American Airways CEO Doug Parker to retire, president Robert Isom to take reins March 31

Doug Parker, American Airlines CEO

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker is stepping down and will be replaced by the airline’s president, Robert Isom, on March 31, the airline announced on Tuesday.

Parker is the second major airline CEO this year to announce his resignation, signing a changing of the guard among US airlines. Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly will step down in February and hand the reins to another longtime manager, Bob Jordan, in February.

Parker will continue to serve as Chairman of the American Board.

Parker became CEO of America West for the first time shortly before the September 11, 2001 attacks and later led two mergers – with US Airways and American Airlines, the end of a wave of consolidation among US airlines.

This is the latest news. Check again for updates.

Tyra Banks discusses Victoria’s Secret resolution to retire their Angels | Leisure

Tyra Banks believes she is “experiencing a beauty revolution” after Victoria’s Secret retired her angels.

The 47-year-old model is pleased that the “bada ** Role Models” are taking on their new positions at The VS Collective, which consists of speakers such as actress Priyanka Chopra, model and skier Eileen Gu, plus-size beauty Paloma Elsesser and the Brazilian model Valentina Sampaio.

Celebrating the news, Tyra wrote, “I retired from the catwalk 16 years ago and I’m proud to be witnessing a beauty revolution in my life. I may have broken this door open for the new collective of tough ROLE models.” , but you all storm through. Keep doing this until we all LOSE COUNT how many break through behind you. #LetsLoseCount. (sic) “

Tyra worked as a contract model with the brand, the first black model to do so.

In a post on Instagram, she added, “The first is critical so a door can be opened so others can pass through. In 10 years from 1995, I was the first ever black @VictoriasSecret contract model Victoria’s Secret cover model. The first Black VS model to do so many other groundbreaking things to the brand – and other brands too. But after a premiere there has to be a stream of more. A stream of others. A stream of unique things. A flow so strongly, a stream of so many, that we LOSE COUNTING. (sic) “

Victoria’s Secret confirmed the changes in a statement earlier this week.

Their CEO, Martin Waters, said, “At Victoria’s Secret, we are on an incredible journey to become the world’s leading advocate for women. This is a dramatic change for our brand and a change that we embrace from our core. These new initiatives are just the beginning. We are full of energy and humility from the work that lies ahead. “

Opinion: Tips on how to retire with more cash — even if you happen to don’t save extra

It may sound too good to be true, but saving for retirement could potentially improve your portfolios significantly without saving more money.

In one current articleI’ve shown that when you’ve saved 1.5 times what you really need to cover your living expenses, your financial options in retirement are vastly better.

This can be easier than you think. And it’s really worth it.

There are many ways you can safely increase your retirement income by 50% or more. You can save more money. You can plan to postpone your retirement. You can plan to work part-time in retirement. You can move to a place with a lower cost of living.

Today I’m going to show you how to get 1.5x goal without doing any of these things. The key is how you allocate your retirement savings. In other words, what you invest in.

For this comparison, I’ve turned to a fairly simple four-fund strategy that I’ve been describing and recommending for years.

Let’s compare two investors who we’ll say were born in 1940. (I chose this date because it works with readily available dates.)

These two investors have identical goals and savings habits. (Perhaps we can think of them as twin sisters.) Each begins saving at age 30 in 1970 and plans to retire at 65 in 2005.

Each starts with a contribution of $ 1,000 in the first year. Each year thereafter, each increases its contribution by 3%. Everyone invests fully in stocks for the first 25 years and switches to a more balanced 60/40 stock split in 1995.

The only difference between them is the choice of stocks.

Investor 1 chooses the S&P 500
SPX, -0.29%
for her shares, to keep that choice until (and after) she retires.

Investor 2’s shares follow what I have described As a US four-fund combo: 25% each in large-cap blend stocks (S & P 500), large-cap value stocks, small-cap blend stocks and small-cap value stocks.

The following table summarizes these selection options and the resulting results.

Table 1: Comparison of two investors

Investor 1

Investor 2

Savings per year

$ 1,000

$ 1,000

Total savings 1970-2004

$ 57,045

$ 57,045

Equity allocation 1970-1989

100%

100%

Equity allocation 1990-2004

60%

60%

Equity portion of the portfolio

S&P 500

US four-fund combo

Portfolio value at the end of 2004

552,502 USD

$ 842,136

Withdrawal in 2005 at 4%.

$ 22,100

$ 33,685

The first four rows of the table show that these two investors saved the same amounts and assigned the same percentages to stocks.

The fifth line shows what they did differently and the last two lines show the result in their first year of retirement.

In order for Investor 1 to spend as much as Investor 2 in her first year of retirement, she would have to withdraw 6.1% of her portfolio. This is aggressive and would expose her to the very real risk of running out of money.

The big difference in portfolio values ​​resulted from only one thing: the composition of three-quarters of the equity portfolio.

I’m not suggesting that you can finance a solid retirement with savings of just $ 1,000 a year. The point is the comparison: without saving any extra money, Investor 2 retired with a large pillow (at least compared to Investor 1) to spend on travel, philanthropy, or anything else.

Now I know what you’re thinking: there has to be a “catch”. And you are right.

I can identify at least four “catches”, none of which I believe are anywhere near fatal.

Catch 1: We know what happened from 1970 to 2020. It could have turned out differently.

However, this is always the case. It is impossible to know the results of an investment plan in advance. However, the difference made by changing three-quarters of the stock portfolio over a 35-year period could have been (broadly) predicted as early as 1970.

Small-cap stocks, value stocks, and small-cap value stocks have a track record that dates back to 1928, and for long periods of time they have consistently outperformed the S&P 500. The reasons for this are known, and there is no reason to believe that the long-cap stocks maturity pattern will be any different in the future.

Catch 2: If these investors had started another year, the numbers would have been different.

This will always be the case too. However, the period in this comparative study included recessions, an energy crisis, a staggering one-day market collapse, a strong bull market, and two severe bear markets. The US four-fund combo held out under a variety of conditions throughout.

Catch 3: Investing in value stocks and small-cap stocks puts you at greater statistical risk than sticking to the S&P 500.

True if you are a statistician. In the real world, however, most investors equate risk with losing money. From 1970 to 2020, each of these equity strategies had 10 years of losses. The worst calendar year for the S&P 500 was a 37% loss. The worst year for the US four-fund combo was 41%.

Here’s what I think: if you can survive a 37% loss, if you lose 41% you probably won’t get out.

A more important question is how these two equity strategies, in the worst case scenario, compared the dire 2000-2002 bear market. Over those three years, the S&P 500 was down 37.6% while the US Four-Fund Combo was only down 14.6%.

Catch 4: The US four-fund combo requires realignment, preferably every year, to keep risk under control. However, with only four funds, this should require less than an hour of attention per year.

In my opinion, the payoff for this three-quarters shift in a portfolio’s stock structure far outweighs any cons.

There are hundreds of combinations of stocks you can include in a retirement portfolio. And investors have very different patterns of accumulating their savings.

At the Merriman Financial Education Foundation we are developing a calculator that you can use to run such scenarios with many variables. It should be ready for a public rollout later this year.

In the meantime, as you can see from real market returns over 35 years, you can make a lot more money simply by adjusting the stocks in your portfolio.

For more information on how to get higher returns on your retirement investments, please visit this article.

Richard Buck contributed to this article.

Paul Merriman and Richard Buck are the authors of We’re talking about millions! 12 easy ways to improve your retirement.

Boeing raises necessary retirement age for CEO Calhoun by 5 years, CFO to retire

Dave Calhoun, Boeing Chairman

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

Boeing It was announced on Tuesday that the mandatory retirement age of the 64-year-old CEO will be raised from 65 to 70 as the company continues to face challenges from the coronavirus pandemic, production problems and the aftermath of two crashes on its best-selling plane.

Boeing CFO Greg Smith will retire in July, the manufacturer said. Boeing said it was looking for a replacement.

“Under Dave’s strong leadership, Boeing has effectively mastered one of the most challenging and complex periods in its long history,” said Larry Kellner, Boeing chairman, in a press release. “Given the significant progress that Boeing has made under Dave’s leadership and the continuity required to thrive in our long cycle industry, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of the company and its stakeholders to the board of directors and Dave allow the flexibility for him to continue in his role beyond the company’s normal retirement age. “

This is the latest news. Check for updates again.

Joanna Lumley vows to by no means retire | Leisure

Joanna Lumley will never retire.

The 74-year-old star actress has no interest in giving up her career as she gets older, but accepts that if the roles dry up, she may have no choice.

She said, “It’s full speed ahead. If you act, acting will take you into retirement.

“So if you haven’t been asked to do anything in five years, you can assume you’re retired, but I’m still working away.”

The ‘New Avengers’ actress didn’t worry about contracting the coronavirus, against which she had now received her first vaccine, because she knew there was nothing she could do about it.

Talk to OK! She said in a magazine, “I am not a worrying person. I’m a bit kismet – either it will come and unfortunately it will get you, or it won’t.

“Even though I’m 112 years old, I’m pretty fit and young, so I wasn’t worried about that, no.”

Although Joanna didn’t see her son and granddaughters because of the pandemic, she enjoyed having more time with her husband, conductor Stephen Barlow.

She said, “It was nice. We are one of those happy families, we get along.

“He’s my best friend and someone I enjoy talking to as much as anyone else in the world. So that was never a problem.

“I’ve always enjoyed cooking. My husband is also a good cook. That was pretty interesting.

“But only because we’re both terribly fat now! We have to turn the corner and say, “OK, stop all this nonsense.”

The “Absolutely Fabulous” star is “terribly touched” to be considered a national treasure.

She said, “It’s a sweet favorite thing and I am terribly touched.

“Part of it is that I’m very familiar because I’ve been bouncing around in front of you for about 50 years so people will know who I am.

“I had this lovely, warm welcome for the roles I played.

“People are nice and they know I love them, so they might love me in return.”

Outspoken Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, who challenged Trump on race points, to retire this yr

Ken Frazier, Chairman and CEO of Merck & Co., speaks during an Economic Club of New York meeting on October 3, 2018.

Brendan McDermid | Reuters

The outspoken chairman and CEO of Merck, Ken Frazier, is retiring after almost 30 years with the drug manufacturer, the company announced on Thursday.

The 66-year-old Frazier will be replaced by Chief Financial Officer Robert Davis as CEO on June 30 and will continue to serve as Chairman of the Board of Management of Merck, “for a transition period to be determined by the Board of Directors,” the company said. Frazier, one of the few black corporate executives in the United States, has been CEO of Merck since January 2011.

“It has been a privilege to serve as CEO of Merck for the past decade and to work with the most dedicated and talented employees and management team in the industry,” Frazier said in the statement. “As CEO, I look forward to working with Rob and our Board of Directors to help Merck be even more successful.”

Frazier’s final years at Merck were marked by his outspoken opposition to the former president Donald Trump. He was the first to lead a revolt among CEOs Resignation of Trump’s American Manufacturing Council shortly after the former president’s supportive comments on white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups at the deadly protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.

He has called for managing directors to be a “unifying force” that can help resolve many of America’s racial inequalities by creating new opportunities and jobs. He said that education, and especially financial literacy, is the “great balance”.

Frazier’s June departure will leave only three black CEOs at Fortune 500 companies. Roger Ferguson Jr., CEO of TIAA, announced that he will be stepping down from his position in late March. Roz Brewer, the current Chief Operating Officer of Starbucks, will take the lead at Walgreens Boots Alliance in the same month.

After becoming a lawyer, Frazier rose to be one of the the most famous black CEOs in the country. Before joining Merck, Frazier helped free a black death row inmate who was falsely accused of murder.

Davis, 54, will become President of Merck on April 1. He joined the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company as chief financial officer in 2014 after serving in leadership roles Baxter International. Davis also spent 14 years at Eli Lilly.

Davis, who holds a law degree and an MBA from Northwestern University, serves on the board of directors of Duke Energy and serves on the board of the international nonprofit Healthcare Project Hope.

Davis’ job at Merck has been expanded to include “the company’s global support functions which include corporate development, investor relations, information technology, procurement, real estate and corporate strategy.”

“Rob has been instrumental in helping Merck take the right steps to adapt to the changing healthcare environment, while continuing to invest in the scientific innovations that we expect will drive our future growth,” said Frazier.

Merck reported fourth quarter sales and earnings that fell too short on Thursday Wall Street expectations. Revenue rose 5% year over year to $ 12.5 billion, but fell short of investors’ forecast of $ 12.68 billion. The company reported adjusted earnings per share of $ 1.32 per share versus $ 1.38 expected.

The company’s shares fell around 1% in premarket trading.

Last week Merck announced that it would end the development of two Covid-19 vaccines intended to focus on treatments, citing poorer immune responses compared to people who had recovered from the disease as well as those reported for other vaccines.

The company, which entered the vaccine race later than its competitors, expects initial efficacy data for an experimental oral antiviral, expected in late March.

– Amelia Lucas and Reuters at CNBC contributed to this report.