Getty Images

DJ Khaled (2nd from left) and Floyd Mayweather (2nd from right) and guests attend an event in Los Angeles in February.

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday brought their first cases over touting violations for initial coin offerings, charging boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. and music producer DJ Khaled.

The pair were charged with promoting initial coin offerings over social media without admitting they were paid.

According to the SEC, Mayweather failed to disclose a $100,000 payment from Centra Tech Inc. and Khaled failed to disclose a $50,000 payment from the same company.

Mayweather received another $200,000 for promoting two other ICOs.

The founders of Centra Tech were previously charged by the Justice Department as well as the SEC with defrauding investors.

In addition to giving up those payments, Mayweather agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty, and DJ Khaled, whose legal name is Khaled Khaled, agreed a $100,000 fine. Neither admitted nor denied the findings.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — Every society faces the difficult task of providing support for older people who are no longer working. In an earlier era, retirees lived with their adult children, providing childcare and helping around the house. But those days are largely gone. Retirees and their adult children alike prefer living independently.

In a rational economic world, individuals would save during their working years, accumulating enough to purchase an annuity that finances a comfortable standard of living when they retire. But that is not what most people do, either because of their shortsightedness or because of the incentives created by the government social security programs.

Providing benefits to support a comfortable standard of living for retirees with just a modest rate of tax on the working population depends on there being a small number of pensioners relative to the number of taxpayers. That is no longer the case.

European governments since Otto von Bismarck and U..S governments since Franklin Roosevelt have therefore maintained pay-as-you-go retirement pension systems. More recently, Japan has adopted such a system.

But providing benefits to support a comfortable standard of living for retirees with just a modest rate of tax on the working population depends on there being a small number of pensioners relative to the number of taxpayers. That was true in these programs’ early years, but maintaining benefit levels became more difficult as more workers lived long enough to retire and longer after retirement, which increased the ratio of retirees to the taxpaying population.

Life expectancy at birth in the United States, for example, has increased from 63 years in 1940, when the Social Security program began, to 78 years in 2017. In 1960, there were five workers per retiree; today, there are only three.

Also read: U.S. life expectancy drop continues worst trend in 100 years

Looking ahead, the Social Security Administration’s actuaries forecast that the number of workers per retiree will decline to two by 2030. That implies that the tax rate needed to achieve the current benefit structure would have to rise from 12% today to 18% in 2030. Other major countries face a similar problem.

If it is not politically possible to raise the tax rate to support future retirees with the current structure of benefits, there are only two options to avoid a collapse of the entire system. One option is to slow the future growth of benefits so that they can be financed without a substantial tax increase. The other is to shift from a pure pay-as-you-go system to a mixed system that supplements fixed benefits with returns from financial investments.

A U.S. example shows how slowing the growth of benefits might work in a politically acceptable way. In 1983, the age at which one became eligible to receive full Social Security benefits was raised from 65 to 67. This effective benefit reduction was politically possible because the change began only after a substantial delay and has since been phased in over several decades. Moreover, individuals are still eligible to receive benefits as early as age 62 with an actuarial adjustment.

Since that change was enacted, the life expectancy of someone in their mid-60s has increased by about three years, continuing a pattern of one-year-per-decade increases in longevity for someone of that age. Some economists, including me, now advocate raising the age for full benefits by another three years, to 70, and then indexing the future age for full benefits to keep the life expectancy of beneficiaries unchanged.

Consider the second option: combining the pay-as-you-go system with financial investments.

Pension systems operated by private companies achieve benefits at a lower cost by investing in portfolios of stocks and bonds. A typical U.S. private pension has 60% of its assets in equities and the remaining 40% in high-quality bonds, providing a real (inflation-adjusted) rate of return of about 5.5% over long periods of time.

In contrast, taxes collected for a pay-as-you-go system produce a real rate of return of about 2% without investing in financial assets, because real wages and the number of taxpayers rise.

It would be possible to replace the existing pay-as-you-go systems gradually with a pure investment-based system that produces the same expected level of benefits with a much lower tax rate. Unfortunately, the benefits produced by that contribution rate would entail significant risk that the benefits would be substantially below the expected level.

Research that I and others have conducted shows that a mixed system that combines the existing pay-as-you-go system with a small investment-based component can achieve a higher expected level of benefits with little risk of lower benefit levels.

The current structure of pension systems in most developed countries cannot be sustained without cutting benefit levels substantially or introducing much higher taxes. A shift to a mixed system that combines the stability of the pay-as-you-go benefits with the higher return of market-based investments would permit countries to avoid that choice altogether.

This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate How to Save Social Security Systems.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


New York Fed President John Williams

The problem the Federal Reserve needs to solve these days is the risk of inflation that is persistently too low, rather than too high, a key central bank official said on Friday in discussing why it’s undergoing a strategic review.

New York Fed President John Williams said that the Fed’s current framework — aiming to keep inflation close to a 2% annual rate — faces significant challenges given the current global economic environment. That’s why the Fed has decided to review how it conducts interest rate policy, he added.

In his remarks, the New York Fed president did not discuss the immediate outlook for the economy or interest-rate policy.

Earlier this month, the Fed announced it will conduct a year-long review of its monetary policy tools and the way it communicates decisions in 2019. As part of that effort, the central bank will sponsor a research conference in early June in Chicago to get advice from outside experts.

Williams said the review was sparked by a shift in the global economy’s “neutral” interest rate.

In the developed economies, aging populations, slower productivity growth and higher demand for safe assets has pushed down the so-called neutral interest rate that keeps the economy growing without sparking inflation, Williams said.

With the Fed aiming for a 2% inflation target, the result of a low neutral rate is that sometimes inflation will stay below 2%. The market will come to expect low inflation and this can make the economy suffer more in a downturn.

Williams said the first option is “to maintain the basic framework of inflation targeting and to rely on a combination of aggressive conventional and unconventional policy actions when facing economic downturns to limit the deleterious effects of the lower bound.”

Williams said the Fed has to consider as part of its review switching to an “average-inflation targeting” where the central bank would target above-target inflation rate in “good” times. This can keep inflation expectations in line with the target.

A third option is price-level targeting, where the Fed commits to keep the price level on a steady growth path, he said.

“Although price-level targeting is a bigger leap from inflation targeting than average-inflation targeting, each can be implemented in ways that are very similar to standard inflation targeting, either in terms of forecast-targeting or a policy rule,” Williams said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

At its annual customer conference in Las Vegas this week, Amazon‘s cloud business, Amazon Web Services, announced several new products. A few of them compete directly with smaller companies that already offer similar products running on Amazon’s cloud.

AWS is the world’s biggest public cloud, generating $6.68 billion in revenue for Amazon in the third quarter, up 46 percent year over year. But as Amazon expands into countless new areas, from grocery stores to health care, some companies that have previously worked with Amazon have found a partner becoming the competition overnight.

Retailers that sell products to consumers have recognized Amazon’s expanding role. While some continue to use Amazon as a cloud provider, others, like Gap and Walmart, have opted to standardize on clouds from other companies, like Microsoft and Google.

Similarly, software providers could start to consider alternatives as Amazon’s cloud business continues to widen its product lineup, even if AWS is the clear market leader.

On Thursday, Amazon’s chief technology officer, Werner Vogels, announced the launch of a tool for running clusters of the Apache Kafka open-source software for processing data.

Kafka was originally developed inside LinkedIn, and its creators formed a start-up called Confluent that spun out of LinkedIn in 2014. Today, Confluent fields a cloud-managed version of Kafka that can be run on Amazon’s cloud, or in other clouds and even in on-premises data centers.

Confluent’s product is designed to be easier for people to use than the open-source project that developers would have to set up and manage computing and data storage infrastructure on their own. For years, AWS has suggested that developers interested in Kafka use its proprietary product called Kinesis, but AWS now has a product specifically with Kafka in mind. It goes by the name Amazon Managed Streaming for Kafka.

“People basically want the real thing, so in that sense, it’s good for the open-source companies,” Jay Kreps, a creator of Kafka and co-founder and CEO of Confluent, told CNBC on Thursday. “This is obviously hard, because it’s kind of a dual thing. Rather than collaborate with the company and kind of build the ecosystem of those offerings in their cloud, they obviously want to do it themselves.”

What’s more, Kreps said, Amazon has not contributed a single line of code to the Apache Kafka open-source software and is not reselling Confluent’s cloud tool.

“They’re profiting from our use of resources,” Kreps said. “We’re charging our customers for the service, paying for compute and network resources that we use.”

Also this week, AWS introduced a marketplace for artificial intelligence algorithms that can be used in SageMaker, an AWS tool for training and running artificial intelligence models. A start-up called Algorithmia offers a marketplace of more than 5,000 AI algorithms.

But that’s not everything that Algorithmia does. “Our real power comes from our ability to deploy and manage models at scale,” Algorithmia co-founder and CEO Diego Oppenheimer wrote in an email.

That can happen atop Amazon’s cloud, or in other clouds, like Microsoft Azure — or, alternatively, in corporate data centers.

“I think AWS’s marketplace will cement the notion that discoverability and accessibility of AI models is key to success and adoption in the industry, which we have been preaching for years,” Oppenheimer said.

Amazon is also reportedly working on a service that would compete with MongoDB, a company that sells subscriptions and services around the MongoDB open-source database software — an AWS-based version of the database is available — although AWS didn’t announce anything along those lines this week.

In past years, Amazon has announced other products that competed with select customers, including Dropbox, which has since become more reliant on its own data center infrastructure, although it does still use Amazon, according to its latest earnings report. Amazon announced its file-sharing service Zocalo in 2014 and has since renamed it WorkDocs.

Another example is Elastic, which went public last month. Elastic’s team commercializes the Elasticsearch open-source search software, among other components. In 2015, months after Elastic announced a cloud implementation of Elasticsearch that can be run on AWS, AWS itself launched a hosted version of Elasticsearch. But Elastic doesn’t support Amazon’s version.

Elastic addressed the competitive dynamic between itself and Amazon in regulatory filings this year.

“Amazon competes with us for potential customers, and while Amazon cannot provide our proprietary software, the pricing of Amazon’s offerings may limit our ability to adjust the price of our products,” Elastic said in a filing in September.

In a statement, Amazon said, “If you look at the history of AWS, we deliver what our customers ask us to build. There are times when there is some degree of overlap with what our customers offer, but most of these market segments are quite large and support several successful entries. And, for customers who’ve built meaningful offerings with significant functionality, we’ve yet to see these companies struggle to keep growing simply because AWS offers something in that area, too.”

WATCH: Cloud play may be best as 2018 ends: Cramer

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Deutsche Bank slashed its General Electric price target to $7 a share on Friday, saying revenue for the conglomerate’s struggling power business “remains flattish but does not continue to decline.”

“We think the key debates can be boiled down to the trajectory of GE Industrial [free cash flow] and whether the company is headed for a liquidity crisis,” Deutsche Bank analyst Nicole DeBlase said in a note to investors. The firm’s base case assumes “an economic downturn does not happen” through the end of 2021, DeBlase said.

Even in Deutsche Bank’s bear case, DeBlase said the firm does “not forsee a liquidity crisis.”

GE shares fell 2.4 percent in premarket trading.

The firm laid out “new detailed base and bear case” free cash flow analyses, DeBlase said, but Deutsche Bank will “ignore the bull case for now since it probably wouldn’t be viewed as credible.”

In Deutsche Bank’s base case, or most likely, scenario, GE would see about 34 cents per share of free cash flow in 2019 and 25 cents per share in 2020. DeBlase said upside for GE under Deutsche Bank’s base case comes down to: “Positive trends in the company’s Power business, upside to debt reduction targets, improved margin dynamics in the company’s renewable energy business, general economic strength.”

DeBase said the firm sees “execution mishaps” from GE Chairman and CEO Larry Culp’s strategy review as a key risk moving forward, as well as outside factors like an economic downturn or “geopolitical instability.”

Deutsche Bank stuck to its hold rating on GE shares, saying the stock now has “limited downside.” The firm’s price target is a cut from the previous $11 a share.

WATCH:Three experts on GE’s future after firing CEO John Flannery

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Apple Music is coming to Amazon’s Alexa-enabled Echo devices, Amazon said Friday, in a rare move to broaden Apple’s streaming music ecosystem.

It’s an unusual move from Apple to allow a third-party voice assistant like Alexa to control an Apple service like Apple Music.

Apple has traditionally kept its services and voice-enabled skills locked into its own hardware, and has kept rival services like Spotify and Amazon’s music streaming service at arms length. For example, while you can beam Spotify music from an iPhone to Apple’s HomePod speaker using AirPlay, you can’t use Siri voice commands to control Spotify. You can only use Siri to control Apple Music.

Echo devices compete directly with Apple’s own HomePod. Google’s smart speaker, the Google Home, only streams Apple Music through a Bluetooth connection like any regular wireless speaker — the voice-enabled assistant can’t launch the service.

Apple Music will be available on Amazon’s voice-activated Echo devices starting the week of Dec. 17, Amazon said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Love & Money is a new MarketWatch series looking at how our relationship with money impacts our relationships with significant others, friends and family.

It’s rare that a celebrity engagement or secret marriage passes through the tabloid headlines without some speculation as to whether the couple is getting a prenuptial agreement (see: Justin Bieber’s marriage to Hayley Baldwin and Ariana Grande’s broken engagement to Pete Davidson).

For many, the idea of a prenuptial agreement — essentially a contract to hash out the division of assets in the event of a divorce — is reserved for celebrities or other ultra-wealthy betrothed eager to protect their own or their family’s money.

Even brides and grooms without large trusts or real estate holdings likely have something precious they want to protect.

The reality is that even brides and grooms without large trusts or real estate holdings likely have something precious they want to protect. And they’re increasingly taking steps to do just that. More than 60% of respondents to a 2016 survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said they’d seen an increase in the total number of clients seeking a prenup in the three years leading up to the survey.

Divorce laws can vary widely by state and they may change during the course of a marriage. For example, some states, known as community property states, divide property in the event of a divorce equally between the two parties based on the assumption that all of the assets acquired during the marriage belong to both parties.

In states that go by equitable distribution, courts may consider which spouse acquired the property during the marriage, among other factors, in dividing the property fairly (though not necessarily equally).

Though many couples use a prenup to protect them beyond their state laws, one reason for the agreement could be to make sure that if you get divorced, the legal landscape is the same as when you got married. If you like your state’s law as it is written, you could use a prenup to “lock it in,” said Alyssa Rower, a New York City-based family and matrimonial law attorney.

Below are some other unexpected reasons couples may want to consider a prenup:

Your spouse’s student loans

In the vast majority of cases, marriage does not affect the status of your student loans — they’re in the borrower’s name and they’ll remain in their name in the event of marriage and subsequent divorce.

But if a couple plans to attack one partner’s student loans together, the other spouse may want to consider whether they’d like to be compensated for that help in the event of divorce, said Kelly Frawley, a partner focused on matrimonial and family law at the firm Kasowitz, Benson Torres. That’s something the spouse who is helping with the loans can write into a prenuptial agreement, she said.

The partner can even specify that if marital money — and not just their own separate property — is put towards the loans that they should receive some kind of credit, said Emily Pollock, also a partner at the same firm. “You still have to think about where that money could have gone,” like towards saving for a home or retirement, for example, she said.

Your favorite pet

Dogs and cats can be one of the most precious and yet difficult to value assets in a marriage, which is why couples may want to hash out their pet’s future in the event of divorce.

It’s unlikely a pet custody arrangement, complete with visitation and other provisions you might set up for children, would be enforced by the courts, Pollock said. “There is case law that says that the courts won’t spend any resources dealing with an access schedule for a pet,” she said.

Still, it may make sense for a couple to draft an agreement about how they plan to determine ownership of a pet in the event of divorce. Is the pet going to go to one partner, will it be shared by the partners or will it follow the kids? These are issues that can be discussed in a prenup, Pollock said.

You froze your eggs or sperm

Advances in reproductive technology over the past several years mean that partners are increasingly coming to a marriage with a different kind of asset: frozen eggs or sperm. And couples should be thoughtful about how they want to address that in the event of divorce, said Colleen Quinn, a Richmond, Va.-based attorney who specializes in adoption and assisted reproductive technology law.

Couples can designate in advance whether sperm or eggs will be considered separate property in case of divorce, Quinn said.

Of course, not all situations are so straightforward, Quinn said. In some cases — particularly, though not always, with same-sex couples — partners will plan to create embryos with the egg or sperm of one of the partners and reproductive material from a donor, which can create unexpected complications in the event of a divorce.

Advances in reproductive technology over the past several years mean that partners are increasingly coming to a marriage with a different kind of asset: frozen eggs or sperm.

“I’ve run into this a lot, where they’ll split and the one wife who used her eggs will want to transfer the embryo with donor sperm into herself and the clinic will refuse to do it without the sign off of the estranged wife,” Quinn said.

To avoid this scenario, couples can write into a prenup that any embryo created with one partner’s egg or sperm with donor reproductive material returns to that spouse in the event of a divorce — as long as that partner purchases with it their separate money, Quinn said. She added that that partner should also be the only name listed on the purchasing agreement and on the cryobank freezing agreement.

“Issues come when they have purchased the sperm with joint marital money or they’re both on the purchase document,” she said.

One issue that’s difficult to hash out in advance in a prenup: the ownership of an embryo created during the marriage with both partners’ reproductive material, Quinn said. That’s why it’s important that the spouses sign an “embryo disposition agreement” when they’re creating the embryo to decide who it might belong to in the event of divorce, she said. That document should be separate from the contract provided by the clinic.

Couples or individuals will rarely receive this type of legal guidance when engaging in fertility treatments, unless they seek it out, Quinn said, and even then lawyers aren’t always educated on the particulars. “It’s just all part of our evolving medical technology and it’s the law having to keep up,” she said.

You have a business interest

Entrepreneurs may come into a marriage with a stake in their business, which they should address in any prenuptial agreement, Rower said.

“Maybe you have no money, but you have a lot of potential down the road. That is something you cannot protect without a prenuptial agreement,” she said. “If you have something that’s hard to value that could be a tricky issue in any divorce.”

Without some sort of agreement, in the event of a divorce, the couple will hire experts to determine the value of the business and then “you fight over the percentage” that one spouse gets, Rower said. In those cases, often the partner who brought the business into the marriage doesn’t have the liquidity at that moment to buy their ex-husband or wife out.

That’s why it’s important to determine ahead of time whether business interests will be marital or separate property in the event of a divorce, she said.

Even if neither of the parties has a business interest at the time they enter the marriage, they may want to protect any future businesses.

Gabriel Kaplan, a New York City-based financial planner, said he encountered a client who raised seed capital for their business and the investors required the client to get a prenup to protect their ownership stake in the business from their spouse.

Even if neither of the parties has a business interest at the time they enter the marriage, they may want to protect any future businesses or specify that spouses would get a stake (or not) in any business launched during the marriage, said Shannon McLay, the founder of the Financial Gym, a financial advisory firm.

“I didn’t know I was going to start a business when I got married,” she said. But that’s exactly what happened. And then she got divorced. McLay knew she wanted to acknowledge her ex-husband’s role in building the business. So they created a separate LLC for her business that her ex-husband partially owns.

“All of my retirement assets went into building this business,” she said. “When we got divorced those assets would have been his if they were still in existence. In total fairness to him I have half of his retirement assets. For me that’s how I thought about it.”

The earning potential of one of the partners may change

If either partner is planning to take a step back from their career as part of the marriage to raise kids or to accompany their partner in a move that will boost their spouse’s career — and hurt their own — the couple may want to address that in the prenup, experts say.

“That person is unlikely to be able to get back into the workforce and to get the kind of income that they would otherwise be able to get,” said Chris Chen, a certified financial planner with Insight Financial Strategies in Waltham, Mass.

To compensate, the couple may want to specify in a prenup how that spouse’s expenses will be covered during the marriage and in the event of divorce, said Frawley. Sometimes, the spouse who takes a career break may receive an annual salary during the marriage and/or in the event of divorce.

Get a daily roundup of the top reads in personal finance delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to MarketWatch’s free Personal Finance Daily newsletter. Sign up here.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Dear Moneyist,

Two decades ago my friend (now 67) divorced his wife and left her with three kids (20, 17 and 14 years of age at the time) for a much younger single woman. In the settlement, he transferred his share of their town house — which still had mortgage on it — to his wife.

He agreed to pay the mortgage repayments in lieu of child maintenance for his youngest daughter. He paid the mortgage repayments for about a year when he realized his ex-wife had taken on a new partner and he was living with them.

He had a daughter, who is now 16 years, with his second partner. They bought a house together 10 years ago which has a mortgage. He put all his money toward the mortgage. He is now separating from his partner and they are selling the house.

Also see: My father suffers from dementia—and my siblings forced him to sign a new will

He plans to nominate his youngest daughter as the sole beneficiary of his share (worth about $200,000) and also plans to leave her whatever assets he may have after death. His view is that the assets he has now have been generated in his second life and, therefore, must stay with the child from the second union.

Recommended: My fiancé’s father treats him like an ATM—how do we protect our financial future?

He does not think that his three daughters from the first marriage are entitled to any inheritance from him as he gave up everything he had when he left them. Their mother, his ex-wife, still owns the house and gets rental income from it and, unfortunately, has not shared any money with her daughters.

He asked for my advice and I consider that he has already provided a lavish lifestyle for his daughter from his second relationship. She will inherit a substantial amount from her mother’s share. I consider that whatever assets he ends up with should be shared between all four daughters. He thinks this is not fair.

What do you think would be fair?

A concerned friend

Dear Friend,

It seems like he has not seen his ex-wife or children in two decades. He can’t buy that time back. They may not want anything from him. He is, of course, entitled to leave his money to whomever he wishes and, reading between the lines, appears to have a close relationship with his youngest daughter. So why not leave his $200,000 to his favorite?

Because he can do something in death that he, perhaps, didn’t get a chance to do in life: recognize all four daughters and give them the respect and acknowledgment they deserve. Of course, this has very little to do with money. But a small portion of his estate could help his daughters with a down payment on a house or their education.

Also see: We plundered our 401(k) to invest in a friend’s business — now we fear it’s a Ponzi scheme

He should also talk to his ex-wife and ex-partner or, at the very least, correspond with them. They could come to a mutual arrangement to leave his four children a certain amount. That would give him more clarity to make sure that his children receive an adequate amount after he and their respective mothers have gone.

I once received a letter from a mother about her two daughters. Their father had passed away. But he had sexually abused her two daughters and they didn’t want any inheritance. They were admirably selfless. Again, that was their choice, but I advised her to think again. It could help their education or they could give the money to a charity of their choice.

Don’t miss: My fiancé wants to take care of me financially, but I would have to leave my kids

So I will leave you with this quote from Sherwin Nuland, the late author of “How We Die,” which I gave another letter writer whose father wanted to cut two of his daughters out of his will: “Getting old is hard and dying ain’t pretty,” he told NPR. “What gives dignity to death is the dignity of the life that preceded it.” I love that quote. It speaks to so many issues of inheritance and lives lived with resentment and bitterness.

With a will, we all have one last chance to make amends and to make a statement that is bigger than any of the missed opportunities or broken relationships during our lifetime. We spend so much time wondering how we would like to be remembered when we are trying to make our mark with our work, friends and family. But we should spend just as much time thinking about how we would like to remember others.

Whatever your friend does, I hope that he at least remembers that.

Do you have questions about inheritance, tipping, weddings, family feuds, friends or any tricky issues relating to manners and money? Send them to MarketWatch’s Moneyist and please include the state where you live (no full names will be used).

Would you like to sign up to an email alert when a new Moneyist column has been published? If so, click on this link.

Hello there, MarketWatchers. Check out the Moneyist private Facebook group, where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas: inheritance, wills, divorce, tipping, gifting. I often talk to lawyers, accountants, financial advisers and other experts, in addition to offering my own thoughts. I receive more letters than I could ever answer, so I’ll be bringing all of that guidance — including some you might not see in these columns — to this group. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.

Get a daily roundup of the top reads in personal finance delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to MarketWatch’s free Personal Finance Daily newsletter. Sign up here.

More from MarketWatch

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Starting next year, people will no longer be able to watch porn at Starbucks — because that’s apparently a thing.

“We have identified a solution to prevent this content from being viewed within our stores and we will begin introducing it to our US locations in 2019,” a company rep announced Thursday in a statement.

The move, which was first reported by Business Insider, was egged on by internet safety advocates who had been calling on Starbucks

SBUX, +0.09%

  to put the squeeze on coffee-sipping perverts for years.

“This is encouraging news,” tweeted the Enough Is Enough advocacy group, which created a petition earlier this week, demanding a filtered Wi-Fi system.

“But actions speak louder than words,” they said. “Waiting and watching 4 action!”

The group — which was founded by Donna Rice Hughes, alleged mistress of 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart — managed to obtain more than 26,000 signatures in just a matter of days.

“With no filtering in place, Starbucks continues to serve up free, unrestricted Wi-Fi to its customers, opening the door for patrons to view graphic or obscene pornography, view or distribute child pornography (an illegal crime) or engage in sexual predation activity,” they explained in a statement. “Additionally, filtered Wi-Fi offers businesses like Starbucks the ability to offer secure Wi-Fi access to prevent hackers and identity thieves from invading the privacy of Starbucks patrons.”

While the coffee giant insists it will be making a change next year, Hughes noted how they made a similar promise in 2016 — but never actually followed through.

“Starbucks has had a tremendous opportunity to put its best foot forward in protecting its customers from images deemed obscene and illegal under the law, but they haven’t budged, despite their promise two years ago and despite the fact that they voluntarily filter this same content in the UK,” Hughes said in the Enough Is Enough statement.

“They won’t get an applause until they’ve actually implemented safe Wi-Fi filtering,” she told NBC News on Thursday. “This time we’re going to wait and see, and we’re going to keep the pressure on.”

This report originally appeared on

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

DowDuPont Inc.: “I think you should buy more. I told people at a Deal Economy conference, a part of, today that I think the breakup pain is over and the gain is about to start. Please, let’s not write off [CEO] Ed Breen. He’s done it before. He’s going to do it again. Three companies; maybe you even get five. I like this stock.”

New York Mortgage Trust Inc.: “We don’t really know what they own, and that’s the problem. It’s too opaque, and when companies are opaque, it’s hard for me to say, ‘Hey, go buy that stock. I don’t really know what they own, but that’s fine.'”

AT&T Inc.: “I hate to ever say the worst is over because I don’t like their debt load. That said, I think they have the cash flow to pay for the debt load. So I can’t recommend the stock. I do prefer Verizon.”

The Home Depot Inc.: “Home Depot is down a lot. I have no catalyst. There are other retailers that are doing better. I think Costco’s doing better than Home Depot. I think that Lowe’s has a turnaround story for [CEO] Marvin Ellison. But anybody who buys Home Depot and puts it away for the next 18 months, I think, is going to do quite well.”

Nio Inc.: “No. We don’t recommend any Chinese stocks here. I mean, we’ve got a trade– it’s not a skirmish, it’s a war. And it’s not just about trade anymore. It’s about American hegemony versus the Chinese decision to try to, [in] 2025, take a lot of industries away. We don’t need [Chinese stocks].”

Abbott Laboratories: “Do not touch Abbott Labs. It’s a big position for the club. I think the stock can go still higher.”

Nielsen Holdings PLC: “I can’t recommend a stock that I wouldn’t buy on fundamentals just on a takeover [basis]. I know they’re getting some bid interest. I think the stock is probably a little too high here. I’m going to say no.”

Disclosure: Cramer’s charitable trust owns shares of DowDuPont and Abbott Laboratories.

Questions for Cramer?
Call Cramer: 1-800-743-CNBC

Want to take a deep dive into Cramer’s world? Hit him up!
Mad Money TwitterJim Cramer TwitterFacebookInstagram

Questions, comments, suggestions for the “Mad Money” website?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)