Electric hammer Drill Switch for Hitachi 995398 H65SC H55SA H50SA PH65A 65A 75A 85A 95A
Fit for Hitachi Models:
995398 H65SC H55SA H50SA PH65A 65A 75A 85A 95A 65/75/85/95
Quantity: 1PCS
Listen to this article
Estimated 2 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
The race to become the next leader of the P.E.I. Progressive Conservative party is down to two men.
Rob Lantz and Mark Ledwell were the only applicants for the vacant leadership position prior to Saturday’s deadline, the party announced on social media.
Lantz served as interim premier, after Dennis King resigned in February of 2025.
Before entering politics, Lantz worked in the private sector as a consultant in the information technology sector, and was involved in business startups.
He also served two terms on Charlottetown city council, and volunteered with community organizations. Lantz became an MLA for District 13 in 2023.
Lantz resigned as the province’s interim premier last month in order to run for the permanent position. Bloyce Thompson was sworn in as P.E.I. premier following Lantz’s resignation.
Meanwhile, Ledwell declared his candidacy for the party’s leadership back in May.
He is a business and legal professional with over 35 years of experience leading complex agri-food, infrastructure, energy and financing transactions.
Ledwell’s early career included a central role in Atlantic Canadian infrastructure projects, such as the Confederation Bridge, and the New Brunswick Trans-Canada Highway, according to his website.
Later in his career, Ledwell led and advised on major projects across Canada, and the world, and served as managing partner of law firms in Toronto and London, United Kingdom.
He most recently served as chair of the board at the Holland College Foundation.
Islanders that new members must sign up by Jan. 16 to be eligible to vote in the leadership contest, the PC Party said in Saturday’s Facebook post.
The next PC party leader will be voted on during the leadership convention on Feb. 7.
NEW YORK CITY (WABC) — Heads up commuters: getting around New York City will cost you a little bit more after MTA fare hikes took effect over the weekend.
The base cost to ride the subway or bus went up 10 cents to $3 on Sunday morning, as part of a larger increase in MTA tolls and fares.
The hike completes the MTA’s transition from MetroCard swipes to OMNY tap and ride.
The elimination of the MetroCard ended monthly 30-day unlimited passes. Replacing it is a $35 unlimited seven-day pass, an increase from the current $34. After riders pay for 12 trips in a seven-day period, all subsequent trips are free, meaning no rider will pay more than $35 in a week.
Meanwhile, express bus fares increased from $7 to $7.25, and unlimited seven-day express bus fares increased from $64 to $67. All bus riders must use OMNY, as buses will no longer accept cash or coins.
MetroCards were also accepted on NICE buses on Long Island, Bee Line buses in Westchester, AirTrain, PATH trains, Roosevelt Island tram, and Staten Island Railway, and all have had to come up with their own transition plans to OMNY.
Both NICE ($2.90) and Bee-Line ($2.75) base fares also increased to $3 Sunday to align with the MTA.
Commuter rails are also seeing fare hikes and other changes Sunday, including new rules to reduce fare evasion on LIRR and Metro-North.
Long Island Railroad and Metro-North monthly and weekly tickets also increased by 4.5%.
Subway and bus fares last went up in 2023, when it rose from $2.75 to $2.90. Fares normally increase every two years, usually in August. The current increase was delayed six months to coincide with the transition to OMNY.
———-
* Get Eyewitness News Delivered
* More Manhattan news
* Send us a news tip
* Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts
* Follow us on YouTube
Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.
Copyright © 2026 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
PwC decided to “lean in” to cryptocurrency work after years of taking a more cautious stance, following the Trump administration’s embrace of digital assets, according to the US boss of the Big Four firm.
The strategic reversal last year came as the US appointed pro-crypto regulators and Congress passed new laws governing digital assets such as stablecoins, Paul Griggs told the Financial Times in an interview.
“The Genius Act and the regulatory rulemaking around stablecoin I expect will create more conviction around leaning into that product and that asset class,” Griggs said. “The tokenisation of things will certainly continue to evolve as well. PwC has to be in that ecosystem.”
His comments highlight how the Trump administration’s moves on cryptocurrency policy have finally convinced blue-chip businesses that they can dive into the digital asset market that many have long shunned.
The Genius Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, marked the first time the US has regulated the tokens pegged to assets such as the US dollar, and paves the way for banks to launch their own digital assets.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, under Trump appointee Paul Atkins, has also prioritised setting rules for crypto, reversing the antipathy to digital assets that characterised the agency under the Biden administration.
“We feel a responsibility to be hyper-engaged on both sides of the business,” Griggs said. “Whether we are doing work in the audit space or doing work in the consulting arena — we do all the above in crypto — we see more and more opportunities coming our way.”
The Big Four firms had, until recently, shied away from auditing many crypto-related ventures in the US and set high hurdles for taking on crypto clients, in part because of US regulators’ sceptical stance.
Financial watchdogs around the world have long been concerned by the consumer protection and financial stability risks posed by crypto assets, as well as their use in fraud and money laundering.
With the change in US policy, Griggs said PwC had been pitching companies on how they could use crypto technology. The firm has told clients that stablecoins can be used to improve the efficiency of payments systems, for example.
Other Big Four firms are also offering expertise in digital assets. Deloitte, which has audited the publicly traded crypto exchange Coinbase since 2020, published its inaugural “digital assets roadmap” to crypto accounting in May. KPMG declared a “tipping point” for digital assets adoption in 2025 and has been marketing compliance advice and risk management services around crypto.
PwC has taken on audit clients in the crypto space, such as the bitcoin miner Mara Holdings, which appointed PwC in March, and is also pitching tax advice related to digital assets.
Griggs was elected US senior partner in 2024 after almost 30 years at PwC, during which he led the audit of Goldman Sachs and managed some of the firm’s career development initiatives.
He said PwC had needed to look outside the firm to bolster its crypto expertise. Hires at the partner level included Cheryl Lesnik, who returned to the firm after three years focused on crypto clients at a smaller accounting firm.
“We are never going to lean into a business that we haven’t equipped ourselves to deliver,” Griggs said. “Over the last 10 to 12 months, as we’ve taken on more opportunities in that digital assets arena, we’ve bolstered our resource pool inside and outside.”
Battery electric cars are poised to overtake diesels on Great Britain’s roads by 2030, according to analysis that suggests London will be the first UK city to go diesel-free.
The number of diesel cars on Great Britain’s roads in June had fallen to 9.9m in June last year, 21% below its peak of 12.4m vehicles, according to analysis by New AutoMotive, a thinktank focused on the transition to electric cars. Electric car sales are still growing rapidly, albeit more slowly than manufacturers had expected.
However, the transition to cleaner vans is lagging behind cars, and the number of diesel vans has continued to rise, to a record 4.4m.
The UK went through a “dash for diesel” cars in the 2000s as the government granted them cheaper tax rates. Diesel engines tend to be more efficient than petrol engines, burning less fuel and producing less carbon dioxide.
However, they also produce more nitrous oxides, which are harmful to health. In 2015 Volkswagen was found to have created software to cheat on emissions tests, kicking off the “Dieselgate” scandal, costing it alone €30bn (£26bn) around the world in fines, compensation and legal costs. Analysis this year suggested the extra emissions from cheat devices from Volkswagen and other carmakers were responsible for thousands of deaths and cases of asthma.
Sales of cars with diesel engines duly plummeted, to fewer than 100,000 in the first 11 months of 2025. However, it will take some time for the share of diesel cars on the road to diminish, as many cars bought during the peak years of diesels are only now being scrapped.
Battery electric cars made up only 4% of the cars on UK roads last year, compared with 32% diesels and 58% that use petrol, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), a lobby group. The other 6% were hybrids, which mostly combine a smaller battery with a petrol engine.
Nevertheless, the number of diesels should drop as older cars are scrapped, delivering benefits for towns and cities where particulates tend to be concentrated. That will also have a knock-on effect for filling stations, leading to many withdrawing diesel supplies.
London is expected to be the first place in the UK where no diesel cars or vans are registered, largely because of the ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), which applies charges for more polluting non-compliant cars. Diesel numbers are also dropping rapidly in the central belt of Scotland, which contains Edinburgh and Glasgow, both of which have low-emission zones.
“Ending the use of diesel is essential to clean up Britain’s choking cities,” said Ben Nelmes, the chief executive of New AutoMotive. “The UK is now rolling out electric cars at a rapid pace, and this is great news for everyone that enjoys clean air, quieter streets and really cheap running costs.
“The UK imports billions of pounds of diesel every year, and we have been completely reliant on other countries to feed our thirst. Thankfully, we’re switching to electric cars at a rapid rate, and that will make the country cleaner and wealthier.”
However, the analysis found that people in cities appeared to be selling their diesels to people in more rural areas.
The report found that, while the number of diesel vans has risen over the past decade, the peak of new diesel van sales probably happened before the pandemic, meaning the numbers on roads will eventually fall.
Matt Finch, an environmental policy expert who co-wrote the report, said the world was “leaving the diesel age”. He said: “No one is denying diesel hasn’t been useful, but it has had its day.”
Insiders appear to have a vested interest in TWC Enterprises’ growth, as seen by their sizeable ownership
81% of the company is held by a single shareholder (Kuldip Sahi)
Past performance of a company along with ownership data serve to give a strong idea about prospects for a business
AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part – they are all under $10bn in marketcap – there is still time to get in early.
If you want to know who really controls TWC Enterprises Limited (TSE:TWC), then you’ll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are individual insiders with 85% ownership. Put another way, the group faces the maximum upside potential (or downside risk).
So, insiders of TWC Enterprises have a lot at stake and every decision they make on the company’s future is important to them from a financial point of view.
Let’s take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about TWC Enterprises.
Check out our latest analysis for TWC Enterprises
Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it’s included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing.
Less than 5% of TWC Enterprises is held by institutional investors. This suggests that some funds have the company in their sights, but many have not yet bought shares in it. So if the company itself can improve over time, we may well see more institutional buyers in the future. It is not uncommon to see a big share price rise if multiple institutional investors are trying to buy into a stock at the same time. So check out the historic earnings trajectory, below, but keep in mind it’s the future that counts most.
TWC Enterprises is not owned by hedge funds. With a 81% stake, CEO Kuldip Sahi is the largest shareholder. This essentially means that they have significant control over the outcome or future of the company, which is why insider ownership is usually looked upon favourably by prospective buyers. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders, hold 2.4% and 1.3%, of the shares outstanding, respectively. Interestingly, the third-largest shareholder, Patrick Brigham is also a Member of the Board of Directors, again, indicating strong insider ownership amongst the company’s top shareholders.
Visa and ExxonMobil are highly efficient businesses that return capital to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.
Oracle is a high-risk, high-potential-reward bet on increased demand for artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure.
Netflix deserves a premium valuation.
10 stocks we like better than Visa ›
Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) ended 2025 as the most valuable company in the world. It is one of nine S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) stocks with market capitalizations exceeding $1 trillion — the others being Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Broadcom, Tesla, and Berkshire Hathaway.
Eli Lilly, Walmart, and JPMorgan Chase only need to rise 14% or less to expand the list to 12 companies.
Here’s why Visa (NYSE: V), ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Oracle (NYSE: ORCL), and Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) have what it takes to be winning investments over the next five years and join the $1 trillion club by 2030.
Visa’s path to $1 trillion is fairly straightforward. The payment processor has high margins, a reasonable valuation, and steady earnings growth, and returns tons of capital to shareholders through buybacks and dividends.
Visa can generate high single-digit or double-digit earnings growth even during challenging periods.
Despite slowdowns in consumer spending, Visa grew non-generally accepted accounting principles (non-GAAP) earnings per share by 14% in 2025. If Visa can maintain that growth rate going forward, it could reach a market cap well beyond $1 trillion by 2030.
ExxonMobil will need to double in five years to surpass $1 trillion in market cap. It absolutely has what it takes.
ExxonMobil is generating gobs of free cash flow (FCF) and high earnings, even though oil prices are hovering around four-year lows. It has reduced its production costs and can break even at low oil prices, and has plenty of upside potential during a higher-price environment. It also has a growing low-carbon business and a massive refining and marketing segment.
ExxonMobil’s corporate plan through 2030 forecasts double-digit earnings growth even if oil and gas prices are mediocre. Although the U.S. Energy Information Administration is only forecasting $55 per Brent crude oil barrel in 2026, oil prices could rise in the coming years due to economic demand fueled by artificial intelligence (AI), as well as overall economic growth and geopolitical tensions.
Either way, ExxonMobil doesn’t need a lot of help from oil prices to grow earnings at a solid pace. A 15% annual growth rate, compounded over five years, would double earnings. Given the stock’s reasonable volatility, it could double as well, pole-vaulting ExxonMobil over the $1 trillion bar.
Each weekend, the closures are taking place from 20:00 GMT on the Friday night to 05:00 on the Monday morning.
During the day, vehicles travelling southbound are being diverted on the A66 through the Eden Valley. Northbound traffic and all overnight traffic is using the A6 through villages like Shap.
Mr Walker, who frequently travels from Staffordshire to Glasgow to see his grandchildren, was taken on the diversion on Friday night having caught a lift with friends when his train back was cancelled.
“They’re trying to put modern traffic through what’s basically a 1950s route, creating quite a potentially dangerous situation,” he said.
The US dictionary Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2025 was “slop”, which it defines as “digital content of low quality that is produced, usually in quantity, by means of artificial intelligence”.
The choice underlined the fact that while AI is being widely embraced, not least by corporate bosses keen to cut payroll costs, its downsides are also becoming obvious. As 2026 gets underway, a reckoning with reality for AI represents a growing economic risk.
Ed Zitron, the foul-mouthed figurehead of AI scepticism, argues pretty convincingly that as things stand, the “unit economics” of the entire industry – the cost of servicing the requests of a single customer against the price companies are able to charge them – just don’t add up. In typically colourful language, he calls them “dogshit”.
Revenues from AI are rising rapidly as more paying clients sign up but so far not by enough to cover the wild levels of investment under way – $400bn (£297bn) in 2025, with much more forecast in the next 12 months.
Another vehement sceptic, Cory Docterow, argues: “These companies are not profitable. They can’t be profitable. They keep the lights on by soaking up hundreds of billions of dollars in other people’s money and then lighting it on fire.”
It’s not new for frontier businesses to be loss-making, sometimes for years. But moving into profitability tends to happen at costs fall. Each iteration of large language models (LLMs) have so far tended to be more expensive, burning up more data, energy and highly-paid tech experts’ time.
The vast data centres required to train and run the models are so expensive to build and kit out that in many cases they are financed by debt secured against future revenue.
Recent analysis by Bloomberg suggested there had been $178.5bn of these data centre credit deals in 2025 alone, with inexperienced new operators joining Wall Street firms in a “gold rush”.
Yet the precious Nvidia chips with which the data centres are equipped have a limited shelf life, potentially shorter than that of the loan agreements.
As well as leverage – borrowing – the boom increasingly involves another bubble indicator: financial engineering, including the kinds of complex, circular funding arrangements that carry ominous echoes of past corporate crashes.
Believing generative AI will eventually produce enough revenue to match the colossal sums invested, relies – as in all bubbles – on telling big, dramatic stories about the scale of the transformation under way.
So LLMs are not just brilliant tools for analysing and synthesising large amounts of information. They’re fast approaching “superintelligence”, as OpenAI’s chief executive, Sam Altman, has it; or about to replace human friendships, according to Mark Zuckerberg.
They certainly do seem to be replacing some unfortunate human employees in specific sectors. Brian Merchant, the author of Blood in the Machine, which compares the backlash against big tech to the Luddite rebellion of the 19th century, has assembled scores of first-hand testimonies from writers, coders and marketers laid off in favour of AI-generated outputs.
Yet many of them highlight the bland quality of the work being produced by their digital replacements, or worse, the risks at play when sensitive tasks are shifted outside human control.
Indeed, the dangers of charging headlong into replacing human workers wholesale have become increasingly apparent in recent months.
In the UK, the high court issued a warning about lawyers’ use of AI after two cases in which examples of completely fictitious case law were cited.
Police officers in Heber City, Utah, learned to manually check the work of a transcription tool they were using to draft write-ups from bodycam footage after it mistakenly claimed an officer had turned into a frog. Disney’s The Princess and the Frog was playing in the background.
Specific examples such as these fail to take into account the costs of what Merchant calls the “slop layer” of AI-generated content coursing through every online space, making it harder to identify what is real or true.
Docterow argues: “AI isn’t the bow-wave of ‘impending superintelligence.’ Nor is it going to deliver ‘humanlike intelligence.’ It’s a grab-bag of useful (sometimes very useful) tools that can sometimes make workers’ lives better, when workers get to decide how and when they’re used.”
Thought of in this way, these technologies may still have significant productivity benefits, but perhaps not quite significant enough to justify today’s toppy valuations and the tsunami of investment under way.
Any rethink would cause chaos on financial markets. As the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) recently pointed out, the “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks now account for 35% of the S&P500, up from 20% three years ago.
A share price correction would have real-world consequences far beyond Silicon Valley, rippling out to hit retail investors on both sides of the Atlantic, Asian tech exporters and the lenders, including loosely-regulated private equity firms, that bankrolled the sector’s expansion.
In the UK, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated in its budget forecasts, that a “global correction” scenario, in which UK and world stock prices fell 35% in the coming year, would knock 0.6% off the country’s GDP and cause a £16bn deterioration in the public finances.
That would be relatively manageable compared with the 2008 global financial crisis, in which UK institutions were leading players. But it would still be keenly felt in an economy struggling to find its feet.
So while it is perhaps understandable to anticipate a frisson of schadenfreude at the thought of big tech’s super-rich boss class being humbled, we’re all living in their world, and we would not escape the consequences.