• Nintendo is being sued by a boy and his mother over the “Joy-Con drift”
  • Their complaint alleged that Nintendo has not done enough to solve the issue and warn consumers
  • The mother said that the two sets of Joy-Con controllers she has bought both experienced the hardware problem

Nintendo is being sued once more over a hardware problem common among Nintendo Switch controllers.

A boy and his mother have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Switch maker alleging that Nintendo has not done enough to solve “Joy-Con drift,” Tech Radar reported. This problem involves the analog sticks on the controllers randomly moving around and inputting commands to the console even when nobody is moving them.

Luz Sanchez alleged in the complaint that a month after she purchased her son’s Nintendo Switch, the Joy-Cons were registering movements even when her son was not touching them. She claimed that the Joy-Con drift only got worse, and a year later, “the controllers became inoperable for general gameplay use.” 

The mother bought her son another pair of Joy-Cons, but Sanchez alleged that it also began to exhibit signs of Joy-Con drift seven months later.

Adding to Sanchez’s and other consumers’ problem with this issue is the fact that it costs $80 to purchase a new pair of Joy-Cons.

Nintendo has since offered to repair the Joy-Cons for free, but Sanchez’s lawyers believe Nintendo has been negligent in giving consumers fair warning regarding this issue.

“Defendant continues to market and sell the products with full knowledge of the defect and without disclosing the Joy-Con Drift defect to consumers in its marketing, promotion, or packaging,” reads Sanchez’s complaint.

Just a few weeks ago, French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir filed a planned obsolescence claim against Nintendo in Paris. Over 5,000 testimonies from consumers regarding the

The ProShares UltraPro Short S&P 500 ETF (SPXU) is one of the most popular instruments to short the broad market for trading or hedging purposes. However, its daily -3X leverage factor is a source of drift. It must be closely monitored to detect changes in the drift regime. This article explains what “drift” means, quantifies it in more than 20 leveraged ETFs, shows historical data on SPXU, and, finally, concludes about the current market conditions. The analysis is also valid for Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bear 3X Shares (SPXS), which tracks the same index with the same factor and has almost identical behavior.

Why do leveraged ETFs drift?

Leveraged ETFs often underperform their underlying index leveraged by the same factor. The decay has essentially four reasons: beta-slippage, roll yield, tracking errors, management costs. Beta-slippage is the main reason in equity leveraged ETFs. However, when an asset is in a steady trend, leveraged ETFs can bring an excess return instead of a decay. You can follow this link to learn more about beta-slippage.

Monthly and yearly drift watchlist

A few definitions are necessary before going to the point. “Return” is the return of a leveraged ETF in a given time interval, including dividends. “IndexReturn” is the return of a non-leveraged ETF on the same underlying asset in the same time interval, including dividends. “Lv” is the leveraging factor. “Abs” is the absolute value operator. “Drift” is the drift of a leveraged ETF normalized to the underlying index exposure in a time interval. It is calculated as follow:

Drift = (Return – (IndexReturn x Lv))/ Abs(Lv)

“Decay” means negative drift. “Month” stands for 21 trading days, “year” for 252 trading days. A drift is a difference between 2 returns, so it may go below -100%.





The unanimous decision of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to shift from inflation targeting to average inflation targeting is another step away from its mandate to achieve long-run price stability. Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act does not say the Fed’s long-run objective should be 2 percent inflation. It calls for maintaining the growth of money and credit to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The legal basis for price stability has not changed, but the Fed’s interpretation of that responsibility has drifted, so that “price stability” now means an increase in the price level (P) that averages 2 percent over time, with the proviso that the average inflation target (AIT) must be “flexible.”

The Fed began to target inflation in 2012, when it moved to a 2 percent inflation target (IT), specified in the FOMC’s “Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy Strategy” (also known as the “Consensus Statement”). In 2016, the Fed added flexibility to its IT by adopting a “symmetric inflation goal”; and, in 2020, the Fed amended its Consensus Statement and moved to a 2 percent average inflation target (AIT), announced by Fed Chairman Jerome Powell on August 27, at the Jackson Hole Conference. This policy drift is shown in Figure 1.

Price Stability Mandate

As former Fed governor Robert Heller notes:

“The congressional mandate as stated in the Federal Reserve Act of 1977 is for the Fed to provide for ‘stable prices’ – not 2 percent annual price increases.”

The term “stable prices” refers to a stable average level of money prices, not a stable rate of change of that level. It is problematic that so many people, Fed officials included, fail to make this distinction. The law of compound interest tells us that even

By Lucia Mutikani

calendar: FILE PHOTO: Help Wanted sign at taco stand in California

© Reuters/MIKE BLAKE
FILE PHOTO: Help Wanted sign at taco stand in California

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits fell last week but remained at recession levels, while personal income dropped in August, underscoring the need for another government rescue package for businesses and the unemployed.

a group of people standing on a sidewalk: FILE PHOTO: Thousands line up outside unemployment office in Frankfort

© Reuters/Bryan Woolston
FILE PHOTO: Thousands line up outside unemployment office in Frankfort

The decline in initial claims reported by the Labor Department on Thursday likely reflected a decision by California to suspend the processing of new applications for two weeks to combat fraud. Economists are warning that the economy and labor market recovery from the COVID-19 slump could sputter without an infusion of new money from the government.

a group of people standing in front of a store: FILE PHOTO: FILE PHOTO: Shoppers are seen wearing masks while shopping at a Walmart store in Bradford, Pennsylvania

© Reuters/Brendan McDermid
FILE PHOTO: FILE PHOTO: Shoppers are seen wearing masks while shopping at a Walmart store in Bradford, Pennsylvania

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are working toward a bipartisan agreement for another fiscal package.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits decreased 36,000 to a seasonally adjusted 837,000 for the week ended Sept. 26. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 850,000 applications in the latest week.

California is using the two-week pause to reduce its claims processing backlog and implement fraud prevention measures. The Labor Department acknowledged the suspension could result in “significant” week-to-week swings in initial claims “unrelated to any changes in economic conditions.”

The department said California’s initial claims data would reflect the level reported during the last week prior to the pause. The data would be updated when California resumes processing new applications.

a person standing in front of a building: FILE PHOTO: A new home is seen under construction in Los Angeles

FILE PHOTO: A new home is seen under construction in Los Angeles

Claims have hovered at higher levels after dropping below 1 million in August as the