fairly highly valued.” That’s a screaming red flag from someone who makes a point of maintaining composure and not inciting panic.

Sure, such a setback could undermine the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF as much as it does any other stock or fund. That’s not the chief concern of any correction, though. It’s what happens afterward. That bearish jolt may well inspire investors to rethink everything about the risks they’ve been taking, souring them on tech names and turning them onto value names that also dish out above-average income.

You’ll just want to be positioned before it all starts to happen.

A judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from requiring recipients of federal teen pregnancy prevention grants to comply with the president’s orders aimed at curtailing “radical indoctrination” and “gender ideology.”

The ruling is a victory for three Planned Parenthood affiliates — in California, Iowa and New York — that sued to try to block enforcement of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy document issued in July that they contend contradicts the requirements of the grants as established by Congress.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who was appointed to the bench by former President Obama, blasted the administration’s policy change in her written ruling, saying it was “motivated solely by political concerns, devoid of any considered process or analysis, and ignorant of the statutory emphasis on evidence-based programming.”

The policy requiring changes to the pregnancy prevention program was part of the fallout from a series of executive orders Trump signed starting in his first day back in the White House aimed at rolling back recognition of LGBTQ+ people and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

In the policy, the administration objected to teaching that promotes same-sex marriage and that “normalizes, or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

The Planned Parenthood affiliates argued that the new directives were at odds with the requirements of the program — and that they were so vague it wasn’t clear what needed to be done to follow them.

Howell agreed.

The decision applies not only to the handful of Planned Parenthood groups among the dozens of recipients of the funding, but also to nonprofit groups, city and county health departments, Native American tribes and universities that received grants.

The Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the program, declined to comment on Tuesday’s ruling. It previously said the guidance for the program “ensures that taxpayer dollars no longer support content that undermines parental rights, promotes radical gender ideology, or exposes children to sexually explicit material under the banner of public health.”

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

When it comes to borrowing money in later life, your home can provide some options. 

For example, a lifetime mortgage (a form of equity release) and remortgaging are two ways you can borrow money secured against the value of your property. 

1

With both options you don’t need to move out of your home too. 

But these forms of financing are structured differently and come with their own characteristics. 

Below we explain how both these arrangements work, and what form of financing may be best suited for you.  

Explore your later life lending options with Age Partnership 

What is equity release?

Equity release is accessible for homeowners aged 55 and older and comes in two forms – a lifetime mortgage and a home reversion plan. 

A lifetime mortgage is most common of the two and allows individuals to convert a percentage of their home’s value into cash while continuing to own it and live in it, providing financial flexibility when its most needed. 

The money released, plus accrued interest will only need to be repaid when you die or move into long-term care. There are plans that may allow you to make voluntary payments subject to certain limits. Early repayment charges may apply above a set value.

A home reversion plan allows a homeowner to sell a portion—or sometimes all—of their property to a provider for less than market value, in exchange for a lump sum or regular income. The homeowner retains the right to live in the property typically rent-free until death or permanent care.

It is always recommended that you choose an equity release provider who is a member of the Equity Release Council, the body that represents this sector. 

Pros and Cons of equity release

A lifetime mortgage can be the right option for some but not for others, so it’s important to consider the advantages and disadvantages. These include: 

Pros 

• Flexibility – You can choose when to make interest payments or not, meaning you can prioritise other financial commitments. Conversely, you can make voluntary payments to limit the roll up of interest. 
• “No Negative Equity Guarantee” – This standard, set by the Equity Release Council, maintains that your estate will never owe more than your home is worth when it is sold.  It provides financial security that debt from your agreement will not be passed onto your family. 
• “Home for Life” – Another standard set out by the Equity Release Council provides you with the right to remain in your home for life, or until you move into long-term care. This provides reassurance that as long as you keep to the terms of your agreement, you can stay in your property. 

Cons 

• Expensive interest rates – Lifetime mortgages typically offer higher interest rates than those available for mainstream mortgages. And with no certainty of when your repayment plan will come to an end, it can be one of the more expensive forms of borrowing
• Reduces the value of your estate – Equity release reduces the value of your estate and could impact funding long-term care. You’ll have less to pass on to your loved ones as an inheritance. You can, however, ringfence some of your home’s value if this is a significant concern – it’ll just impact how much you can borrow. 
• May affect your entitlement to benefits now or in the future – The exact impact on your means-tested benefits depends on the type of benefit and how the released funds are handled.

For a more detailed breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages of equity release, read this article. 

What is remortgaging? 

Remortgaging refers to the process of entering into a new lending agreement for your property. This can either be under new terms with your existing lender, or to transfer your debt to a new one. 

This process typically happens when you come to the end of your previous agreement – like the end of your fixed term. If you initiate the remortgage process before your deal comes to an end, then you may be forced to pay an early repayment charge. 

Think carefully before securing debts against your property. Your property may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage.

How does remortgaging release equity from your home? 

If you have enough equity in your home, you may be able to release additional funds by borrowing against its value. 

This money can be used for other purposes, like funding home improvements or for your enjoyment. 

Even if you’ve paid off your mortgage, you may be able to agree a new arrangement. A mortgage broker can help identify your options. 

Pros and Cons of remortgaging

Pros 

• Switch to a better rate – Your mortgage might offer the best interest rates compared to other forms of lending – like a personal loan or lifetime mortgage. This might make it the most affordable form of borrowing of your options. However, remember to check your rate against the borrowing length. Mortgages are long-term borrowing options, and if your repayments are spread over a number of years it could cost more than a personal loan on a more expensive rate but shorter repayment period. 
• Aware of total cost of borrowing – Under a lifetime mortgage, the total cost of your borrowing is uncertain to a degree. While you’ll never owe more than your home’s worth, the cost of borrowing is long-term and depends on how long you stay in your home. With remortgaging, you’ll know how much your borrowing will cost in interest and it allows you to more effectively plan for inheritance.  
• Stay in your home – Remortgaging also allows you to stay in your home, as long as you keep up with your monthly repayments. 

Cons 

• Fees – If your mortgage is with a new lender, then you may need to pay revaluation or conveyancing fees. This can increase the overall cost of your borrowing. 
• Can you find a lender? – As you get older, you might find your options more limited. So, getting in touch with a broker can help identify the best course of action for you.
• Risk of negative equity– If you’re borrowing more money against your home, you could slip into negative equity. This is where the amount you owe is worth more than the property’s value

How do I know what’s right for me?

It’s always best to speak with a qualified financial advisor as they can help you explore which financial options are available to you. 

Advice is required before proceeding with equity release and there may be other options which better suit your circumstances. Age Partnership can help you find out more and if it could be right for your individual circumstances.

Through their service, initial advice is provided for free and without obligation. Only if your case completes would an advice fee of £1,995 be payable. Other lender and solicitor fees may apply. 

You should be aware that equity release requires repaying any existing mortgage. It will also reduce the value of your estate and impact funding long-term care.

Get in touch with Age Partnership here. 

Age Partnership is a trading name of Age Partnership Limited, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. FCA registered number 425432. Company registered in England and Wales No. 5265969. VAT registration number 162 9355 92. Registered address, 2200 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Leeds, LS15 8ZB.

ADVERTISEMENT

September has long carried an unfavourable reputation for global equity markets, and European stocks are no exception.

Historical data reveals that the month consistently delivers weak performances for major continental indices, echoing the negative seasonal pattern seen on Wall Street.

Over the past 30 years, the Euro Stoxx 50 index, Europe’s leading blue-chip benchmark, has posted an average September loss of 1.56%, narrowly trailing August’s 1.59% decline, which ranks as the worst month of the year. In 15 of those 30 years, the index closed the month in the red, underscoring a near-coin toss probability of a negative outcome.

The negative seasonality remains intact even when narrowing the lens to the past decade. Since 2014, the Euro Stoxx 50 has recorded an average 1% drop in September, with six out of ten instances ending in losses.

And it’s not just the Euro Stoxx 50 feeling the September slump. The broader Euro Stoxx 600, which captures a wider slice of the market, has also stumbled during this month, with an average loss of 0.96% since its launch in 2002.

That mirrors the S&P 500’s performance, which has lost about 1% on average during the same month over recent decades, the worst return of any month for US equities.

The September seasonal weakness in equity markets may be linked to a confluence of factors: post-summer rebalancing by institutional investors, renewed macroeconomic uncertainty heading into the year-end, and traditionally lower trading volumes following the holiday period.

National indices not spared

Across Europe’s major country indices, the September effect is equally pronounced.

Germany’s DAX index has delivered an average return of -1.62% in September, second only to August in terms of weakness, with a winning rate of just 47%.

France’s CAC 40 fares similarly, averaging a 1.49% decline in September, its poorest month of the year, although it manages a slightly better 53% winning rate.

Italy’s FTSE MIB index, while averaging a flat 0% return in September over the long term, is currently on a streak of four consecutive negative Septembers.

10 European stocks suffer steepest September setbacks

At the individual stock level, several of Europe’s heavyweight names have demonstrated a persistent pattern of September underperformance, with average losses outpacing their monthly norms and, in many cases, marking September as the worst-performing month of the year.

Infineon (Germany): The semiconductor group has an average September loss of 6.13%, its weakest month historically. The stock has closed lower in four consecutive Septembers, with its worst drop of 52.34% occurring in 2001.

Vivendi (France): With a dismal 33% winning rate in September and an average loss of 4.07%, the French media firm experienced a record monthly drop of 66% in 2021.

Airbus (Netherlands/France): The aerospace giant has fallen in six straight Septembers, averaging a 4.01% decline. Its worst September came in 2001, with shares plunging 37.04%.

LVMH (France): Europe’s largest luxury group averages a 3.42% September drop, despite a marginally better 53% win rate. The worst September loss came in 2001, at -34.71%.

Société Générale (France): The French bank posts an average September return of -3.11%, with a 47% win rate. Its most severe drop was -40.38% in 1998.

Schneider Electric (France): The electrical equipment firm has an average September return of -2.16%, with its steepest fall of 34.43% occurring in 2001.

E.ON (Germany): The utility company averages a 2.18% September loss with a 43% winning rate. Its worst drop came in 2015, at -24.03%.

Deutsche Post AG (Germany): The logistics and courier group averages a 1.97% loss in September. It saw its sharpest monthly decline of -22.41% in 2002.

Kering (France): Another luxury player, Kering averages a 1.76% drop in September with a 43% win rate. The worst September came in 2002 (-23.35%), and the stock is currently on a four-year losing streak.

SAP (Germany): Europe’s largest software company averages a 1.6% September decline. A six-year streak of negative Septembers ended in 2024, though the stock once dropped 40.98% in the month back in 2002.

Andrew Rodriguez first picked up a golf club when he was 3. Now that he’s an 18-year-old senior at La Serna High, golf has become his passion.

He’s heading to New York to compete in the championship event of Steph Curry’s UNDERRATED Golf Tour in the Curry Cup on Sept. 10-12.

UNDERRATED Golf was created to provide equity, access and opportunities to athletes from every community. Rodriguez earned his spot in the final with a second-place finish at the Pete Dye Course at French Lick, Ind.

He helped La Serna win the Southern Section Division 1 title last spring and has committed to Long Beach State.

He said the UNDERRATED Tour has been especially helpful for his family in saving money for travel and course expenses.

“It’s definitely been a big sacrifice for them,” he said. “It’s a huge help to myself and my family. I’m grateful for the opportunity.”

He’s excited about his senior year at La Serna.

“I have a bunch of buddies I’ve been playing with since I was little,” he said. “We’re making memorable moments with each other. I love competing as a team with my friends.”

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email [email protected].

In the seven months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Wall Street’s major stock indexes have been taken on quite the ride.

The president’s unveiling of his tariff and trade policy on April 2 spawned the fifth-biggest two-day percentage decline in the benchmark S&P 500 (^GSPC 1.52%) in 75 years, as well as hurled the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC 1.88%) into a full-fledged (but ultimately short-lived) bear market.

This sharp downturn was followed by Donald Trump announcing a 90-day pause on higher “reciprocal tariff rates” on April 9. The S&P 500, Nasdaq Composite, and ageless Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI 1.89%) responded by logging their largest single-session point increases in history with this announcement and have been in a seemingly unstoppable rally ever since.

President Trump delivering his State of the Union address. Image source: Official White House Photo.

But tariffs represent just one of the ways the Trump administration can potentially influence equities on Wall Street.

According to reports and recent statements made by a member of Trump’s cabinet, the federal government is pondering equity stakes in some of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, including Intel (INTC 5.64%), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM 2.58%) (commonly known as “TSMC”), Micron Technology (MU 1.82%), and Samsung Electronics (SSNL.F 9.01%). While the rationale behind this idea might be intriguing on paper, it runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent on Wall Street.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick proposes converting CHIPS Act grants into equity

Before diving further into the proposed details, some background is sorely needed.

Three years ago, in August 2022, President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act (commonly known as the “CHIPS Act”) into law. This law authorizes grants from the federal government to encourage the domestic manufacture of semiconductor chips, as well as to promote biotechnology and clean-energy technology innovation within the U.S. More than $52 billion was set aside by the CHIPS Act to support the construction and/or expansion of chip fabrication plants in the U.S., as well as advanced semiconductor research and development.

During President Trump’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in March, he referred to the CHIPS Act as a “horrible, horrible thing,” and encouraged lawmakers at the time to defund the program. But his tune may have changed, courtesy of U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick.

In a recent interview with CNBC, Lutnick laid out something of a take-it-or-leave-it style proposal that would convert CHIPS Act grants into stock equity for the federal government. Said Lutnick:

The Biden administration literally was giving Intel for free, and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving them money for free. Donald Trump turns that into saying, “Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you money, we want a piece of the action.”

Lutnick clarified his statements by noting that these equity stakes wouldn’t provide the U.S. government with any voting power in these businesses. Instead, it would be all about the American people getting a stake in the businesses U.S. funds are supporting.

Trump has reportedly favored the idea of the U.S. government being given equity stakes in exchange for CHIPS Act funds, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT) also voicing his support for such a move. “Taxpayers should not be providing billons of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” extolled Sanders.

If this proposal were to move forward, the Trump administration would take up to a 10% stake in Intel, valued at roughly $10.9 billion. Multibillion-dollar stakes would also be made in TSMC, Micron, and Samsung.

Image source: Getty Images.

Government ownership of stocks can be a slippery slope

Though there’s a logical argument to be found in the Trump administration’s proposal to transform these grants into equity stakes, there are also reasons for concern.

Looking to the past as a predictor of the future, there have been previous instances where the federal government took equity stakes in public companies. However, these prior occurrences correlate with periods of historic economic instability.

For instance, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gave the federal government the green light to take equity stakes in struggling financial institutions during the Great Recession. Additionally, select airline companies issued stock warrants to the U.S. Treasury during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 as partial compensation for the financial assistance they received. Equity stakes on a for-profit basis, as proposed by Lutnick, would be a new and potentially dangerous precedent.

Although the Commerce Secretary told viewers these would be nonvoting equity stakes, the Trump administration nevertheless passes the laws and fiscal policy that can directly impact chip manufacturers. While the federal government might not be voting on executive compensation packages, it’ll have a direct and undeniable influence on the stock(s) it owns. This is effectively the same debate of whether members of Congress should be able to own individual stocks while passing laws that directly impact said stocks… just taken to another level.

For example, a solid argument can be made that President Donald Trump’s tariff and trade policy is far more powerful than a 10% voting share in Intel, or a single-digit percentage voting share in TSMC, Micron, or Samsung. Pardon the necessary pun, but Trump has previously used chip companies, including Nvidia, as bargaining chips to negotiate trade deals. There would be nothing to stop the president or members of his administration from using these bargaining tools to influence corporate strategy and decision-making.

Furthermore, adjusting the funding strategy for the CHIPS Act three years after its passage might encourage chip fabricators to keep their distance from the U.S. government. While subsidies of $6.6 billion, $6.2 billion, and $4.75 billion were awarded to TSMC, Micron, and Samsung, respectively, in 2024, none of these three companies necessarily need this funding to build/expand their chip fabrication presence on U.S. soil. If they had known that an equity stipulation was a possibility, they may not have agreed to a dime in funding.

Even Intel, which has struggled mightily under the weight of increasing competition and the high costs of organically building out its foundry division, may not have opted for government funding if it would have resulted in a forced equity stake. Over the trailing-12-month period, Intel has generated more than $10 billion in cash flow from its operations.

Though discussions are ongoing and nothing is set in stone, as of this writing in the late evening of Aug. 20, the Donald Trump administration potentially becoming shareholders of some of Wall Street’s leading semiconductor stocks likely wouldn’t be a development to cheer.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court said Thursday the Trump administration may cancel hundreds of health research grants that involve diversity, equity and inclusion or gender identity.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and set aside a Boston’s judge order that blocked the canceling of $783 million in research grants.

The justices split 5-4. Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court’s three liberals in dissent and said the district judge had not overstepped his authority.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with the administration and against federal judges in disputes over spending and staffing at federal agencies.

In the latest case, the majority agreed that Trump and his appointees may decide on how to spend health research funds allocated by Congress.

Upon taking office in January, Trump issued an executive order “ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing.”

A few weeks later, the acting director of the National Institutes of Health said the agency would no longer fund “low-value and off-mission research programs, including but not limited to studies based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender identity.”

More than 1,700 grants were canceled.

Trump’s lawyers told the court NIH had terminated grants to study “Buddhism and HIV stigma in Thailand”; “intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations”; and “anti-racist healing in nature to protect telomeres of transitional age BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and People of Color] for health equity.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his counterparts from 15 Democratic-led states had sued to halt what they called an “unprecedented disruption to ongoing research.” They were joined by groups of researchers and public health advocates.

The state attorneys said their public universities were using grant money for “projects investigating heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, alcohol and substance abuse, mental-health issues, and countless other health conditions.”

They said NIH had terminated a grant for a University of California study examining how inflammation, insulin resistance, and physical activity affect Alzheimer’s disease in Black women, a group with higher rates and a more aggressive profile of the disease.

Also terminated they said was a University of Hawaiʻi study that aimed to identify genetic and biological risk factors for colorectal cancer among Native Hawaiians, a population with increased incidence and mortality rates of that disease.

In June, the Democratic state attorneys won a ruling from U.S. District Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee. He said the sudden halt to research grants violated a federal procedural law because it was “arbitrary” and poorly explained.

He said Trump had required agencies “to focus on eradicating anything that it labels as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”), an undefined enemy.” He said he had tried and failed to get a clear definition of DEI and what it entailed.

When the 1st Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s order, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court in late July.

He noted the justices in April had set aside a similar decision from a Boston-based judge who blocked the new administration’s canceling of education grants.

The solicitor general argued that Trump’s order rescinded an executive order from President Biden in 2021 that mandated “an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” and instructed federal agencies to “allocate resources to address the historic failure to invest sufficiently, justly, and equally in underserved communities.”

He said the new administration decided these DEI-related grants “do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

Aug. 19 (UPI) — The Trump administration wants U.S. chipmaker Intel to give the federal government an equity stake to receive $8 billion via the CHIPS and Science Act.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday confirmed President Donald Trump wants Intel to give the federal government a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for money promised to it by the Biden administration upon passage of the CHIPS and Science Act.

“We should get an equity stake for our money,” Lutnick said when interviewed by CNBC on Tuesday.

“We’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under theBiden administration,” Lutnick continued. “We’ll get equity in return for it.”

Intel officials in the fall announced the tech company will receive an $8 billion grant via the CHIPS and Science Act.

The president questions why the federal government is giving that much money to a tech firm that is worth $100 billion, Lutnick said.

Commerce Secretary Scott Bessent also confirmed the Trump administration’s demand for equity in Intel, saying it’s needed to make the tech firm stable and capable of increasing domestic production of chips. Additionally, Taiwan produces most of the global supply of chips, and U.S. national security requires a domestic supply, Bessent told Bloomberg last week.

The Trump administration’s request for equity in Intel comes a day after Japan-based tech investor SoftBank on Monday announced it will invest $2 billion in Intel in exchange for Intel common stock.

“Semiconductors are the foundation of every industry,” said Masayoshi Son, SoftBank chairman and chief executive officer. “For more than 50 years, Intel has been a trusted leader in innovation.”

Son said SoftBank officials believe Intel will have a “critical role” in expanding the United States’ semiconductor manufacturing and supply.

SoftBank will pay $23 per share for Intel stock, which would amount to nearly 87 million common shares.

The Trump administration, likewise, wants equity in Intel in exchange for CHIPs and Science Act funding, rather than giving away taxpayer funds.

Intel had begun building U.S. manufacturing facilities near Columbus, Ohio, with an estimated completion date in 2030.

Intel Chief Executive Officer Lip-Bu Tan last month said the company is slowing the pace of construction and will continue work based on market conditions, CNBC reported.

President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law on Aug. 9, 2022, which provides about $280 billion in funding for the U.S. semiconductor industry.

Biden lauded the act as a success a year ago in August after tech companies pledged more than $395 billion in investments in electronics and semiconductors and created more than 115,000 jobs during the act’s first two years.

U.S. tech firms account for about 10% of the global supply of chips that power artificial intelligence and a variety of consumer goods, including appliances and computers.

The United States was on pace to produce about 30% of the global computer chip supply by 2032, Biden announced.

Officials in US President Donald Trump’s administration made comments saying the equity stake was not to run the firm.

United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said the US government wants an equity stake in Intel in exchange for cash grants approved during the administration of former President Joe Biden.

Separately, also on Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said any US investment in Intel would be aimed at helping the troubled chipmaker stabilise.

Asked about reports that the US was considering taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, Bessent told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” programme: “The stake would be a conversion of the grants and maybe increase the investment into Intel to help stabilise the company for chip production here in the US.”

Bessent gave no details about the size or timing of any US stake in Intel, but said any investment would not be aimed at forcing US companies to buy chips from Intel.

Bessent’s comments were the first official response from the Trump administration after Bloomberg News reported on Monday that the US government is in talks to take a 10 percent Intel stake in exchange for $7.9bn in grants that were approved for the US chip company during the Biden administration.

‘Not governance’

“We should get an equity stake for our money,” Lutnick told CNBC. “We’ll get equity in return for that … instead of just giving grants away.”

Lutnick said the US does not want control of the company.

“It’s not governance, we are just converting what was a grant under Biden into equity for the Trump administration for the American people.” He suggested any stake would be “non-voting,” meaning it would not enable the US government to tell the company how to run its business.

He made his comments a day after SoftBank Group agreed to invest $2bn into the chipmaker, which has struggled to compete after years of management blunders.

“The Biden administration literally was giving Intel money for free and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving the money for free, and Donald Trump turned it into saying, ‘Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer,’” Lutnick said.

Intel and TSMC, a Taiwan-based chipmaker, did not immediately comment.

Intel helped launch Silicon Valley, but has fallen behind rivals like Nvidia Corp and Advanced Micro Devices Inc and is shedding thousands of workers and slashing costs under its new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan. It recorded an annual loss of $18.8bn in 2024, its first such loss since 1986.

Intel plans to end the year with 75,000 “core” workers, excluding subsidiaries, through layoffs and attrition, down from 99,500 core employees at the end of 2024. The company previously announced a 15 percent workforce reduction.

Trump recently said Tan, who was made CEO in March, should resign. But after meeting with him last week, Trump relented, saying Tan had an “amazing story”.

Convincing young Black people to become cops long been a tough sell at summer job fairs.

But in recent months the pool of recruits at the Los Angeles Police Department has shriveled to the point of running dry. The last two training academy classes haven’t included a single a Black graduate.

Despite offering generous pay and pensions, police agencies across the country have struggled since the pandemic with finding enough new officers regardless of race.

At the LAPD, the number of Black recruits — especially women — has been dropping for years, leaving the department far short of diversity goals put in place decades ago to counter discriminatory hiring practices.

Compounding matters is President Trump, who has embarked on a far-reaching campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion, or so-called DEI policies.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell quietly shut down the department’s DEI program during an administrative reshuffling this year. Massive cuts to federal agencies and university programs have some officials sounding alarms about a ripple effect in police hiring.

The Oscar Joel Bryant Assn., which represents the LAPD’s 700 or so Black officers, said conversations about responding to attacks on pro-diversity programs “do not need to wait for the future.”

“[T]hose concerns are here today for all groups,” Capt. Capt. Shannon Enox-White, the association’s president, said in a statement. “When we swore an oath to protect the Constitution and the organization’s very mission statement elevates DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) principles, I do not see how we can step away from them now or ever.”

Privately, some Black department officials expressed frustration with recent promotions announced by McDonnell. Only one Black leader moved up in rank. Emada Tingirides, a finalist for the police chief job is now the first Black woman in the department’s long history to hold the rank of assistant chief.

Many of the department’s older Black officers — who joined the force during a hiring push in the 1980s and ‘90s — are now nearing retirement. Several high-ranking Black LAPD officials, including Tingirides and Deputy Chiefs Gerald Woodyard and Alan Hamilton, have already enrolled in the deferred retirement program, meaning they probably will exit before the 2028 Olympic Games in L.A.

The department’s percentage of Black officers has dipped slightly to roughly 8% of the force, just below the percentage of Black city residents.

Diversity issues aside, the LAPD has grappled with other issues when it comes to finding and retaining cops of the future. The hiring process typically takes 250 days to complete after the background check, polygraph screening and a series of tests that each applicant is required to undergo. LAPD officials have said some exasperated candidates have opted to pursue opportunities with other agencies where the wait isn’t nearly as long.

But for some already in the department, the most glaring problem is a lack of support for Black people in uniform. They point to the quiet closure of the DEI office, whose staff members were reassigned and duties absorbed by other units. Proponents considered it a crucial support system for younger Black cops.

Without such support, they say, Black officers will be less likely to receive the professional development or opportunities to work in specialized units that can lead to supervisory roles.

Others argue that stories about the internal mistreatment of Black officers keep people from applying. This year, an officer from the department’s recruitment unit filed a complaint alleging he had recorded racist, sexist and homophobic comments by colleagues, which McDonnell and other officials condemned and pledged to investigate.

Over the last decade, the department has paid out more than $10 million in settlements or jury awards for officers alleging that they were discriminated against based on their race.

Like the city it polices, the LAPD has seen its demographics change dramatically in recent decades. With the department prodded by lawsuits and consent decrees, more than half of the once mostly white force is now Latino. But the number of Black cops — especially women — hasn’t budged much.

Some police critics said that increasing diversity alone isn’t a fix for larger, systemic issues with policing.

But a succession of LAPD leaders have said that diversifying the agency’s ranks is a priority, arguing that doing so can counter generations of distrust of police by Black Angelenos. Still, progress has been slow. A 2022 study by UCLA researchers revealed strong resistance within the department toward efforts to hire more women and officers of color.

Since the start of his second term in office, Trump has called diversity hiring efforts “illegal,” encouraging federal agencies to investigate and withhold funds from institutions that promote DEI practices.

Ivonne Roman of the Center for Policing Equity, a nonprofit think tank based at Yale University, said the president’s anti-affirmative orders will undoubtedly undercut efforts to turn the tide on declining Black officer numbers nationwide.

Even though most local police departments aren’t as dependent on federal funding as, say, public universities, police executives may feel less pressure to diversify their agencies in the current social climate, she said.

Steps such as the dismissal of Biden-era civil rights lawsuits that accused police departments of hiring disparities could embolden discrimination, she said.

“It’s going to have chilling effect,” Roman said.

PORTLAND, Ore. — One program distributes laptops in rural Iowa. Another helped people get back online after Hurricane Helene washed away computers and phones in western North Carolina. Programs in Oregon and rural Alabama teach older people, including some who have never touched a computer, how to navigate in an increasingly digital world.

It all came crashing down this month when President Trump — on his own digital platform, Truth Social — announced his intention to end the Digital Equity Act, a federal grant program meant to help bridge the digital divide. He branded it as “RACIST and ILLEGAL” and said it amounts to “woke handouts based on race.” He said it was an “ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway.” The program was funded with $2.75 billion.

The name seemed innocuous enough when the program was approved by Congress in 2021 as part of a $65-billion investment meant to bring internet access to every home and business in the United States. The broadband program was a key component of the $1-trillion infrastructure law enacted under the Biden administration.

The Digital Equity Act was intended to fill gaps and cover unmet needs that surfaced during the massive broadband rollout. It gave states and tribes flexibility to deliver high-speed internet access to families that could not afford it, computers to kids who did not have them, telehealth access to older adults in rural areas, and training and job skills to veterans.

Whether Trump has the legal authority to end the program remains unknown. But for now the Republican administration can simply stop spending the money.

“I just felt my heart break for what we were finally, finally in this country, going to address, the digital divide,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that was awarded — but has not received — a $25.7-million grant to work with groups across the country to help provide access to technology. “The digital divide is not just physical access to the internet, it is being able to use that to do what you need to do.”

The word ‘equity’

While the name of the program probably got it targeted — the Trump administration has been aggressively scrubbing the government of programs that promote diversity, equity or inclusion — the Digital Equity Act was supposed to be broader in scope.

Though Trump called it racist, the words “race” or “racial” appear just twice in the law’s text: once, alongside “color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability,” in a passage stating that no groups should be excluded from funding; and later, in a list of covered populations, along with older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, English learners, people with low literacy levels and rural Americans.

“Digital Equity passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the act’s chief proponent, noted in a statement. “And that’s because my Republican colleagues have heard the same stories as I have — like kids in rural communities forced to drive to McDonalds parking lots for Wi-Fi to do their homework.

“It is insane — absolutely nuts — that Trump is blocking resources to help make sure kids in rural school districts can get hot spots or laptops, all because he doesn’t like the word equity!”

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, declined to comment. It’s not clear how much of the $2.75 billion has been awarded, though in March 2024 the NTIA announced the allocation of $811 million to states, territories and tribes.

‘More confident’

On a recent morning in Portland, Ore., Brandon Dorn was among those taking a keyboard basics class offered by Free Geek, a nonprofit that provides free courses to help people learn to use computers. The class was offered at a low-income housing building to make it accessible for residents.

Dorn and the others were given laptops and shown the different functions of keys: control, shift and caps lock, how to copy and paste. They played a typing game that taught finger and key placement on a color-coded keyboard.

Dorn, 63, said the classes helped because “in this day and age, everything has to go through the computer.” He said it helped him feel more confident and less dependent on his children or grandchildren to do things such as making appointments online.

“Folks my age, we didn’t get this luxury because we were too busy working, raising the family,” he said. “So this is a great way to help us help ourselves.”

Juan Muro, Free Geek’s executive director, said participants get the tools and skills they need to access things like online banking, job applications, online education programs and telehealth. He said Trump’s move to end funding has put nonprofits such as Free Geek in a precarious position, forcing them to make up the difference through fundraising and “beg for money to just provide individuals with essential stuff.”

Sara Nichols works for the Land of Sky Regional Council, a multi-county planning and development organization in western North Carolina. On the Friday before Trump’s inauguration in January, the organization received notice that it was approved for a grant. But like other groups the Associated Press contacted, it has not seen any money.

Land of Sky had spent a lot of resources helping people recover from last year’s storms. The award notice, Nichols said, came as “incredible news.”

“But between this and the state losing, getting their letters terminated, we feel just, like, stuck. What are we going to do? How are we going to move forward? How are we going to let our communities continue to fall behind?”

Filling unmet needs

More than one-fifth of Americans do not have broadband internet access at home, according to the Pew Research Center. In rural communities, the number jumps to 27%.

Beyond giving people access to technology and fast internet, many programs funded by the Digital Equity Act sought to provide “digital navigators” — human helpers to guide people new to the online world.

“In the United States we do not have a consistent source of funding to help individuals get online, understand how to be safe online and how to use that technology to accomplish all the things that are required now as part of life that are online,” said Siefer of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. This includes providing families with internet hot spots so they can get online at home and helping seniors avoid online scams, she said.

“Health, workforce, education, jobs, everything, right?” Siefer said. “This law was going to be the start for the U.S. to figure out this issue. It’s a new issue in the big scheme of things, because now technology is no longer a nice-to-have. You have to have the internet and you have to know how to use the technology just to survive, let alone to thrive today.”

Siefer said the word “equity” in the name probably prompted Trump to target the program for elimination.

“But it means that he didn’t actually look at what this program does,” she said. “Because who doesn’t want Grandma to be safe online? Who doesn’t want a veteran to be able to talk to their doctor rather than get in a car and drive two hours? Who doesn’t want students to be able to do their homework?”

Ortutay and Rush write for the Associated Press and reported from San Francisco and Portland, Ore., respectively.

The world was shocked when a gunman shot and killed Mexican influencer Valeria Marquez while she livestreamed herself at a beauty salon. President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government says it will investigate the murder as a possible case of femicide. Will it mark a turning point for a nation that has long struggled with staggering levels of gender-based violence?

The Chargers welcomed Arctos as a limited partner Tuesday as NFL owners approved a sale that transferred some the team’s shares to the Dallas-based private equity firm that already has ties to the Dodgers.

“Arctos’ track record in major professional sports speaks for itself,” Chargers owner Dean Spanos said in a statement, “and we are grateful for their alignment moving forward during this time of tremendous growth for our organization.”

According to a league memo The Times obtained last week, Arctos acquired 8% of the team’s shares. Spanos and his family will retain control of the Chargers organization with approximately 61% of the franchise.

Arctos now has stakes in two NFL teams less than a year after the league approved private equity ownership. The company acquired a 10% stake in the Buffalo Bills in January, adding to its portfolio that already included MLB, NBA, NHL and MLS teams. Arctos has ownership stakes in six MLB teams: the Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, San Diego Padres, Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox.

“We’re honored to join the Los Angeles Chargers ownership group and are grateful to Dean and the rest of the management team for their partnership,” Arctos cofounder and co-managing partner Doc O’Connor said in a statement. “We’re excited to get to work and help the team achieve their vision however we can.”

Approaching a decade since their move to L.A., the Chargers have added two major ownership groups in the last year. Detroit Pistons owner Tom Gores bought a 27% stake in the team in September, resolving a long-running dispute between Dea Spanos Berberian and her siblings as Gores and his wife bought Spanos Berberian’s share of the franchise.

May 13 (UPI) — South Korean prosecutors raided the country’s two rating agencies Monday to investigate suspicions surrounding the bond issuance of Home Plus, the troubled discount chain.

Home Plus is accused of selling a large volume of short-term bonds just before its credit ratings dropped on Feb. 28. The prosecution is checking whether Home Plus had prior knowledge of the credit downgrade.

If so, Home Plus, which filed for corporate rehabilitation on March 4, could face legal consequences, along with its owner MBK Partners, one of Asia’s largest private equity funds.

Since the financial obligations of Home Plus were frozen as of March 4, issuing bonds while planning the court-led rehabilitation filing could constitute fraud against investors, according to observers.

Home Plus has denied the allegations as its CEO Joh Ju-yeon stated during a parliamentary hearing in March.

“We only held an emergency meeting with executives (about the rehabilitation filing) after the credit rating cut,” he said.

However, Financial Supervisory Service Gov. Lee Bok-hyun rejected this. The organization is the country’s financial regulator.

“We have secured concrete evidence that MBK Partners and Home Plus were aware of the downgrade in advance, and they had been planning to file for rehabilitation for quite some time,” he told a press conference late last month. “The case has been formally referred to prosecutors.”

Days after Lee’s statement, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office carried out a search and seizure at the head office of Home Plus in western Seoul.

Adding to MBK’s troubles, the National Tax Service (NTS) started a tax audit of the corporation in early March. MBK claims that it’s a routine audit conducted every five years. But a non-regular inspection unit is reportedly in charge of the case.

In late March, the Fair Trade Commission reportedly launched an investigation into MBK, Home Plus and Lotte Card over alleged unfair internal transactions.

Lotte Card is suspected of providing preferential corporate card terms and credit limits to Home Plus. MBK is also the largest shareholder of the credit card company.

Asia’s top-tier private equity fund

Founded in 2005 by Chairman Michael Byungju Kim, who worked at Goldman Sachs and the Carlyle Group, MBK Partners quickly became a powerhouse in Northeast Asia.

The company has dealt with many landmark transactions such as Universal Studios Japan in 2009, ING’s South Korean unit in 2013 and Godiva Chocolatier’s Asia-Pacific operations in 2019.

MBK has succeeded with control-oriented buyouts in stable and defensive sectors. It currently manages up to $30 billion in assets to rank among the top players in Asia.

As the firm grew, so did Chairman Kim’s personal fortune. In the 2025 Forbes billionaire list, he was top among South Koreans with $9.5 billion in wealth, surpassing Samsung tycoon Lee Jae-yong with $8.2 billion.

Riding the momentum, MBK made a big bet on Home Plus in 2015 by spending around $5.1 billion to purchase the supermarket chain from Tesco.

MBK financed the deal with $1.6 billion in equity and the remaining $3.5 billion in loans, which marked the largest leveraged buyout in Asia. At the time, Home Plus was South Korea’s No. 2 discount chain with around 140 hypermarkets and 700 smaller stores nationwide.

However, rising online competition and the Corona virus pandemic dealt a blow to the business. Home Plus posted four consecutive years of losses since 2021, with its debt ratio nearing 500% this January.

Critics argue that MBK Partners relied excessively on debt and focused on short-term returns over long-term value.

“MBK has been under fire for lacking management expertise,” Lee Phil-sang, an adviser at Aju Research Institute of Corporate Management, told UPI.

“Private equity funds in other countries also follow similar practices. We cannot legally ban them. However, they should be more cautious because their large-scale failures like this can hurt the broader economy,” said Lee, who previously worked as an economics professor at Seoul National University.

The Home Plus crisis is expected to negatively affect MBK’s multi-billion-dollar attempt to snap up Korea Zinc, the world’s largest zinc smelter. MBK is pursuing the takeover in partnership with Korea Zinc’s top shareholder Young Poong.

“While MBK has suffered from setbacks in other merger and acquisition deals, none were as large as Home Plus,” Seoul-based consultancy Leaders Index CEO Park Ju-gun said in a phone interview.

“This crisis is highly likely to damage MBK’s reputation and hinder its bid for Korea Zinc,” he projected.

Comments from MBK were not available.