Business
Tourists love Los Angeles. Could the fires change that?
Travelers flying into Los Angeles last weekend were greeted by an apocalyptic sight: billowing clouds of smoke and the red-orange glow of flames against the glittering expanse of city lights.
The stark panorama, and shocking, ubiquitous video of the wildfires, were at sharp odds with images of sun-kissed beaches and glamorous Hollywood that L.A. relies on to draw the flocks of tourists who pump billions of dollars into the local economy each year.
As firefighters begin to bring under control the blazes that laid ruin to Pacific Palisades, parts of Malibu, and the hillside town of Altadena, tourism officials are looking for signs of what short- and long-term toll the disaster may take on L.A.’s prowess as a tourism destination.
“We’re very nervous,” said Jackie Filla, president and CEO of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles.
“The first-blush look is obviously there’s a precipitous drop off in shorter-term reservations — people who were supposed to be here this week and next week. We’re seeing some long-term drop-off as well — not as much, but it’s certainly a trend we’re concerned about.”
By some measures, the fires struck as tourism in L.A. finally had recovered fully from the blow dealt by COVID-19. In 2023, the last full year for which statistics are available, Los Angeles tallied $40.4 billion in total tourism revenue, a record. That included 49.1 million visitors, a 3% dip from its 2019 pre-pandemic high.
Filla noted that no L.A County hotels or major tourist draws have been damaged in the fires and major conferences and conventions — a critical component of the tourism industry — are scheduled to go on as planned. The lineup includes the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, whose leadership voted Wednesday night to go ahead with their annual meeting later this month in downtown L.A. and to donate $100,000 to relief efforts.
And another major event, the Grammy Awards, are still scheduled for Feb. 2 in downtown’s Crypto.com Arena.
In normal times, organizers and attendees at these meetings and awards shows would book rooms without hesitation. However, with tens of thousands of people now displaced by the fires, the equation has become more complicated. “We’re very closely monitoring our conventions and conferences,” Filla said, because “everybody is concerned about not taking rooms away from the evacuees, but we have the capacity to do both.”
Occupancy in Los Angeles hotels, which typically hits a low point in January, jumped from 59.3% to 65% as the Palisades and Eaton fires raged in the week that ended Jan. 11 “due to displacement demand from the fires,” lodging industry analyst CoStar found. The biggest surge came over the first three days of the blazes, when average daily rates in the area’s luxury hotels jumped by 22.7% over last year — a rise that may have been driven by evacuees moving into high-priced suites during what is normally a slow time, the company’s senior director of analytics Isaac Collazo said.
The city of Los Angeles includes about 44,000 hotel rooms; the county, roughly 100,000. L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna said Thursday that about 88,000 people were under evacuation orders.
It remains to be seen whether the region’s recovery will be more like the New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Napa Valley’s rebound after a major wildfire in 2017 or Maui’s ongoing recovery effort since destructive wildfires in 2023.
In the aftermath of Katrina, travel to New Orleans fell to less than half its former level, then gradually recovered. It wasn’t until 2016 that the number of visitors to the city returned to pre-Katrina levels.
Napa and Sonoma counties, by contrast, bounced back relatively quickly after fires blackened more than 110,000 acres and killed 24 people in fall 2017. The fires left most vineyards and tourism infrastructure undamaged and by early 2018 hotel occupancy and revenue were ahead of the year before, according to a local tourism organization, Visit Napa Valley. Local and state officials said the recovery was aided by vigorous marketing, including spending by Visit California, the state’s main marketing organization.
On Maui, where a fire in August 2023 claimed 102 lives and leveled most of Lahaina Town, a major tourist destination, recovery is ongoing. Visitor arrivals in November 2024 remained about 15% below their levels in 2022. Officials there are now pushing hard to bring tourists back following an initial period of mixed messages in which some were calling for travelers to stay away as the community tried to rebuild.
At Visit California, the state’s leading tourism organization, President and CEO Caroline Beteta said in a statement that “we need to make sure travelers understand that their visit helps the community — not hurts — and that the city’s hotels and businesses will be ready to welcome them.”
Beteta acknowledged that “we’re already hearing from restaurants and hotels saying they’re being impacted,” and said her team is at work on a recovery campaign stressing that “everyone, especially California residents, should consider planning a trip to Los Angeles to support its economic recovery.”
Adam Burke, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board, also known as Discover Los Angeles, said, “it’s premature to really understand what the implications are going to be,” but until then, “we’re trying to use our platform to help those who have been directly affected.”
In the longer term, Burke said, he’ll be looking closely at data on web searches for Los Angeles as a destination, international bookings, airport arrivals and hotel occupancy. He noted that in a typical year, hotel tax revenues add more than $300 million to the city’s general fund — money that could helpful fuel recovery efforts.
Despite the devastation of the fire areas, the vast majority of the region’s best-known tourism spots were undamaged by the fires. Though many parks and museums closed because of air quality or other concerns, several have reopened, including Griffith Park, the L.A. Zoo and Autry Museum of the American West on Thursday.
Overall consumer demand typically drops in the aftermath of a natural disaster, since fewer outside visitors to an area will lead to a reduction in leisure, hospitality and entertainment spending, said Raphaelle Gauvin-Coulombe, an assistant professor of economics at Middlebury, who was co-author of a study last year examining satellite data to understand fire activity and its effect on labor markets in counties across the U.S.
Leisure and hospitality is a sector that is particularly important for L.A. County, amounting to about 13.5% of the workforce, much higher than the median across counties, which hovers around 6%, Gauvin-Coulombe said. She did note, however, that destinations with more diverse economies — like that of Los Angeles — tend to be more resilient than those that are heavily dependent on one sector.
The disaster may also force the industry to contend with a shrinking labor force in the region, with fires tending to cause out-migration, she said. A slowing of employment growth can last for three years after a fire, she added.
“When people are traveling, they consider everything,” said Ray Patel, president of the Northeast Los Angeles Hotel Owners Assn. “It’s all perception to the guest. They might go, ‘oh, it’s too many fires.’ ”
It’s an understandable impulse, he said: “We all want to put our heads down at night and make sure we feel safe.”
As Los Angeles looks to stabilize its tourism industry in the wake of the fires, it can rely on an important asset many cities don’t have — its tourism board has staff at seven offices abroad who work with counterparts in Australia, the United Kingdom, India and China.
At a moment when dramatic television images threaten to overshadow the facts of L.A. geography, Burke said, “we’re already working with the travel trade in real time,” aiming to “educate people around the world about why it’s still safe to responsibly travel to Los Angeles.”
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making