Altria Group (MO) hit a 52-week high of $77.78 yesterday and closed at $77.71.
The FDA has begun the scientific review of Philip Morris International’s Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application for its iQOS device. If and when iQOS gets approved, Altria will get exclusive rights to sell the products in the U.S.
(компания / тикер / цена / изменение ($/%) / проторгованый объем) ALCOA INC. AA 30.8 0.06(0.20%) 500 ALTRIA GROUP INC. MO 76.69 0.28(0.37%) 132 Amazon.com Inc., NASDAQ AMZN 966.9 2.73(0.28%) 19833 Apple Inc. AAPL 144.05 -0.24(-0.17%) 70415 AT&T Inc T 39.04 0.20(0.51%) 172 Barrick Gold Corporation, NYSE ABX 15.82 0.18(1.15%) 116502 Boeing Co BA 196.25 0.80(0.41%) 726 Caterpillar Inc CAT 106.56 0.16(0.15%) 491 Cisco Systems Inc CSCO 31.81 0.23(0.73%) 140 Citigroup Inc., NYSE C 64.15 0.05(0.08%) 5088 Exxon Mobil Corp XOM 82.67 0.41(0.50%) 5213 Facebook, Inc. FB 149.71 -0.09(-0.06%) 36381 FedEx Corporation, NYSE FDX 210.86 0.41(0.19%) 120 Ford Motor Co. F 11.29 0.05(0.44%) 4478 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., NYSE FCX 11.63 0.13(1.13%) 12551 General Electric Co GE 28.9 -0.04(-0.14%) 18004 General Motors Company, NYSE GM 34.59 -0.01(-0.03%) 600 Google Inc. GOOG 942 -0.31(-0.03%) 2311 Hewlett-Packard Co. HPQ 17.23 -0.04(-0.23%) 1830 Intel Corp INTC 35.45 0.14(0.40%) 2287 JPMorgan Chase and Co JPM 86.79 0.22(0.25%) 350 Merck & Co Inc MRK 63.35 0.16(0.25%) 1943 Microsoft Corp MSFT 70 0.10(0.14%) 11253 Nike NKE 51.8 -1.10(-2.08%) 71287 Tesla Motors, Inc., NASDAQ TSLA 377.25 1.91(0.51%) 78509 The Coca-Cola Co KO 45.19 -0.06(-0.13%) 212 Twitter, Inc., NYSE TWTR 16.84 0.01(0.06%) 10763 Yahoo! Inc., NASDAQ YHOO 52.75 0.17(0.32%) 5781 Yandex N.V., NASDAQ YNDX 25.93 0.16(0.62%) 950 Источник: FxTeam
Democrats’ upcoming primary for governor in Virginia is being painted as a litmus test for the party’s future and a trial of what progressive voters most prize in the Trump era. But there is also a more conventional story brewing: Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam has a commanding edge in campaign spending leading up to next week’s election, allowing him to spread his message further than former Rep. Tom Perriello.Northam has spent almost twice as much money on TV ads as Perriello, his Democratic rival, in recent months — $3.7 million to $2 million, according to a source tracking media spending in Virginia. And Northam entered June with nearly twice as much money to spend over the last two weeks of the race, according to newly filed campaign finance reports.It could add up to a decisive edge for Northam on June 13, when Virginia Democrats will pick their nominee to succeed Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Cash gaps don’t always doom underdog campaigns; Virginia Democrats’ 2009 gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, was outspent heavily that year but still pulled out a three-way primary win. But with Northam and Perriello both running as anti-Trump progressives, there are few big ideological gaps to separate the candidates — and voters are hearing more from Northam.Northam is set to spend just shy of $1.2 million on TV ads in the final week, while Perriello has booked $367,000 of his own ads. (Perriello’s campaign said it will add to that total.) “Heading into the final days, our campaign has the advantage of more resources to communicate to voters, and broad support from Virginians who are fueling this campaign,” Northam campaign manager Brad Komar said. Perriello’s campaign claimed momentum in the final days of the primary and said he has made good use of low-cost tools to communicate with Virginia voters. “In the primary's closing days, the grass-roots momentum is on Tom's side,” Perriello campaign manager Julia Barnes said. “From the start, Tom has committed to an accessible, next-generation campaign of harnessing social media and digital tools to reach tens of thousands of voters directly across Virginia.” Still, the just-filed campaign finance records reveal the disparity. Northam and Perriello raised similar amounts in the past two months: just more than $2 million for Northam, while Perriello pulled in just less than $1.9 million. But Northam spent $3.8 million overall to Perriello’s $2.8 million, and he had $1.3 million left over, compared with $734,000 for Perriello. (Meanwhile, Republican Ed Gillespie, the likely GOP nominee, reported having $2.4 million on hand this month and looks set to enter the general election with an early financial advantage over his opponent.)Perriello jumped into the campaign relatively late, in January, when Northam had already been gearing up for years. But Perriello’s immediate focus on challenging President Donald Trump looked like a better match for the moment, with the Democratic base animated by opposition to the White House, than the staid, moderate Northam.Yet Perriello has not benefited from the same overwhelming online fundraising bonanza that has powered other anti-Trump Democratic campaigns in early 2017, like those of congressional candidates Jon Ossoff in Georgia and Rob Quist in Montana. Unlike either of them, Perriello is in a primary, a type of race that does not typically attract as much online Democratic cash — especially when a candidate’s opponent, like Northam, is also stridently anti-Trump and also running on a progressive message.While Ossoff and Quist brought in millions in April alone via ActBlue, the Democratic online fundraising platform, Perriello’s credit-card processing fees indicate that he raised roughly $750,000 through ActBlue in April and May combined.Perriello’s campaign said it raised $255,000 online last week, its best week of the campaign so far, but he still has not hit the heights of the other Democrats running in high-profile federal races. Perriello has relied on a few large donors for most of his cash: Over half of the $4 million he has raised — nearly $2.8 million — has come from donations of $10,000 or more. In the latest campaign finance filing, Perriello took in $300,000 from hedge fund manager and Democratic megadonor Donald Sussman and another $300,000 from members of George Soros’ family. The Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit Perriello co-founded, donated $150,000. Northam, meanwhile, has continued to take in corporate donations despite calling for a ban on corporate giving in Virginia elections, including $10,000 from Altria and $5,000 from Dominion Power’s political action committee. Perriello has made Dominion Power’s influence a major talking point in the primary, arguing Northam and other elected Virginia Democrats are in hock to the powerful utility.But that argument has not featured in the expensive advertising battles, which have remained positive even as the candidates criticized each other in debate appearances and on the trail.
Altria (MO) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.
Altria (MO) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.
The Vetr crowd downgraded its rating on Altria Group Inc (NYSE: MO ) Wednesday from the stock's prior rating of 4 stars (Buy), issued nine days ago, to 2.5 stars. Crowd sentiment at the time of the downgrade ...
Altria Group Inc. (MO) is encouraged by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has filed Philip Morris International, Inc.'s (PM) application for iQOS heated tobacco product.
Аналитики Piper Jaffray присвоили акциям Altria (MO) рейтинг Overweight ------------------------------------------------------------- Воспользоваться сервисом "Рейтинги акций" TeleTrade можно, заполнив форму на одноименной странице нашего сайта или в Личном кабинете трейдера в разделе "Аналитика" (для подключения услуги необходимо связаться со своим менеджером).Источник: FxTeam
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chevron, Altria, Kraft-Heinz and Time Warner
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chevron, Altria, Kraft-Heinz and Time Warner
Top Research Reports for Altria, Chevron, Kraft-Heinz & Time Warner
Показатели Altria, AT&T, Brystol-Myers и Visa стали говорить за 15% роста в год после отката, - Михаил Крылов,директор аналитического департамента "Golden Hills - КапиталЪ АМ"
Внезапные повороты фондового рынка не мешают удерживать двузначную доходность рекомендуемого портфеля потребительского сектора, составленного из акций известных брендов, а также подтверждают ликвидность таких консервативных вариантов инвестиций, как ценные бумаги Visa, Altria, AT&T и Brystol-Myers Squibb, отталкиваясь от коэффициентов.
Wells Fargo's new research report hints that Constellation Brands is might acquire Ste. Michelle Wine Estates from tobacco giant Altria. The takeover price, should it come to that, is estimated to be between $3 and $4 billion.
The Corporate and ALEC Takeover of the FCC It is one thing when we find that the Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, was a former Verizon attorney; Or that the transition team was led by a consultant who has been working for Verizon over the last two decades; Or that the new head of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is a former lobbyist and lawyer for Charter Communications, the cable company (that owns Spectrum, formerly Time Warner Cable). But when the second Republican FCC Commissioner, Michael O’Rielly, speaks at ALEC’s (American Legislative Exchange Council) Communications & Technology Task Force and calls on the group to take actions to help the FCC take down net neutrality and the speech is listed as business as usual at the FCC—we know that the FCC is captured. (I note that in 2013 then-commissioner Pai spoke to the same ALEC group.) I just posted an article from 2013 that outlines how a Petition filed by AT&T, which was based on ‘model legislation’ created by ALEC, is now the game plan for the current FCC in 2017. The plan is to remove all regulations, all obligations, and consumer protections so that the corporations can optimize profits. The FCC’s plans are couched in twisted word speech, calling for “Internet freedom” yet we find that it is just freedom for the large corporations, the large phone and cable companies – AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink and the cable companies, who are all members of ALEC, as far as we can tell. And it is clear that this FCC is just out of control. Talk about being biased, the FCC’s own press release and fact sheet called: “What Capitol Hill Is Saying About Restore Internet Freedom Proposal” clearly shows that Congress and the FCC ‘care’ about “Internet freedom”, but it doesn’t include any of the Democrats. I thought that the FCC was an independent agency and supposed to be bi-partisan. “Representative Bob Latta, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection, issued this statement on the mistake of Title II. Senator Roy Blunt, Vice Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, commended the FCC for beginning to roll back misguided Internet regulations. Bicameral statement from Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune; Senate Communications, Technology, and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Roger Wicker; House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden; and House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn: “We have long said that imposing a Depression-era, utility-style regulatory structure onto the internet was the wrong approach… There are more quotes in the release. Who Is ALEC? ALEC is based on the notion that corporations need to be able to manipulate the political environment to get laws changed in their favor. Thus, ALEC has groups like the ‘Communications & Technology Task Force’, where the phone and cable companies help to create helpful ‘model’ legislation. This faux legislation is then used throughout the US and is pushed through by politicians, most of whom are being campaign-financed by the companies. They are also given donations via the companies’ ‘foundations’ in their districts to make them look good. I know this because in 2007 I noticed a pattern to the legislation being put forward in multiple states, and though the language and titles may be changed to cover over their tracks, the end result was the same. I wrote two articles for the Harvard Nieman Foundation for Journalism Watchdog Project about how this was done, a decade ago. How much of your state’s legislation is being drafted by industry? November 30, 2007. The American Legislative Council, or ALEC, lets corporations cultivate legislators and win support for industry-written bills while not technically breaking lobbying rules – and paying no taxes. Wisconsin: A case study in how corporations get the legislation they want January 31, 2008. This article describes how model corporate bills get introduced and enacted in Wisconsin, to the detriment of the common good. In 2017, AT&T is now on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council, (along with Pharma, Exxon Mobil, Koch industries and Altria, (who owns Phillip Morris, among other tobacco companies)). Meanwhile, the NCTA, the association-lobbying group for the cable industry, is the ‘private chair’ of the Communications and Technology Task Force. This is a partial list of the cabal that was part of ALEC’s telecom group in 2013, the last available data, though it could have changed since then. The ALEC communications cabal includes the three largest incumbent wireline phone companies, AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink, (and the group also controls the majority of the wires to the cell sites) as well as the two largest wireless companies, AT&T and Verizon, and three of the largest cable companies, Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) which merged with Charter, and Comcast. We note that Sprint left ALEC in 2012 and T-Mobile left in 2015. One would think that this is a conspiracy; almost all of the major companies in an industry, in one room, writing legislation for their own purposes. The FCC’s plans are couched in twisted word speech, calling for “Internet freedom” yet we find that it is just freedom for the large corporations... Commissioner O’Rielly Calls for ALEC to Help Squash Net Neutrality But this is truly ugly. Commissioner O’Rielly is pitching ALEC, claiming that the FCC needs to help get rid of net neutrality because a) it’s a redistribution of ‘hard-earned assets’; b) this is really a plot to move towards socialism; and c) it will vanquish capitalism and economic liberty. Comm. O’Rielly Remarks at ALEC Task Force Summit: “The members of ALEC can serve an important role as the new Commission seeks to restore free market principles to broadband offerings. Many of you know all too well of the pressure on us to buckle and acquiesce to the whims of the misinformed screaming for net neutrality. You likely face it at your respective statehouses as you debate the various matters before you. The “progressive agenda” being pushed in so many settings is really an effort to use government as a means to redistribute hard earned assets from one group of people to favored interests. Do not let your voices go unheard as net neutrality advocates slowly, but surely, seek to drag the U.S. economy toward socialism. This debate is just one component in a larger and much more pernicious effort to vanquish capitalism and economic liberty.” In The Book of Broken Promises, I detail how these “hard-earned assets” were paid for through overcharging customers multiple times, not by the corporations’ shareholders. How? There were contracts in place to do upgrades of the state utilities, which were not enforced by the government. Moreover, there is a massive shell game that’s been going on for over a decade where the companies’ other lines of business are being illegally funded through overcharging local phone customers and the government has failed to audit the financial books of these utilities, these corporations. And worse, the FCC’s own accounting rules are at the heart of this financial shell game. Unfortunately, O’Rielly’s speech doesn’t bother with actual facts and it is now clear that his bias is to just throw money at those who failed to fulfill basic obligations, but charged customers, including low-income families. O’Rielly: “The (Universal Service Fund) program’s high-cost portion provides subsidies, generated from consumer fees, to private sector companies to invest and buildout broadband networks in areas of America that are unserved today. This, I believe is a defensible program...” No. It’s not defensible because it is generated by consumers paying ‘additional’ taxes, but more importantly, the FCC failed to investigate why these areas were never upgraded in the first place. AT&T had obligations under the AT&T-BellSouth merger, for example, to have 100% of 22 states’ territories completed by 2007. Yet, somehow, AT&T received $428 million dollars in 2015 to do the areas that should have been already completed. And this is only one of other different government buckets of money that AT&T gets from the federal and state governments. “AT&T Accepts $428 million from Connect America Fund for Rural Broadband”, FCC, August 2015 We filed a complaint with the FCC. Of course, AT&T completed 100% of its 22 state territories. (It sold off one state since then.) The FCC defended AT&T without an audit or investigation. And this was done by the previous Democrat-based FCC administration. O’Rielly is also against municipality build outs of broadband. “What I am unwilling to do and will never support is allowing government-sponsored networks to use their unfair advantages to offer broadband services. Doing so would be the quickest way to destroy the private broadband market and reassure creation of a market monopoly position by these networks.” Wrong. O’Rielly didn’t bother to examine the record which shows that municipalities are building out their networks because the incumbent phone companies, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, failed to do the build outs, even when they charged local phone customers to do the build outs. And it is these companies that have the monopoly on the market and block competitors. And they are protected by the government. And when I mean that these companies failed to do build outs, here’s just one example. Example: This is an excerpt of filings by virtually all of the phone companies with the FCC to have ‘permanent’ deployments of fiber buildouts in these cities and regions, mostly to be completed by the year 2000. The sick part is that in every state we checked, the laws were changed to have customers pay for these network upgrades. These were never built. (Ameritech built cable services but sold them off to WOW after the merger with SBC (now AT&T).) Click for the full list Was there ever any investigation by the FCC? No. Were there ever any refunds for not building out the networks? No. Are monies still being collected in 2017 based on the overcharging added through rate increases? Yes. Did O’Rielly ever ask about the history and why cities are doing work arounds because the incumbents failed to deploy? No. Finally, let’s get real about why the ALEC-friendly FCC wants to get rid of the Title II and this old utility regulation. The Communications Act of 1934 & Title II This is the opening of the Communications Act of 1934. It brought phone service to all Americans (via a copper wire) and it also established the FCC. Notice the most important thing—the Act does not focus on businesses, such as AT&T, (which was one of the reasons the FCC was created; to reign in the growing monopoly’s abuses (back in 1930’s)). No. It focuses on the people of the US, with the goal of universal service at ‘reasonable’ rates. “SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication…there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ‘Federal Communications Commission,’ which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall Execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.” At the core of Title II is Section 202, and the principles it encapsulates are centuries old. “SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES. (a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” It says that you can’t discriminate. And this concept that telecommunications is for ‘open networks’ and freedom? The Act is about freedom from the corporations screwing with your connection. And this concept of common carrier goes back centuries; it isn’t something that started in 1934. Think of roads. People can’t simply put up a toll booth and hold you hostage unless you pay them when using a public road. They can’t discriminate or only let Ford brand cars travel on the road, or restrict any foreign car or make them pay a toll or use some detour. But this is not what the corporations want. They claim that the customer-funded networks are really private property for private use. As we pointed out, the FCC has failed to recognize that these wires are part of a state utility, that customers paid thousands of dollars extra for upgrades of these state utilities (and never got it) and that there were commitments, in writing, a contract, yet the corporations were able to simply scheme their way out of doing the work, but collected billions per state. To Pai and O’Rielly, corporations come first. And ALEC is based on the idea that politicians should do the bidding of these corporations—and privatize publicly funded assets, claiming that it will block ‘socialism’ in America. How these people became FCC Commissioners without passing a basic test about the factual history of America’s broadband ― that there were commitments to do upgrades of the state utilities and that these upgrades were charged to local phone customers for this work, even if they didn’t show up ― is beyond me. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
by Niv Sultan This week, the Justice Department moved to delay enforcement of rules the FDA finalized a year ago dealing with tobacco products like e-cigarettes, cigars and hookah tobacco. It’s been a busy time for big tobacco, as the victory came on the heels of a defeat for vaping (e-cigarette) companies: Sunday night’s omnibus budget bill reportedly did not include the proposed Cole-Bishop Amendment, which would have eased FDA regulations on e-cigarettes. “Congress delivered a victory for kids and public health by rejecting the Cole-Bishop Amendment and other proposals to weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars,” wrote Becky Wexler, a spokesperson for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in an emailed statement. But Justice’s move for a delay in the rules’ enforcement, she wrote, is potentially dangerous. “The FDA made an overwhelming case for why these products need to be regulated when it issued its final rule last year, and no new facts have emerged to change that.” Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) have also introduced a stand-alone bill, the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017, with the same aims as the amendment. Arguing for the bill, Bishop and Cole have repeated a common talking point of proponents of vaping: That it helps wean smokers off cigarettes. Unmentioned was the fact that Cole ended the 2016 cycle at No. 10 among the tobacco industry‘s top recipients of campaign contributions, having raked in more than $33,000. Bishop received about half that, $16,000. Big tobacco’s favorite candidate of 2016 was, by far, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). As a longtime senator from the nation’s top tobacco-producing state, Burr has been a reliable industry ally and has reaped the benefits; over the course of his two-decade career spanning both the House and the Senate, the tobacco industry has given him more than $689,000. Nine of the industry’s top 10 congressional recipients in the 2016 cycle were Republicans — and 83 percent of its contributions to candidates and party committees went to the GOP. In fact, the majority of tobacco contributions have consistently gone to Republicans since 1992. Favored Democrats have tended to be those from tobacco country, like Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner — they received about $31,000 and $26,900 in the 2016 cycle, respectively — who both represent Virginia, a premier tobacco-producing state. Big Tobacco was only modestly on-board with the Trump campaign. Altria Group and Reynolds American, the nation’s largest and second-largest producers of tobacco products, together gave the campaign less than $4,000. They must have had a change of heart after Election Day, though. For Trump’s January inauguration, Reynolds donated a cool $1 million through a subsidiary, while Altria coughed up $500,000. And the industry has other ties to the new administration: Prior to serving as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil division, Chad Readler represented R.J. Renyolds while working at the law firm Jones Day; and FDA boss Scott Gottlieb used to be on the board of Kure, a vaping company. Perhaps sensing opportunity, the industry stepped up its lobbying efforts in the first quarter of 2017, spending more than $4.9 million, up about 9.3 percent from the same period in 2016. Altria has already poured $2.3 million into lobbying, and Philip Morris nearly $1.3 million. Both companies have e-cigarette outfits in addition to their more traditional fare; Altria has lobbied on Cole and Bishop’s bill, and Philip Morris on “modified risk” tobacco products — an FDA designation, rooted in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, that could benefit the marketing of vaping offerings, but has yet to be granted to any products. The industry’s lobbying outlays have been relatively modest since it spent nearly $73 million in 1998, the year the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was entered. As part of the massive settlement, which regulated how cigarettes are sold and marketed, top cigarette manufacturers agreed to pay 46 states in connection to the costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses. The era of vaping, like the settlement, has called the tobacco industry’s reputation into question. In 2015, the CDC revealed some startling findings: From 2013 to 2014, e-cigarette use by middle and high school students tripled, and hookah smoking approximately doubled. Kids are smoking both e-cigarettes and hookah at increased rates — though the degree to which that is tied to the availability of flavors like gummy bears is difficult to prove definitively. Still, if ever there was a time for the industry to feel optimistic about getting some relief in Washington, this would seem to be it, with control of both Congress and the White House in GOP hands. The Justice Department’s stalling of FDA tobacco product regulations may be a sign of more good things to come — as far as big tobacco is concerned. “[O]ur hope is that the Trump administration dismantles this rule, as it is utterly unworkable in its current form,” wrote Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, which describes itself as a public health advocacy group, in an emailed statement. He added that it was unclear whether the measure was being re-evaluated or the administration was simply understaffed and needed more time. But lest vaping supporters feel doubtful about their chances on the Hill, there’s another piece of legislation on the table (along with Cole and Bishop’s bill). Last week, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) introduced the Cigarette Smoking Reduction and Electronic Vapor Alternatives Act of 2017, a bill that would relax the FDA’s approval process for e-cigarettes. Hunter received more than $16,500 from tobacco PACs in the 2016 cycle. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.