Five Beverage Stocks to Buy Offer More than a Chance to Toast
Five beverage stocks to buy offer far more than a chance to toast their respective prospects that seem little affected by inflation or Russia’s continued…
Five beverage stocks to buy offer far more than a chance to toast their respective prospects that seem little affected by inflation or Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine.
The five beverage stocks to buy may well be worth celebrating with their growth stories intact and consumers seemingly willing to absorb price increases amid high inflation. Beverage stocks might not be fully inflation-resistant, but they are much more protected than discrepancy spending on luxury goods.
“Consumer staples, of which food and beverage are a subset, usually outperform stock indexes during recessions and bear markets,” said Bob Carlson, a pension fund chairman who also leads the Retirement Watch investment newsletter. “The companies tend to have reliable cash flows and can increase prices as costs rise. Consumers will reduce spending in other areas when money becomes tight.”
A Diversified Fund or Five Beverage Stocks to Buy Offer Alternatives
For a diversified position in food and beverage stocks, investors may want to consider an exchange-traded fund (ETF) such as Invesco Dynamic Food and Beverage (PBJ), suggested Carlson, who monitors that sector closely. The fund tends to have smaller and more growth-oriented companies than others in the consumer staples sector.
The ETF has 29 stocks, and 47% of the fund is in the 10 largest positions. Top holdings recently were General Mills (NYSE: GIS), Keurig Dr. Pepper (NASDAQ: KDP), Sysco (NYSE: SYY), Hershey (NYSE: HSY) and PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP).
The fund is up 6.15% in the last four weeks, 4.98% so far in 2022, and 13.15% over 12 months. Its Securities and Exchange Commission dividend yield is 1.42%.
Bob Carlson, who leads Retirement Watch, meets with Paul Dykewicz.
Coca-Cola Is One of FiveBeverage Stocks to Buy
BofA Global Research put a Buy rating on Coca-Cola and a $70 price objective, reflecting a target price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 26x the investment firm’s FY23 earnings per share (EPS) estimate. This valuation is a premium to non-alcoholic beverage peers (22.9x), justified in BofA’s view by expectation that Coca-Cola should weather current macro headwinds better than its peers, given its size and pricing model.
A big fan of Atlanta-based Coca-Cola is Mark Skousen, PhD, who has recommended it profitably in his Forecasts & Strategies investment newsletter. Skousen placed Coca-Cola in his newsletter’s Flying Five portfolio.
Each August issue, he searches for the five highest-yielding, lowest-priced stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Coca-Cola is one of four stocks that retained a place in that portfolio that features good dividend-paying, reasonably priced stocks whose shares seem ripe to rise.
Mark Skousen, a descendant of Benjamin Franklin, meets with Paul Dykewicz.
Skousen also teams up with Jim Woods for their Fast Money Alert trading service that just recommended a new high-energy beverage stock. Both seasoned investment prognosticators watch the beverage industry for stocks that appear positioned to outperform the market in the current conditions of high inflation, supply chain challenges and Fed rate hikes aimed at slowing economic growth.
Connell Also Favors Coca-Cola as One of Five Beverage Stocks to Buy
Michelle Connell, a former portfolio manager who heads Dallas-based Portia Capital Management, performed an analysis of Coca-Cola and likes that it has boosted its dividend for 60 consecutive years. She also praised its current dividend yield of 2.74%.
Warren Buffett must like the dividend as well, Connell continued, since Coca-Cola ranks as his third-largest holding, after Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC). In addition, the stock has gained 11% so far this year, while having fundamentals in place for further upside, she added.
Coca-Cola’s management also boosted guidance during the company’s most recent earnings announcement. As part of that update, management indicated plans to retire more than 200 products to focus on the pricing and profits of their strongest brands.
The consolidation is aimed at boosting margins and profitability, Connell counseled. There is room for increased market share in emerging and developing economies, since the company’s current market share is only 7% in these places, compared to 14% in developed markets.
“As more of the populations enter middle class status, their consumption of brands such as KO will increase, Connell said.
PepsiCo Is Another of the Five Beverage Stocks to Buy
PepsiCo, a Purchase, New York-based global snack and beverage company, manufactures and markets salty and convenient snacks, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages and foods. Key divisions include Frito-Lay North America (FLNA), Quaker Foods NA, North America Beverages (NAB), Latin America, Europe Sub-Saharan Africa (ESSA) and Asia, Middle East and North Africa (AMENA).
The company also operates in the United Kingdom, Mexico, India and China. Brands include Pepsi Cola, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, Frito-Lay, Quaker and among others. BofA has a Buy rating and a $190 price target on the stock.
“We continue to believe our multiple fairly reflects PEP’s balanced momentum, margin support and brand investments, capable of delivering the high end of their long-term outlook,” according to a recent BofA research report.
PepsiCo CEO Explains Company’s Growth Strategy
Upon taking over as the company’s CEO in 2018, Ramon Laguarta’s efforts to pivot the company towards a growth-oriented path have taken root, BofA wrote. Reinvestment in the business and an appetite for risk remain the cornerstone philosophies of this strategy, reflected in PEP’s ramping digitization efforts, new category expansion and supply chain investments to fuel a stronger innovation engine, BofA added.
However, PepsiCo’s energy drink portfolio remains a work in progress. With Bang Energy exiting PEP’s direct store delivery (DSD) system, Rockstar still in “recovery mode” and Mountain Dew in early stages of expanding in energy drinks, the company still has the potential to make a “meaningful splash” in the energy category, BofA wrote.
“While investors have speculated on the potential for a material acquisition in the space to take Bang’s place, our impression is that another distribution partnership was, in fact, more likely, with PEP seeming to prefer the ease of distributing a well-established brand within the category, according to BofA.
Some Investors May Say, ‘Pepsi Please’
Thus far, PepsiCoBeverages North America (PBNA), one of the largest beverage companies in North America, has grown less than the beverage category and ceded share to competitors as Gatorade supply chain snarls slowed performance. With production subsequently improving, better service levels have begun materializing in Nielsen’s US scanner data, showing Gatorade resuming market share growth.
“Though early in the brand’s recovery, we are encouraged by PEP’s continued outperformance against the away-from-home segment,” BofA opined. “In carbonated soft drinks, volume share losses have disappointed.”
However, loosening supply chain bottle necks are expected to have a positive impact on volume share balance of year, BofA added.
Keurig Dr. Pepper Earns Place Among Five Beverage Stocks to Buy
Keurig Dr. Pepper, a Burlington, Massachusetts-based beverage company formerly known as Keurig Green Mountain, is rated a Buy with a price objective of $45 by BofA. The valuation is a slight premium over non-alcoholic beverage peers due to KDP’s attractive portfolio and line of sight to coffee production recovery, as well as new capacity to help meet both existing at-home demand and recovery in away-from-home sales, BofA continued.
The previous quarterly earnings call marked Bob Gamgort’s final appearance as CEO. His replacement is Ozan Dokmecoiglu, who had been chief financial officer and president of the company’s international business.
The new leader will use his operating experience to usher in the company’s next phase, BofA noted. It will include additional coffee pod capacity.
BofA set a Buy rating and $115 price objective on the stock. The beverage company offers faster relative growth and favorable margins compared to its peers, the investment firm wrote.
The Duckhorn Portfolio, Inc. (NYSE: NAPA), a Saint Helena, California-based winery and spirits provider, has been showing better-than-expected recovery of its on-premise business, Bofa wrote. The investment firm lowered its price objective on the stock from $26 to $24 but retained its buy recommendation.
“Given that NAPA’s on-premise business has recovered faster than its original plans, we lower our sales forecast for next year fiscal year from +10.4% to +7.8%, which is still in line with the company’s long-term algorithm of high single digits,” BofA wrote.
The investment firm reported assessing how the NAPA consumer is faring in light of increased inflationary pressures, the impact of potential slowing in the on-premise channel independent restaurant traffic, trends toward premium wines and the allocation of distributor/retail space to luxury wine in 2023.
BofA gives NAPA a higher valuation than its peers due to superior growth, portfolio mix and margin structure, but a discount to high growth beverage peers. The lower multiple also reflects a pullback in European Spirits beverage peers, BofA added.
Monster Gains Spot Among Five Beverage Stocks to Buy
Monster Beverage Corp. (NASDAQ: MNST), a Weston, Massachusetts-based energy drink company, is rated a Buy by BofA and has been given a $115 price objective. The rating is predicated on the Monster’s fast sales growth and favorable margin structure, BofA added.
BofA’s valuation of Monster is at a premium to both the large-cap beverage group and to other consumer staples growth companies. The premium multiple is “warranted,” according to BofA, due to Monster’s faster relative growth and favorable margin structure.
In addition, MNST has, on average, traded at a 60% multiple premium to peers since introducing Monster Green in 2002, which is consistent with BofA’s current multiple.
Risks to investing in Monster include its mature industry that could lose share, limited impact from new product launches, slower-than-expected benefit from international expansion, a rotation from defensive names back into value names, potentially more COVID-19 headwinds and negative currency moves.
COVID-19 cases and deaths can affect supply and demand for products such beverages, especially in global markets. As a result, the latest trends bear watching.
U.S. COVID-19 deaths rose for the fourth consecutive week by more than 3,000, jumping 1,041,466, as of Aug. 23, according to Johns Hopkins University. Cases in the United States jumped to 93,753,835. America holds the dreary distinction as the country with the largest number of COVID-19 deaths and cases.
Worldwide COVID-19 deaths in the last week totaled 6,457,543, as of Aug. 23, according to Johns Hopkins. Global COVID-19 cases reached 597,564,469 on the same date.
Roughly 79% of the U.S. population, or 262,323,837, have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, as of Aug. 17, the CDC reported. Fully vaccinated people total 223,684,995, or 67.4%, of America’s population, according to the CDC. The United States also has given at least one COVID-19 booster vaccine to 108.2 million people.
The five beverage stocks to buy offer investors protection from the worst of inflation and Russia’s war against Ukraine, among other global risks. With America’s highest inflation in four decades, consecutive 0.75% Fed rate hikes in June and July and possibly other increases to follow, the five beverage stocks to buy may be well worth toasting.
Paul Dykewicz, www.pauldykewicz.com, is an accomplished, award-winning journalist who has written for Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, USA Today, the Journal of Commerce, Seeking Alpha, GuruFocus and other publications and websites. Paul, who can be followed on Twitter @PaulDykewicz, is the editor of StockInvestor.com and DividendInvestor.com, a writer for both websites and a columnist. He further is editorial director of Eagle Financial Publications in Washington, D.C., where he edits monthly investment newsletters, time-sensitive trading alerts, free e-letters and other investment reports. Paul previously served as business editor of Baltimore’s Daily Record newspaper. Paul also is the author of an inspirational book, “Holy Smokes! Golden Guidance from Notre Dame’s Championship Chaplain,” with a foreword by former national championship-winning football coach Lou Holtz. The book is great as a gift and is endorsed by Joe Montana, Joe Theismann, Ara Parseghian, “Rocket” Ismail, Reggie Brooks, Dick Vitale and many others. Call 202-677-4457 for multiple-book pricing.
New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former Minnesota governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura are among the potential running mates for independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the New York Times reported on March 12.
Citing “two people familiar with the discussions,” the New York Times wrote that Mr. Kennedy “recently approached” Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Ventura about the vice president’s role, “and both have welcomed the overtures.”
Mr. Kennedy has talked to Mr. Rodgers “pretty continuously” over the last month, according to the story. The candidate has kept in touch with Mr. Ventura since the former governor introduced him at a February voter rally in Tucson, Arizona.
Stefanie Spear, who is the campaign press secretary, told The Epoch Times on March 12 that “Mr. Kennedy did share with the New York Times that he’s considering Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura as running mates along with others on a short list.”
Ms. Spear added that Mr. Kennedy will name his running mate in the upcoming weeks.
Former Democrat presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard declined the opportunity to join Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, according to the New York Times.
Mr. Kennedy has also reportedly talked to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) about becoming his running mate.
Last week, Mr. Kennedy endorsed Mr. Paul to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the Senate Minority Leader after Mr. McConnell announced he would step down from the post at the end of the year.
CNN reported early on March 13 that Mr. Kennedy’s shortlist also includes motivational speaker Tony Robbins, Discovery Channel Host Mike Rowe, and civil rights attorney Tricia Lindsay. The Washington Post included the aforementioned names plus former Republican Massachusetts senator and U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, Scott Brown.
In April 2023, Mr. Kennedy entered the Democrat presidential primary to challenge President Joe Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination. Claiming that the Democrat National Committee was “rigging the primary” to stop candidates from opposing President Biden, Mr. Kennedy said last October that he would run as an independent.
This year, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign has shifted its focus to ballot access. He currently has qualified for the ballot as an independent in New Hampshire, Utah, and Nevada.
Mr. Kennedy also qualified for the ballot in Hawaii under the “We the People” party.
In January, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign said it had filed paperwork in six states to create a political party. The move was made to get his name on the ballots with fewer voter signatures than those states require for candidates not affiliated with a party.
The “We the People” party was established in five states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The “Texas Independent Party” was also formed.
A statement by Mr. Kennedy’s campaign reported that filing for political party status in the six states reduced the number of signatures required for him to gain ballot access by about 330,000.
Ballot access guidelines have created a sense of urgency to name a running mate. More than 20 states require independent and third-party candidates to have a vice presidential pick before collecting and submitting signatures.
Like Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Ventura is an outspoken critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and safety.
Mr. Ventura, 72, gained acclaim in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional wrestler known as Jesse “the Body” Ventura. He appeared in movies and television shows before entering the Minnesota gubernatorial race as a Reform Party headliner. He was a longshot candidate but prevailed and served one term.
Former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura in Washington on Oct. 4, 2013. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
In an interview on a YouTube podcast last December, Mr. Ventura was asked if he would accept an offer to run on Mr. Kennedy’s ticket.
“I would give it serious consideration. I won’t tell you yes or no. It will depend on my personal life. Would I want to commit myself at 72 for one year of hell (campaigning) and then four years (in office)?” Mr. Ventura said with a grin.
Mr. Rodgers, who spent his entire career as a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers before joining the New York Jets last season, remains under contract with the Jets. He has not publicly commented about joining Mr. Kennedy’s ticket, but the four-time NFL MVP endorsed him earlier this year and has stumped for him on podcasts.
The 40-year-old Rodgers is still under contract with the Jets after tearing his Achilles tendon in the 2023 season opener and being sidelined the rest of the year. The Jets are owned by Woody Johnson, a prominent donor to former President Donald Trump who served as U.S. Ambassador to Britain under President Trump.
Since the COVID-19 vaccine was introduced, Mr. Rodgers has been outspoken about health issues that can result from taking the shot. He told podcaster Joe Rogan that he has lost friends and sponsorship deals because of his decision not to get vaccinated.
Quarterback Aaron Rodgers of the New York Jets talks to reporters after training camp at Atlantic Health Jets Training Center in Florham Park, N.J., on July 26, 2023. (Rich Schultz/Getty Images)
Earlier this year, Mr. Rodgers challenged Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce and Dr. Anthony Fauci to a debate.
Mr. Rodgers referred to Mr. Kelce, who signed an endorsement deal with vaccine manufacturer Pfizer, as “Mr. Pfizer.”
Dr. Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022 and was chief medical adviser to the president from 2021 to 2022.
When Mr. Kennedy announces his running mate, it will mark another challenge met to help gain ballot access.
“In some states, the signature gathering window is not open. New York is one of those and is one of the most difficult with ballot access requirements,” Ms. Spear told The Epoch Times.
“We need our VP pick and our electors, and we have to gather 45,000 valid signatures. That means we will collect 72,000 since we have a 60 percent buffer in every state,” she added.
The window for gathering signatures in New York opens on April 16 and closes on May 28, Ms. Spear noted.
“Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma are the next three states we will most likely check off our list,” Ms. Spear added. “We are confident that Mr. Kennedy will be on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We have a strategist, petitioners, attorneys, and the overall momentum of the campaign.”
The SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research announces new advisory board
From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in…
From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.
Credit: Lori Chertoff/The Rockefeller University
From identifying the influenza virus that caused the pandemic of 1918 to developing vaccines against pneumococcal pneumonia and bacterial meningitis in the 1970s, combating infectious disease has a rich history at Rockefeller. That tradition continues as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research at Rockefeller University (SNFiRU) caps a successful first year with the establishment of a new advisory board.
This international advisory board was created in part to give guidance on how to best use SNFiRU’s resources, as well as bring forward innovative ideas concerning new avenues of research, public education, community engagement, and partnership projects.
SNFiRU was established to strengthen readiness for and response to future health crises, building on the scientific advances and international collaborations forged in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Launched with a $75 million grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) as part of its Global Health Initiative (GHI), the institute provides a framework for international scientific collaboration to foster research innovations and turn them into practical health benefits.
SNFiRU’s mission is to better understand the agents that cause infectious disease and to lower barriers to treatment and prevention globally. To speed this work, the institute launched numerous initiatives in its inaugural year. For instance, SNFiRU awarded 31 research projects in 29 different Rockefeller laboratories for over $5 million to help get collaborative new research efforts off the ground. SNFiRU also supports the Rockefeller University Hospital, where clinical studies are conducted, and brought on board its first physician-scientist through Rockefeller’s Clinical Scholars program. “One of the surprises was the scope of interest from Rockefeller scientists in using their talents to tackle important infectious disease problems,” says Charles M. Rice, Maurice R. and Corinne P. Greenberg Professor in Virology at Rockefeller and director of SNFiRU. “The research topics range from the biology of infectious agents to the dynamics of the immune response to pathogens, and also include a number of infectious disease-adjacent studies.”
In the past 12 months, SNFiRU often brought together scientists studying different aspects of infectious disease as a way to spur new collaborations. In addition to hosting its first annual day-long symposium, SNFiRU initiated a Young Scientist Forum for students and post-doctoral fellows to meet regularly, facilitating cross-laboratory thinking. A bimonthly seminar series has also been established on campus.
Another aim of SNFiRU is to develop relationships with community-based organizations, as well as design and participate in community-engaged research, with a focus on low-income and minority communities. To that end, SNFiRU is helping develop a research project on Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic infection prevalent in Latin America that can cause congestive heart failure and gastrointestinal complications if left untreated. The project will bring together clinicians practicing at health centers in New York, Florida, Texas, and California and basic scientists from multiple institutions to help the communities that are most impacted.
“The SNFiRU international advisory board convenes globally recognized leaders with distinguished biomedical expertise, unrivalled experience in pandemic preparedness and response, and a shared commitment to translating scientific advancements into equitably distributed benefits in real-world settings,” says SNF Co-President Andreas Dracopoulos. “The advisory board will advance the institute’s indispensable mission, which SNF is proud to support as a key part of our Global Health Initiative, and we look forward to seeing breakthroughs in the lab drive better outcomes in lives around the globe.”
The new advisory board will hold its first meeting on April 11th, 2024, following the second annual SNF Institute for Global Infectious Disease Research Symposium at Rockefeller.
Its members are: Rafi Ahmed of Emory University School of Medicine, Cori Bargmann of The Rockefeller University, Yasmin Belkaid of the Pasteur Institute, Anthony S. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Esper Kallas of of the Butantan Institute, Sharon Lewin of the University of Melbourne Doherty Institue, Carl Nathan of Weill Cornell Medicine, Rino Rappuoli of Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena and University of Siena, and Herbert “Skip” Virgin of Washington University School of Medicine and UT Southwestern Medical Center.
Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness
A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…
Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.
A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.
And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.
Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.
A promised investment
Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.
The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.
But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.
Research’s critical impact
That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.
For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.
Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.
Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.
Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:
A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.
A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.
More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.
When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.
A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics.Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images
Jobs and innovation
Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.
In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.
That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.
High stakes
If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.
Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.
Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.
Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Chart courtesy of 
