Category: Business

• A Tesla owner ordered a Cybertruck and said he later realized it didn't comfortably fit in his new apartment complex.
• The Tesla dealership refused to buy back the vehicle or let him resell it.
• The dealership cited a no reseller policy and a one-year sale prohibition in the purchase contract.

Blaine Raddon watched the Cybertruck launch while he was with his wife in Bali — and he didn't waste any time when placing his preorder for the vehicle.

Raddon finally received his truck a few weeks ago. Last week, he posted on X, formerly Twitter, that he wants to return it, but Tesla isn't willing to buy it back or let him resell it.

That's because there's a Cybertruck-specific portion of Tesla's Motor Vehicle Order Agreement, which Raddon signed when taking delivery, which states that he can't resell the vehicle for one year. If the contract is disregarded, Tesla says it can sue for up to $50,000 in damages, "or the value received as consideration for the sale or transfer, whichever is greater." Tesla can also refuse to sell the owner future vehicles, the agreement said.

Since ordering the vehicle, Raddon's living circumstances have changed, he told Business Insider. He said that he and his wife separated and he's since moved into a new apartment complex, and his new Cybertruck doesn't fit comfortably in its parking space.

Raddon, who owned multiple Teslas prior to the Cybertruck, said he didn't give much thought to whether the Cybertruck would fit in the new space.

However, upon its arrival, he told BI that he realized the Cybertruck was "so much bigger" than expected, and he had to make a four-point turn to navigate it into the parking spot. He also said he struggles to get in and out of the truck with the amount of space he has on each side.

Raddon reached out to the Tesla dealership manager in Salt Lake City over email on May 22 and said he wanted to return the truck. BI reviewed the email exchange.

The written request didn't include details about his changed circumstances but referenced a conversation that happened in person with the Tesla dealership manager. Raddon said he told the manager directly that the Cybertruck was bigger than he expected and asked for one of four solutions: reverse the transaction, trade in the Cybertruck for a new sedan, sell it back to Tesla, or authorize him to sell it without a profit or mark-up.

The Tesla dealership manager sent a response on May 23, disagreeing that Raddon's reasoning "warrants an unforeseen circumstance that would trigger Tesla's purchase" of his Cybertruck. He also said Raddon is bound by the one-year prohibition to selling his Cybertruck privately.

The manager cited the Motor Vehicle Order Agreement with Tesla's "no resellers" policy for the Cybertruck. While the contract states that Tesla can make an exception if an unexpected situation forces an owner to sell it within that year, that can only occur if Tesla grants permission after accepting an owner's written request.

If granted, the owner would receive back the amount of the original purchase price minus a deduction of 25 cents per mile driven, reasonable wear and tear costs, and any repairs needed to meet Tesla's used car standards.

The manager at Tesla's Salt Lake City dealership did not respond to BI's request for comment ahead of publication.

Raddon responded to the email with a lengthier written explanation, detailing that when he purchased the Cybertruck, he lived in a single-family residence and has since moved out of state. He also emphasized that he wasn't trying to make a profit and understood that if Tesla repurchased his vehicle, he would suffer some loss from the original amount he paid.

"I am trying to remedy an unfortunate circumstance that the Cybertruck is not manageable in my living situation," Raddon said in the email response.

"Making me keep a truck that does not fit my circumstances appears to be unfair and not at all the spirit of the no sale language in the contract," he added in the note.

Raddon told BI that he's a rule-follower and he doesn't plan to go against Tesla's verdict on the matter or hire a lawyer to dispute the decision. He also said his building is okay with him keeping the vehicle there, but they won't be held liable if the truck gets damaged by another car while protruding from the parking spot.

Tesla did not respond a request for comment.

A week after sending his longer note to Tesla in an attempt to appeal the decision, Raddon said he's still waiting for a response.

• Recent disclosures from Nvidia highlight just how concentrated its customer base is.
• The company said just two customers represented 24% of its revenue in the first quarter.
• UBS thinks the biggest mystery customer — accounting for 19% of revenue last year — is Microsoft.

Nvidia has a few mystery customers that are making up a massive chunk of its revenue base, according to new disclosures.

In its 10-Q filing made with the SEC earlier this week, Nvidia said a single direct customer represented 13% of its total revenue in the first quarter of its fiscal year 2025, while a second direct customer made up 11% of its total revenue.

On top of that, the AI-chip maker said it had two indirect customers that each represented 10% or more of its total revenue in the first quarter.

The concentration in revenue coming from just a handful of companies comes as mega-cap tech companies rush to stock up on Nvidia's H100 AI chips to build up their generative AI capabilities. 

Meta Platforms, Tesla, and Amazon all made comments on their recent earnings calls about increasing their capital expenditures this year, alluding to the fact that they're stocking up on Nvidia's H100 chip and its soon-to-be-released Blackwell chip.

And UBS believes Nvidia's biggest customer of them all is Microsoft.

In a note earlier this week, UBS analyst Timothy Arcuri connected the dots and said that based on prior disclosures from Nvidia, it believes Microsoft made up 19% of Nvidia's total revenue in its fiscal year 2024, and that Microsoft still remains its largest customer.

"It stands to reason that one of these could likely again be MSFT," Arcuri said of Nvidia's new disclosures about customers that make up more than 10% of its revenue.

Microsoft has been quickly scaling its AI capabilities as it builds up its CoPilot product and continues its partnership with OpenAI. 

According to supply chain data estimates from Bloomberg, Arcuri is spot on with Microsoft being Nvidia's largest customer.

Bloomberg data estimates that Microsoft makes up 15% of Nvidia's revenue, followed by Meta Platforms at 13% of revenue, Amazon at 6% of revenue, and Alphabet at about 6% of revenue. 

• Donald Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records before the 2016 election.
• Trump joins a handful of world leaders with criminal convictions. 
• Leaders from Croatia, Israel, and France are among those to face criminal charges.

Former President Donald Trump's criminal conviction will do little to slow his bid for The White House.

On Thursday, the 77-year-old was found guilty of falsifying business records in the lead up to the 2016 general election, marking the first time a US president has ever been criminally convicted.

The guilty verdict won't stop Trump from running for president in the 2024 election, as the US Constitution doesn't prohibit felons from appearing on the ballot.

The Trump campaign appeared to capitalize on the publicity, using it to appeal for donations. On Thursday, the Trump donor website crashed after "so many Americans were moved to donate to President Trump's campaign," a spokesperson wrote on X.

Though Trump is the first US president to be criminally charged, it isn't that unusual when looking at leaders from around the world.

Trump joins a handful of former presidents and prime ministers from across the world who have been convicted, while some have even faced prison sentences.

Former Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader is in prison on corruption charges.

Ivo Sanader served as Croatia's prime minister from 2003 until 2009. He has been in and out of prison since 2011 for numerous convictions relating to corruption and war profiteering, which he has denied, according to state and global media.

He was most recently convicted of corruption in 2020 after allegedly using state money for personal gain and to aid his former party, the Croatian Democratic Union, Euro News reported.

He was given an eight-year prison sentence after a previous conviction was overturned on "procedural grounds," Euro News reported.

Meanwhile, the party was fined 3.5 million kuna, or around $587,724, and ordered to return an estimated 14 million kuna, or around $1.9 million, the publication said.

Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is serving a six-year prison sentence.

Mikheil Saakashvili was president of Georgia for two terms, from 2004 until 2013.

Saakashvili was convicted for charges relating to the abuse of power in 2021 following seven years in self-imposed exile. He was sentenced to six years in prison, according to multiple outlets including Politico and BBC News.

He was accused of ordering riot police to physically beat Valery Gelashvili, a member of the opposition, in 2005. He also pardoned interior ministry staff who had been convicted for the murder of Sandro Girgvliani, a bank employee, in 2006.

Saakashvili denied the allegations, saying they were politically motivated, according to BBC News.

In February 2023, world leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were prompted to call for Saakashvili's release after he appeared unwell in a video of a court hearing, BBC News reported.

Saakashvili's medical team said he had lost weight since his time in prison, going from 254 pounds to 150 pounds, the outlet said. Rati Bregadze, the country's justice minister, said Saakashvili was self-harming and not eating, though Saakashvili alleged that he had been poisoned, BBC News reported.

Former Israeli president Moshe Katsav spent seven years in prison on sexual assault charges.

Moshe Katsav was Israel's president from 2000 until 2007.

In 2011, he was found guilty of raping a former staff member on two occasions during his time as tourism minister in 1998, BBC News reported.

He was also accused of sexually harassing two women in 2003 and 2005, the outlet said.

Katsav denied the allegations against him.

After being sentenced to seven years in prison in 2011, he was released in 2016.

Another former Israeli leader, Ehud Olmert, spent 16 months in prison for fraud charges.

Ehud Olmert was prime minister of Israel from 2006 until 2009.

In 2017, he was released from prison after serving 16 months of a 27-month sentence relating to a series of fraud charges, including bribery and obstruction of justice, BBC News and The Times of Israel reported.

The parole board said Olmert's early release came after a "significant rehabilitation process" led to "impeccable" behaviour during his time in prison, BBC News reported.

A fake job scandal resulted in a criminal conviction for France's former Prime Minister Francois Fillon.

Francois Fillon was prime minister of France from 2007 until 2012.

In 2017, Fillon was accused of paying his wife, Penelope Fillon, with public funds for 15 years under the pretence that she was an employee, according to a Le Canard Enchaîné report cited by Le Monde.

Fillon was convicted for corruption charges in 2020 and was originally given a five-year prison sentence. He lost an appeal against the charges in 2022, and was given a reduced four-year prison sentence with just one year in prison, Euro News reported.

He was banned from qualifying for public office for 10 years, the outlet said.

He was also fined 375,000 euros, or around $407,000, according to Le Monde and Euro News. Penelope, meanwhile, was ordered to pay the same fine and was given a two-year suspended sentence for embezzlement, the outlets said.

They were also ordered to repay the 800,000 euros, or around $870,120, to the Assemblée Nationale, part of the French Parliament which originally paid Penelope.

Similarly, Jacques Chirac, former president of France, was also accused of creating fake jobs.

Jacques Chirac was president of France from 1995 until 2007.

In 2011, he was convicted on embezzlement and breach of trust charges and given a two-year suspended prison sentence, BBC News reported.

Chirac was accused of paying members of his political party, Rally for the Republic, for jobs that didn't exist, the publication said. He denied the allegations against him.

Chirac died in 2019.

Nicolas Sarkozy, France's former president, has faced multiple criminal charges through the years.

Nicolas Sarkozy was president of France from 2007 until 2012.

In 2021, he was sentenced to three years in prison for corruption charges. Two years were suspended while one year was instructed to be served on house arrest after Sarkozy lost an appeal against the conviction in May 2023, Politico reported.

He was also barred from qualifying for public office for a duration of three years, the outlet said.

More recently, in February, Sarkozy was sentenced to a six-month suspended prison sentence for allegedly overspending in his 2012 reelection campaign and illegally charging it to his party, Les Républicains, according to a separate Politico report.

Sarkozy has denied any wrongdoing, the outlet said.

• I shopped at my local Lowe's and Home Depot stores to see which had the better selection.
• The Lowe's I visited seemed better laid out and had a better selection than the Home Depot.
• This summer, Lowe's would be my pick for my garden and outdoor shopping needs.

I've lived in Florida for the last seven summers, and even though it's warm and sunny most of the year here, we need to prep our outdoor areas for summertime.

Recently, I shopped at Lowe's and Home Depot to see which home-improvement store would be my go-to summer shopping destination.

Both retailers have about 2,000 locations in the US and serve similar customer bases. The average Lowe's shopper and Home Depot shopper is a white woman over age 60 who lives in the suburbs — I skew younger at age 43 and live in a small beach town that's not quite a suburb but not urban either.

I was curious which of the two chains I'd prefer, but I got my answer after visiting both. Here's how my local Lowe's and Home Depot compared.

Both stores had lots of vegetables and herbs and were running some good sales.

One of my favorite things to plant in Florida's warmer months is a collection of herbs and vegetables, so I looked for those in both stores first.

Both stores had Bonnie plants and had them on sale, but Lowe's had a better deal. At Home Depot, three plants were on sale for $12, but at Lowe's, three plants were on sale for $10.

Lowe's had a great deal on tomato plants, but Home Depot did not.

This summer, I'm hoping to plant a few robust tomato plants in containers on my back patio, so I looked at the options at both stores.

At Home Depot, large tomato plants were $20 each, but at Lowe's they were on sale at two plants for $30, making each just $15.

This seemed like a pretty great deal to me, especially since the Florida heat can be hard on plants. It's nice to find them on sale just in case the worst happens once you get them home.

Home Depot's selection of potting soil was right out front for easy loading.

At the entrance to Home Depot's garden center, there were lots of different varieties of potting soil, top soil, mulch, and other garden needs stacked up for the taking.

Lots of different types of soil were on sale, and I liked that most brands were situated right up front, where it'd be easy to pull up and load the heavy bags into my car.

Lowe's had a few varieties of soil on sale, but the rest were toward the back of the store.

Lowe's kept most of its soil and mulch toward the back of the garden center. Still, there were a few brands that were on sale positioned up at the front for easy loading.

If I planned to buy soil at Lowe's, I'd probably choose whatever was on sale and displayed at the front of the garden center to keep things easy.

Home Depot's outdoor furniture display was lacking a bit.

This year, we have plans to replace our patio furniture, so I was excited to shop for things like outdoor chairs and backyard dining tables at both stores.

There weren't many pieces of outdoor furniture on display at Home Depot, though. Although I passed a big section of grills, there were only a few dining tables and one chair and umbrella display assembled for customers to look at.

I find it tough to choose patio furniture without seeing it fully assembled, so I was disappointed.

Lowe's won for its display of outdoor furniture.

At Lowe's, there were early holiday sales going on on patio furniture, and tons of different chairs, tables, umbrellas, and fire pits were assembled and on display.

It's always great to see these kinds of items fully assembled, so I appreciated the wide variety shown in this section.

Lowe's was the clear winner for me in this department.

Lowe's had lots of DIY-inspo on display. Home Depot didn't.

Lots of end caps in Lowe's garden center were turned into displays of DIY raised gardens or stone flower beds.

As someone who loves to walk through a garden center and dream of tasks I can take on in my own backyard, I loved seeing the inspiration sprinkled throughout the area. At Home Depot, there weren't any DIY projects modeled.

Instead, Home Depot was well-stocked with pre-potted arrangements of succulents and flowers.

One of my favorite things about Lowe's is its clearance section.

I love perusing the clearance cart in the back of Lowe's garden center. These carts can be tough to find, but they're often filled with discounted plants that just need a bit of TLC to flourish.

Some of the most prosperous plants in our yard have come from a Lowe's clearance rack and have cost just a few dollars. I get a lot of satisfaction out of rehabilitating a plant that would have otherwise dried up, so this section is one of my favorites.

I didn't find any clearance plant section at Home Depot, so this seems to be a special perk of hitting Lowe's garden centers.

The two stores had very different selections of outdoor pots.

Lowe's had a lot more terracotta pots on display than Home Depot. Both stores had a big variety of pots, from plastic pots with built-in drains to whiskey barrels for making larger flower-bed displays.

Home Depot seemed to have more cute, patterned ceramic pots than Lowe's, but the selection at both was plentiful.

I liked Lowe's section of plants that do well in Florida.

Lowe's also had a few different sections with signs indicating which plants would perform exceptionally well in Florida, where I live.

I'm not sure if local recommendations are in every Lowe's location, but I loved this section. Growing plants in the Sunshine State can be tough, especially with brutal temperatures, summer thunderstorms, and hurricane season, so it's nice to have experts pick out plants made just for our climate.

I couldn't find a "Florida" plants section at Home Depot.

Overall, Lowe's would be my pick for summer shopping.

I may not be a suburban woman in my 60s, but I definitely preferred Lowe's to Home Depot for my summer outdoor and garden shopping needs.

In my opinion, Lowe's plant selection just seemed better, from specialty blooms that excel in Florida to citrus trees to clearance finds begging for a loving home.

Both stores are about the same driving distance from me, but I'd return to Lowe's over Home Depot this summer for the deals on plants and the impressive displays of outdoor furniture.

Plus, Lowe's had many inspirational DIY projects on display that made me want to buy everything from stone pavers to raised beds to beautify my outdoor space.

Lowe's felt more set up for beginner gardeners than Home Depot with its helpful signs and product displays, and I'll absolutely return there throughout the summer for my outdoor and gardening needs.

• Steven Piluso, 52, has worked for many years as a marketing operations and strategy consultant.
• He says the initial social contract that created loyalty to jobs was broken by the employers, not employees.
• To fix the problem, companies should focus on giving Gen Z and millennials benefits that matter to them.

As a marketing executive and a strategy, management, and operations consultant for two decades, I've heard and read a lot about employee loyalty. The blame seems to always fall on the (perceived) fickle and selfish nature of millennials and Gen Z, thought to be self-centered and loyal only to themselves.

And that's how it would appear — if you hadn't been in the corporate world for decades prior and saw firsthand how the initial social contract that created loyalty was broken by the employers, not employees.

I got an early impression of what company loyalty was supposed to be

After college graduation at age 22, I got my first job at an advertising agency. At the orientation, sitting with mostly entry- or low-level employees, an HR rep went over a lot of confusing information — stuff about common stock, benefits, and a pension plan.

I thought to myself, "Well, I'm going to work here forever and I'll just figure it out later and retire at 65, maybe before that!"

After all, this was what I'd been told by my grandfather right before I left for college. He'd retired after working at the same bank branch for 45 years, working his way from sweeping the floors to branch president.

I'll always remember his words that day at the kitchen table: "In my day, when you got a job, you did that job, whether it's what you wanted or not, until you retired. And you didn't worry about jumping around for money; if you took care of the company, they'd take care of you and your family."

He told me that his pension and healthcare were what kept him comfortable and allowed him to pay considerable medical bills for my grandmother.

Then I watched my company's loyalty perks dry up

About three years into my tenure at that job, a memo informed us that the company was discontinuing its pension program; we could either be paid out or migrate the balance into a 401(k), the new retirement provision for employees.

My colleagues were outraged. There was suddenly talk of "bailing out" by people older than me, but I didn't really get it at the time.

A year later, they announced an IPO and that all common stock would be liquidated and paid out at about $5 per share. The IPO price was $25.

"This used to be a great place to work," was all I kept hearing, though I don't ever recall anything significant that made that company such a great place to spend your career — except for the generous pension and common stock benefit, that is. These were the things that the company used to do to reward loyalty and make you want to stay, and they were gone.

I eventually left, as did many mid- and upper-level employees. I'd realized that since my former company wasn't going to take care of me, I had to do for myself what I could to work towards security and retirement in my future.

The older I get, the more I understand what's been broken

A few years later, I was working at a renowned global advertising agency and found myself in an all-hands client crisis meeting for a Fortune 500 company that was discontinuing its pension program.

My manager explained the magnitude of the situation: People had essentially sought employment at this tech company, perceived as a dinosaur among the dot.coms, specifically for the long-term security it offered.

Worse, many employees who had been there for many years were not "grandfathered" into keeping their pensions, forced to migrate to a 401(k). A unique benefit used as a powerful recruitment and retention tool had been erased.

It took me a while to see the gravity of that moment. Now, as I start to think toward retirement at age 52, I really get it. I have an uncle who'd worked for this same tech company who retired with his pension at a decent age and now spends his summers on his boat teaching sailing near Nantucket and his winters working ski patrol in Vermont.

He gave them 40+ years of his life, and in return they took great care of him. It seems like those days are gone now — or only reserved for the fabulously wealthy.

As I've gotten older, I'm sometimes jealous of friends who took jobs in public education or government. They haven't lived lavishly over the years, but with 30 years' experience can retire at full salary in perpetuity and sleep comfortably without the plague of questions like Will my 401(k) be enough to retire at 60? 70? Will the government move retirement from 65 to 70 and I'll have to work for nearly 20 more years?

I also wonder how much I may have missed along the way because I've had to be so focused on my future, instead of the present.

The broken loyalty contract between employers and workers can be repaired

Is loyalty a dated and dead concept? My answer, despite what I've seen, is an emphatic "No." In fact, the shift in values from Gen-X to millennials and Gen-Z creates a great opportunity to ignite loyalty.

It'll require companies to understand that there's a massive misalignment between what companies think will create loyalty versus what makes employees feel like they work for a great company and want to stay.

Though some startups and next-gen businesses are exceptions, most companies still focus on very linear, financially-based hooks for loyalty: salary, 401(k) match, stock options; maybe work-from-home flexibility.

But as a marketer who has conducted years of research and cultural reconnaissance on Gen Z, millennials, Gen X, and baby boomers, I know that what seems to most drive young people today is the freedom to pursue their passions. They care less about money and are financially driven as a means to an end, pursuing things like side hustles, immersive travel to unusual places, music festivals, costly fitness classes, and mental health investments like therapy and life coaches.

That's why I've strongly encouraged the companies I work with to create sabbatical programs, such as five years of service matched with three months of paid leave to travel or pursue personal interests (with parameters that keep them from quitting on their first day back); to establish corporate partnerships that help employees pursue physical and mental wellness; and to create programs where employees are permitted and encouraged to dedicate a percentage of their paid time pursuing passions or work for non-profits.

A company that matches this demand with benefits, rather than just higher salary, can win loyalty.

Steven Piluso is a marketing operations and strategy consultant and a proud husband and father to two young children.

• Some parents are resisting giving their kids phones, even in high school.
• Those teens say they were excluded socially, but ended up just fine.
• So what, exactly, is a parent of a 12-year-old supposed to do?

The war over teens and phones is being fought on several fronts: in schools, where teachers are at their wits' end over kids looking at phones during class, in Congress where tech CEOs have been grilled over their policies about kids and teens, and in courts, where state attorneys are filing lawsuits against social platforms.

But the most gruesome front lines of these battles have to be in the households where parents and eighth graders are squaring off against each other.

It seems many parents are more skeptical than at any time in the last decade about allowing their young teens to have a smartphone, in part because of a viral article by Jonatha Haidt calling for the end of "phone-based childhood" and his recently released book, "The Anxious Generation." Haidt describes exactly what parents fear: that social media and phone use are contributing to the malaise of young adults. The idea that phones are bad for younger teens has hit a crescendo — and parents are taking action.

For a story titled "The last teen in ninth grade to get an iPhone," The Cut spoke to several younger teens whose parents wouldn't allow them to have a phone until long after the rest of their friends had phones (as late as — gasp — 10th grade).

What's interesting is that all of the teens spoke of being socially isolated. They were excluded from text chains, missed out on group video gaming before school, and were clueless about after-school meetups. To my horror, one ninth grader said friends told her that boys wanted to ask her out, but didn't because they couldn't approach her over text or Snapchat. (I, personally, would have died if I learned that my ninth-grade crush wanted to ask me out but couldn't).

And yet, for the most part, all the teens admitted that their parents were right: Sure, it was hard, but growing up without a phone indeed built character. And once these teens finally got phones, they said they developed healthier relationships with the devices than their peers and were less prone to addictive habits.

The bottom line: the teens survived and they don't hold it against their parents. This is good fuel for parents who are gearing up to hold their ground against their tweens.

But I do wonder if these conclusions are also symptoms of sour grapes. The teens have been told that phones are bad for teens, so they've convinced themselves that their friends who had phones earlier are now addicted and worse off.

There is also some new evidence that goes against the "phones are bad for teens" narrative. A recent study showed that using phones triggers a mood boost for teens — specifically while they're using them. The researchers texted teens a mood survey, and if they happened to be on their phone and answered immediately, their answers indicated a better mood than if they answered later. (This doesn't exactly fight the addiction metaphor — people are certainly happier in the middle of doing something addictive than they are a few hours later.)

But there's also pushback on the overall idea that scientific evidence points to social media and phones being bad for teens' mental health. In the Atlantic, the same place Haidt published his viral article, Candice Odgers, a developmental psychologist, argued that there's more nuance to the factors that affect teen mental health and that many scientific studies about social media use don't show the full picture. And yet, even if academic studies are lacking, it is really hard to ignore common sense about teens and phones.

There does seem to be an opening for a really enterprising eighth grader to dig into the data and convince their parents that the studies linking mental health and social media involved only older teen subjects, and that external factors may matter more.

For the parents of tweens and middle schoolers who are in the trenches right now debating when to give their kids a phone, I salute you.

• Costco beat sales expectations in its third-quarter earnings, released Thursday.
• Newly appointed CEO, Ron Vachris, highlighted some of the items that were driving the bottom line.
• Wagyu beef, golf clubs, artificial trees, and gold bars are all being snapped up by customers. 

Costco is having a good year, and it has a range of "unique items'" to thank.

Sales hit $57.39 billion in the third fiscal quarter of 2024, an increase of 9.1% compared to the same period last year, the company reported during earnings Thursday.

The products driving these gains for the retail giant include artificial trees, Swedish dish towels, wagyu beef, and, a unique Costco favorite, gold bars.

"We've got seven-foot artificial trees that have come in and just exploded out and just blowing out of the warehouses," said CEO Ron Vachris on an earnings call with investors.

"Wagyu beef and prime are growing at a great clip for us," he added during the call.

The CEO also highlighted Kirkland Signature golf clubs, a $1,200 swing set, and inflatable outdoor toys as top sellers.

"We see big and bulky going very well. It's been a year of our $1,200 swing set that we have on the floor," Vachris said. "We can't get enough, they're just blowing out."

Gold and silver bullion, which Costco started selling in 2023, continues to lead e-commerce sales growth.

The company moves about $200 million in gold bars and silver coins a month and they get snapped up "within a few hours," analysts have previously predicted.

"Import items we're finding from around the world are doing very well. But it really comes down to unique items at great values that are exciting the members in all those categories," Vachris told investors.

"Continuous innovation of merchandise" is what continues to excite Costco customers, the CEO added.

Vachris took over from Craig Jelinek as CEO at the start of this year. The transition had been a "seamless process," he said during the call.

Overall, net income was up 29.1% on the year, hitting $1.6 billion for the quarter. E-commerce sales saw a 20.7% jump, while app downloads grew 32% to a total of 35 million.

Despite the positive results, shares in the company were broadly flat in premarket trade before the bell on Friday.

Costco stock is still up 25% this year, and the company's valuation is reaching close to record highs.

Looking forward, the wholesale retailer announced that it was planning to open 12 new locations in the next three months — nine in the US, two in Japan, and one in South Korea.

Vachris also said technology would be a key priority in driving business and would be used to improve the member relationship.

Though Costco highlighted its strong retail sales, because the company sells merchandise at extremely low mark-ups, the membership fees are the key way it is able to turn a profit.

Some analysts have predicted that Costco will raise its membership fee this summer.

CFO Gary Millerchip addressed the claims during Thursday's call, refuting that a price increase was imminent, but admitting that it was a matter of when, not if.

• Ade Tan and Amos Chan were among the passengers aboard Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 on May 21.
• Their flight was hit by severe turbulence while flying over Myanmar, and later diverted to Bangkok.
• Tan and Chan, both doctors, described the horrors in mid-air — and what they did to help.

When they felt their plane lurch and plummet, Ade Tan and Amos Chan, both 28, barely had time to react.

"The last thing I saw was Amos trying to put on his seatbelt, and the next thing I registered was that he was no longer in his seat," Tan told BI.

"I must have been thrown off because when I next opened my eyes, I was actually on the aisle," Chan said. "I had slammed into another passenger two rows behind us."

The Singaporean couple had spent the past month honeymooning in Italy and Iceland. On May 20, they boarded their flight home from London.

"We came back because Amos' grandfather was celebrating his 100th birthday. We were planning to continue our honeymoon after that, so we were coming back just for a day," Tan said.

Tan and her husband were among the 211 passengers and 18 crew members aboard Singapore Airlines (SIA) flight SQ321, which ran into severe turbulence en route to Changi Airport.

SQ321 had been flying for around 10 hours when it was hit by severe turbulence while traveling over the south of Myanmar on May 21, per Singapore's Transport Safety Investigation Bureau.

The Boeing 777-300ER airplane was cruising at an altitude of 37,000 feet when it was thrust up and down rapidly for 62 seconds. Officials said the turbulence was so severe that the plane dropped 178 feet in four seconds. The plane was forced to divert to Bangkok because of the incident.

"There were a lot of oxygen masks dropped from above where people had crashed into the ceilings. Many were injured, people had blood on their heads, and some were lying in the aisle as well," she added.

Rushing to help passengers

Dozens of passengers were injured in the incident, with some suffering from brain and spinal cord injuries. One passenger, a 73-year-old British man named Geoffrey Kitchen, died of a suspected heart attack. Kitchen had a pre-existing heart condition.

Being trained medical doctors, Tan and Chan went around the cabin to tend to injured passengers.

"We could hear people calling out for medical help. I went more toward the front of the plane while Amos went to the back," Tan said.

That was when she noticed Kitchen had collapsed. Besides Tan, two other doctors and a nurse were tending to him.

"I remember shouting to the rest of the cabin, asking if anyone else is CPR trained," she said, adding that two men came forward to help with CPR.

Tan said the group spent about 20 to 30 minutes trying to resuscitate Kitchen, but their attempts weren't successful.

Sustaining injuries themselves

Tan told BI that she began to feel the pain in her neck worsen after the plane landed in Bangkok.

"I think when I first smashed up into the ceiling, the pain didn't register to me," Tan said.

Back home in Singapore, both Tan and Chan underwent CT scans on their brain and neck.

"Amos' one was completely clean, but because he had blacked out, he needed to be admitted for monitoring," Tan said.

Tan was later diagnosed with a cervical spine fracture.

"I stayed in the hospital for about a week mainly because it was quite difficult to mobilize myself with the fracture," she said, adding that she will have to wear a cervical collar for the next few weeks.

Tan and Chan said the incident hasn't made them afraid of flying. Tan, for one, commended SIA and the Bangkok medical and airport teams for their response to the crisis.

On Friday, SIA announced that 34 passengers are still in Bangkok, with 23 receiving medical treatment in the hospital. The airline said in an earlier statement on May 27 that all crew members had returned to Singapore.

When approached for comment, a representative for SIA pointed BI to a May 29 Facebook post, which the airline published after Singapore's Transport Safety Investigation Bureau released their preliminary investigation findings on Wednesday.

"The safety and well-being of our passengers and staff are our top priorities," SIA said in that post.

"We are committed to supporting our passengers and crew members who were on board SQ321 on that day, as well as their families and loved ones. This includes covering their medical and hospital expenses, as well as any additional assistance they may need," the airline added.

• Ukraine said it used sea drones to take out two Russian naval vessels on Thursday.
• Footage shows one drone passing through heavy aerial fire to strike a patrol warship.
• It's the latest Ukrainian attack on Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which has been forced to disperse.

Footage shared by Ukraine's intelligence service on Thursday showed what it claims are two of its sea drones striking Russian naval vessels near Crimea.

The video, shared by the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, features a sea drone dodging Russian fire, before exploding next to a Russian patrol ship.

Ukraine intelligence said the attack on the two ships was carried out using Magura V5 drones, and that Russia tried to neutralize the drones using combat aircraft, artillery, and small arms.

However, they failed to stop them from completing their mission, it said.

Business Insider was unable to independently verify details of the attack.

The claimed attack is just the latest example of Ukraine's devastating use of sea drones against Russian naval assets in the Black Sea.

In November, Ukraine said its sea drones hit and sank two Russian Black Sea Fleet landing ships at a port on the occupied Crimean peninsula.

Ukraine ramped up sea drone attacks in February, with one attack taking out the warship Ivanovets using naval drones powered by Jet Skis, and another causing the explosion of the Black Sea Fleet's Project 775 Ropucha-class landing ship, the Caesar Kunikov, Ukraine intelligence said at the time.

A month later, it said it sunk the Sergei Kotov with a sea drone.

Despite having no real navy of its own, Ukraine has taken out about a third of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, according to estimates, and has forced it to limit its Black Sea operations and relocate vessels away from occupied Crimea to a port in Novorossiysk.

• Saudi Arabia is selling more shares in its state-owned oil company.
• The sale begins on Sunday, Saudi Aramco said. 
• The proceeds of about $12 billion will go to the Saudi sovereign wealth fund and may aid the Neom project.

Saudi Arabia is selling more shares in its oil company, Saudi Aramco.

The sale of a 0.64% stake in the state-owned company will begin on Sunday and is expected to raise about $12 billion.

The proceeds are expected to go to the kingdom's sovereign wealth fund — the Public Investment Fund.

Amin Nasser, chief executive of Saudi Aramco, said the offering would broaden its investor base and allow current and new investors to build positions at an "attractive" price in comments reported by The Financial Times.

The company paid dividends of $98 billion in 2023, a figure that is set to hit $124 billion this year.

The government of Saudi Arabia remains the largest shareholder in Aramco, which is the world's largest oil company by market value.

Aramco raised $25.6 billion in the world's biggest IPO in December 2019, selling 3 billion shares at 32 riyals ($8.53).

Shares have dipped about 12% this year to close at 29 riyals ($7.73) on Thursday. The offering will be priced at between 26.70 and 29 riyals.

The share sale comes amid Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030 plan to diversify the kingdom's economy and pivot away from oil.

The plan has involved big spending on sports, entertainment, and infrastructure.

The kingdom has embarked on a number of "gigaprojects" as part of the 2030 plan, including its Neom megacity.

The project, which is expected to cost at least $500 billion — with some estimates putting the figure at $1.5 trillion — includes the much-talked-about "The Line," a futuristic city in the northwest of the country.

But recent reports suggest Saudi Arabia has been seeking to borrow funds for the project, while also scaling back population estimates for The Line.

The Saudi government had previously said it wanted to move 1.5 million residents into The Line by 2030, but that number is now likely to be fewer than 300,000, Bloomberg reported in April.

And while the city was set to stretch 105 miles to the Red Sea, the Bloomberg report said that officials expected just 1.5 miles to be completed by 2030.

The PIF has also been hit with falling cash levels. In January, it said that its cash as of September had dropped to around $15 billion — the lowest level since December 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Saudi Arabia's finance minister said in April that while the kingdom was "very pleased" with Vision 2030 progress, "challenges" meant adjustments would be made to some aspects of the project. Those statements were later rejected by the economy minister.