1,829.91 +6.37 (0.35%)
After hours: 7:59PM EDT
|Bid||1,829.50 x 1100|
|Ask||1,830.00 x 1200|
|Day's Range||1,815.27 - 1,829.48|
|52 Week Range||1,307.00 - 2,050.50|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.58|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||75.65|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Target stocks are hitting an all-time high after a blowout quarter. The company topped estimates on both the top and bottom lines and raised its full-year outlook. Yahoo Finance's Brian Sozzi and Andy Serwer join The Final Round to discuss.
Advances in technology can allow you to order food by voice or unlock your phone with your face, but those new capabilities could take a toll on the environment.
The new partnership will bring together 22 tech executives from 11 Bay Area companies to provide hands-on advice for socially minded tech nonprofits.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- For 47 years, the Business Roundtable has lobbied on behalf of corporate America. Much of that time, it maintained a fiction(1) -- that the sole purpose of a corporation was to maximize profits on behalf of shareholders. This philosophy has been under assault for several years now, and this week the Business Roundtable announced it wants to put it to rest.In a widely circulated memo, the 200-member organization reversed itself, writing that "shareholder primacy” is no longer the sole purpose of a corporation. Instead, corporations must include a commitment to “all stakeholders,” which includes customers, employees, suppliers and local communities.Some kudos are in order for JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, and chairman of the Business Roundtable, for driving these changes. He has been discussing the need for a more inclusive form of capitalism, both in public speeches and in his letters to shareholders, for some time.But turning this aircraft carrier around won’t be easy, in large part because of the group's own history. Indeed, the Roundtable has spent most of the past four decades advocating against the interests of those exact stakeholders. To cite some of the more notable examples:\-- It fought the rise of labor unions and pro-union legislation;\-- Helped to defeat antitrust bills;\-- Prevented the formation of the Consumer Protection Agency;\-- Opposed corporate governance changes to make boards of directors and CEOs more accountable to stockholders;\-- Fought proper accounting of stock options given as compensation to executives and insiders;\-- Opposed increases in the national minimum wage (it now favors increases);\-- Lobbied to prevent restrictions on executive compensation;\-- Fought legislation that would create cleaner energy and address climate change;\-- Pushed for corporate income-tax cuts;\-- Supported anti-consumer Supreme Court decisions, including the fiction that corporations are legal people, and that campaign donations equal speech. The Roundtable might respond that this is all in the past. Let’s hope so. But the organization has an even greater challenge: Scan the list of 181 signatories to the recent memo and it's a Who’s Who of corporate behavior that has burdened and disadvantaged the very stakeholders they will now champion.Consider a few of the signatories:\-- Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc.: Two of the most valuable companies in the world are famously effective at using various tax dodges to avoid paying their fair share. I can recall when the Internal Revenue Service went after maneuvers that serve no valid business purpose other than tax avoidance. Consider that what isn't paid in tax by those who avoid them must be made up for by those who do -- mostly average Americans who also happen to be customers of these companies.The share of federal tax revenue paid by corporations has dropped by two-thirds in the past seven decades -- from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013; and corporate income tax as a share of gross domestic product has fallen from about 6% in 1946 to about 1.5% today.\-- Visa Inc., Mastercard Inc. and American Express Co.: Show good faith -- working with card-issuing banks as needed -- by simplifying the incomprehensible small print in the cardholder agreement and spell out in clear language the terms and penalties for late payment. Second, do the same for mandatory arbitration clauses that take away the right of customers to seek redress in public courts.\-- Ameriprise Financial Inc., Morgan Stanley and Principal Financial Group Inc: The brokers and insurers on the list have been zealous opponents of the fiduciary rule. Instead, they prefer a less stringent rule that allows them to sell products that are better for them than for their customers. Until those firms -- and Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan are in this group -- embrace a higher duty of care, their gestures toward stakeholders are hollow. Oh, and they should drop the requirement that customers agree to mandatory arbitration clauses as one of the conditions for opening a brokerage account.\-- Coca Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.: For years these companies have been helping the American public achieve record levels of diabetes and obesity by selling health-damaging sugary drinks. They should acknowledge and warn customers of the consequences of consuming too much of their products, and accept the same kinds of taxes and health warnings now affixed to cigarettes.\-- Deere & Co.: The maker of farm machinery has led the fight against customers, insisting that they not make repairs to the equipment they own, and denying them access to parts and instructions. Repairs can only be made by Deere service technicians in what has come to be known as a “repair monopoly.” Apple, by the way, does the same thing.\-- Walmart Inc. and McDonald's Corp.: Both were steadfast opponents of increases in minimum wages for years. Although both now offer higher minimum pay, it was only after a tightening labor market forced them to increase wages. But this wasn't a case of corporate altruism -- their stores were messy and employees were sullen, and pay increases were part of plans to keep ill-treated customers from defecting. (McDonald's is not a signatory to the Roundtable memo).For the Roundtable commitment to be meaningful, the signatories are going to have to alter their behavior in ways large and small, and maybe even in ways that aren't always optimal for maximizing short-term profits. Still, we should be encouraged. But the proof will be in the follow through and the actual actions of the Roundtable members.(Corrects to clarify section on credit-card companies to indicate the role of banks in setting terms for customers. )(1) In “The Shareholder Value Myth,” Lynn Stout explained how the entire theory is based on a misreading of a 1919 court case -- Dodge vs. Ford – at the time, both privately held, non-public companies.To contact the author of this story: Barry Ritholtz at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is chairman and chief investment officer of Ritholtz Wealth Management, and was previously chief market strategist at Maxim Group. He is the author of “Bailout Nation.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is down 0.4% YTD, lagging the S&P 500's 14.3% gain. For such an established company, the stock has seen a lot of movement in the past year.
(Bloomberg) -- Federal prosecutors in Seattle have pieced together a string of disturbing social-media posts and police complaints to portray the accused Capital One Financial Corp. hacker as an unhinged danger to society who should remain locked up while awaiting trial.It’s a characterization disputed by Paige A. Thompson’s lawyers, who asked a judge on Tuesday to cancel a bail hearing set for later this week and immediately release her to a halfway house, with GPS monitoring.Thompson, 33, was arrested last month and charged with stealing personal data on more than 100 million people from Capital One. She has a long history of dangerous behavior that includes threats to kill others and to commit “suicide by cop,” prosecutors said in their request last week to keep her in jail.“In today’s America, it is easy enough to obtain firearms, and there is every reason to be concerned that Thompson, who repeatedly has threatened to kill, would obtain the means to carry out, and carry out, her threats -- particularly when confronted with the alternative of near-certain conviction and imprisonment,” the prosecutors said.The U.S. bolstered its case with a claim that Thompson broke into servers of more than 30 other companies, educational institutions and other entities, and that investigators are still sifting through “multiple terabytes” of data to see what kind of information was stolen. The government said it expects to add an additional charge as victims are identified and notified.The Capital One theft “was only one part of her criminal conduct,” the U.S. said.Thompson’s federal public defender, Mohammad Ali Hamoudi, said the government hadn’t provided any evidence that Thompson has tried to dodge police or avoid court appearances after those earlier run-ins.“Rather than establish that these incidents prove Ms. Thompson is a serious risk of flight, the government has established that she cooperates with law enforcement, does not flee, and has no means to leave the jurisdiction,“ Hamoudi said in the filing.Hamoudi argued Thompson is suffering greater harm in custody because she is transgender, and that she’d be better off in a halfway house with appropriate clinical care than confined to a jail where suicides are known to occur. He cited the recent suicide of sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein as one example.Capital One’s lawyers didn’t weigh in on the matter and its press office didn’t respond to requests for comment on Thompson’s detention.Prosecutors argued that if Thompson -- a former employee of Amazon.com Inc. -- were set free, she could sell any stolen data she may have secretly stashed away and that hasn’t been found by federal agents, including data from the other entities she allegedly hacked. They also said she has the skills to carry out other hacks.Prosecutors didn’t identify any of the other companies or entities whose servers were allegedly breached. Several companies, including UniCredit SpA and Ford Motor Co. said they were investigating whether they were involved in the breach. The prosecutors focused mostly on the many examples of Thompson’s allegedly dangerous behavior.Earlier this month, the U.S. claimed Thompson had once threatened a social media company that prosecutors didn’t identify. The U.S. said police were called to Thompson’s house in May after she contacted an acquaintance at the company. She threatened to travel to its California campus and to “shoot up” the office, prosecutors said.The U.S. said Thompson had access to an “arsenal” of firearms that authorities found in Thompson’s home that allegedly belonged to her roommate, Park Quan. The stash, much of which was seized because Quan is a convicted felon, included ammunition, explosive material, assault rifles and a sniper rifle, the U.S. said.But when police followed up to investigate the threat against the company, they concluded Thompson “had no monetary or transportation means to come to California,” Hamoudi responded.Police ReportIn March, police were called to Thompson’s house after she became violent with four housemates and threatened to use a fake gun to commit “suicide by cop,” the U.S. said. And in social-media posts in June, Thompson allegedly said she had “nothing to lose” and threatened to kill police officers, the U.S. said.That allegation was challenged by a person involved in the incident, who said the report didn’t accurately reflect what happened, and that Thompson never made serious threats about “suicide by cop,” Hamoudi wrote.“I know what Ms. Thompson will and won’t do, and she will not harm others,” Hamoudi quoted the person involved -- Diane Eakes -- as saying. “Ms. Thompson pushes people away and that is what she was trying to do.”The case is U.S. v. Thompson, 2:19-mj-00344, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle).(Updates with request for comment from Capital One.)To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at email@example.com, Joe Schneider, Peter BlumbergFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Amazon and its ecommerce wave have swallowed up 10s of thousands of brick-and-mortar stores in the retail apocalypse. Retailers everywhere are scrambling to find their niche with the shifting consumer.
Target stock burst into buy range Wednesday as efforts to remake its business paid off with strong Q2 earnings and guidance.
India needs to encourage ecommerce and reduce red tape to help small businesses sell online and export goods to help revive sagging domestic economic growth, a senior Amazon.com executive said on Wednesday. "There is so much opportunity to just let ecommerce thrive versus trying to define every single guard rail under which it should operate," Amazon's India head Amit Agarwal told Reuters, ahead of the launch of Amazon's biggest campus in the world in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, on Wednesday. India revised its ecommerce rules in early 2019, creating hurdles for Amazon and rival Walmart Inc's ecommerce subsidiary, Flipkart.
Target (TGT) reported its second quarter earnings before the opening bell, beating estimates and sending its stock soaring over 19% to set a new all-time high for the retailer.
Conversions from the nationwide rollout of the Amazon returns program, for example, have been consistent with pilot stores.
It's been a humdinger of a year when it comes to IPOs. None has taken as much abuse as the WeWork IPO. Is it a real estate company? Is it a temporary office provider? What exactly is WeWork and why is it so ridiculed?I first became aware of WeWork in October 2017 when it announced it was buying Lord & Taylor's flagship location in New York City for $850 million. At first, Hudson's Bay (OTCMKTS:HBAYF), Lord & Taylor's parent, was going to keep 150,000 of the iconic department store's 676,000 square feet of space, with WeWork using the rest for office rentals.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsUltimately, Hudson's Bay decided to abandon its plans to maintain a store on Fifth Avenue. The decision gave WeWork even more space to rent out. Flash forward to August 2019 and Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) is contemplating renting the entire 12 floors from WeWork. In negotiations with the soon-to-be public company, Amazon might also rent just a portion of the building, opting to find additional space elsewhere. * The 10 Best Marijuana Stocks to Buy Now Whatever happens, WeWork could use a little positive PR. With or without Amazon, the WeWork IPO is going to be a stinker. Here are seven reasons why. WeWork Loses a Lot of MoneySource: Shutterstock In the past three years, WeWork has lost $2.9 billion on $3.1 billion in revenue. That means for every dollar of sales; it loses 94 cents. That's hardly a pathway to profitability or a good sign for the WeWork IPO. What's worse is the fact that over these three years, WeWork's location operating expenses have increased by 251% from $433.2 million in 2016 to $1.8 billion in 2018. What are location operating expenses?"'Location operating expenses' are our largest category of expenses and represent the costs associated with servicing members at our locations. These expenses consist primarily of lease costs (including non-cash GAAP straight-line lease cost), core operating expenses (such as utilities and internet), expenses associated with ongoing repairs and maintenance and the costs of supporting a dynamic community in our locations," states its S-1. Think of it as the company's cost of goods sold. In fiscal 2018, it had a gross margin of just 16.5%. By comparison, Uber (NYSE:UBER) had a gross margin of 45% in its latest quarter ended June 30. Some analysts believe Uber may never make money, which means WeWork has got its work cut out for it. The WeWork IPO Already Has a Nosebleed ValuationSource: Shutterstock WeWork got its start in early 2010, opening its first location at 154 Grand Street in New York City. Since then, it's added 527 locations in 110 cities and 28 countries, making it a global business in just nine years. In 2009, thanks to its Series A funding, WeWork had a valuation of $97 million before it ever opened its doors. Two years later, after getting Series C funding, it was worth $4.8 billion. In January 2019, WeWork received $6 billion from Japan's SoftBank Group (OTCMKTS:SFTBF), which upped the valuation to $47 billion or 26 times sales. What stock can you buy for a lower P/S ratio? How about Amazon for just 3.6 times sales. And it's got $22 billion in free cash flow over the trailing 12 months. In contrast, WeWork had a negative free cash flow of $1.1 billion in the six months ended June 30.Who knew that Amazon could appear downright cheap next to WeWork? Heck, you can get Uber for just 4.8 times sales. And the WeWork IPO is expected to raise about $3.5 billion more. * 10 Undervalued Stocks With Breakout Potential On the valuation alone, investors should avoid the WeWork IPO. Adam Neumann Better Not Get Hit By a BusSource: Bjorn Bakstad / Shutterstock.com WeWork's S-1 mentions the word "Adam" 169 times amongst its 220 pages of text. That's CEO and co-founder Adam Neumann. By comparison, there are only 20 examples of "Rebekah," Neumann's wife and co-founder. Neumann is tied at the hip to WeWork. Without him, it appears there would be no company. The Financial Times has done an excellent job in its observations of the WeWork S-1, especially those that relate to Neumann personally. For one, Neumann has a line of credit for $500 million with three banks, all of whom are connected to the WeWork IPO. Of the line of credit, Neumann's drawn on $380 million of it. Some of his WeWork shares secure the line of credit. Also, J.P. Morgan (NYSE:JPM), who are up to their eyeballs involved in WeWork, have lent Neumann $98 million and $800 million in loans for the company as part of a $6 billion loan package to keep WeWork growing.If Neumann gets hit by a bus, Jamie Dimon's going to have a cow. After all, without the Neumann family involvement, WeWork's merely a company renting office space. The WeWork IPO Has a Three-Class Share StructureSource: Shutterstock Investors concerned about corporate governance will not like WeWork's share structure. You've heard of dual-class share structures. Those evil share structures that give a founder complete control over a multi-billion-dollar business without actually owning 51% of the equity. Well, WeWork comes to the IPO table with a three-class share structure. Those buying stock in the IPO will get Class A common stock that comes with one vote per share. WeWork's existing shareholders will come to the IPO with Class A, Class B, and Class C stock. The Class B and C come with 20 votes per share. Adam Neumann has 2.4 million Class A shares, 112.5 million Class B, and 1.1 million Class C shares. By comparison, SoftBank has 114 million Class A shares. This means that even though it has about the same equity as Neumann, the CEO will have 20 times the votes, easily controlling the business. Worse still, the IPO investors are getting shares in a holding company rather than directly in We Company MC LLC, which means they have to share the profits with Neumann and other early investors. According to Fortune, this means that Neumann will pay individual income tax rates on profits while IPO investors will pay U.S. corporate taxes plus personal taxes on dividends. "This is another move that enriches insiders," said Matthew Kennedy, Senior IPO Market Strategist at Renaissance Capital. "Up-C creates a tax shield, and insiders are taking that benefit for themselves. So the cash savings that the company would have had are gone, and We Co. will, therefore, be making higher payments to the IRS." * 10 Mid-Cap Dividend Stocks to Buy Now So, not only does Neumann get control by the unusual share structure, but he also benefits more than the WeWork IPO investors dumb enough to buy shares. Softbank Owns a Chunk of WeworkSource: Ned Snowman / Shutterstock.com The tech industry loves to throw out the name SoftBank whenever innovation and disruption is the subject of the day. If you don't know who SoftBank is, it's the people behind Sprint (NYSE:S), the wireless company so poorly run that it's been forced to merge with T-Mobile (NASDAQ:TMUS) to survive. Despite the FCC Chair's thumbs up for the merger, it still might not get the go-ahead. Money Week's John Stepek recently had some choice words for both SoftBank and WeWork. It's worth a read. "My view -- and it is just a view, and I realise I've been keen to call the "IPO at the top" of this cycle -- is that if WeWork manages to list, then there's a very good chance that we really have reached the top and that a bear market will begin shortly afterwards," Stepek wrote August 19. Stepek views SoftBank as the anti-Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.A, NYSE:BRK.B), a telecom company that's turned itself into a venture capital company that will also lend money to its employees to invest in its startup businesses like WeWork. SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son lost a big chunk of his fortune in the dot.com crash in 2000. If not for a big bet on Alibaba (NYSE:BABA), he might not still be one of Japan's wealthiest persons. With a significant investment in WeWork, Son better hope 2000 doesn't repeat itself, because if it does, he'll be in the dustbin of history once more. WeWork Is Stuck in Expensive Lease AgreementsSource: Shutterstock The company's lease payment obligations were $47.2 billion at the end of June, 39% higher than at the end of 2018. If you invest in retail companies, you're probably familiar with these obligations. They're not quite long-term debt but liabilities nonetheless. While the obligations represent potential future revenue as WeWork adds individual and corporate members interested in accessing its office space, the members have the ability to up and leave while the company remains on the hook for the entire leased space. That's a fixed cost that it can't escape while its membership revenues are variable. "That mismatch can be deadly in a recession," Renaissance Capital's Kathleen Smith said recently. "It means the company has got to be able to pay the lease costs. If for some reason there's price pressure, lack of renewals, cancellations and they have a time where they're not leasing out their space, that could be a very huge risk in a recession." * The 10 Best Marijuana Stocks to Buy Now Considering some believe a recession could come as early as 2020, this is a considerable risk to WeWork's future valuation. WeWork Can't Get Its Own Name StraightSource: Shutterstock WeWork changed its name in January to The We Company so that it could expand beyond its role of renting commercial office space. It wants to become the center of its members' universe.In addition to WeWork, The We Company provides other offerings including WeGrow (schools), WeLive (hotels and apartments), Meetup (connecting people with shared interests online to meet offline), Flatiron School (online software programming classes), Conductor (marketing services software company), and Managed by Q (office management). I don't think anyone will argue that creating a holding company makes sense given all the different pies it's got itself into. However, it made its name as WeWork. It ought to retain that name.The We Company makes far less sense than something like WeWork Enterprises. Then again, the WeWork IPO makes little sense, so changing its name to The We Company is par for the course. At the time of this writing Will Ashworth did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Marijuana Stocks to Ride High on the Farm Bill * 8 Biotech Stocks to Watch After the Q2 Earnings Season * 7 Unusual, Growth-Oriented REITs to Buy for Your Portfolio The post 7 Reasons the WeWork IPO Will Be a Stinker appeared first on InvestorPlace.
It's August 2019, and we are on the eve of a streaming TV gold rush that will forever change the global entertainment landscape.To be sure, the linear to internet TV shift has been playing out for the past decade. But, from essentially 2010 to 2019, there have really only been three viable streaming TV services -- Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) Prime Video, and Hulu -- all of which cost a very cheap ~$10 per month.As such, contrary to what the headlines will lead you to believe, cord-cutters have been the exception. Most households in the U.S. have a Netflix subscription. Most households also still pay for cable TV. In other words, the consumption shift from linear to internet TV in the 2010's has been defined largely by consumers bundling pay TV packages and streaming services together -- not by wholesale cord-cutting.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsThat's about to change in 2020. A plethora of new streaming TV services are going to launch in late 2019 and 2020. Most of these streaming TV services project to be really good. Pretty much all of them will feature exclusive content.The introduction of these new services will truly kick-start the cord-cutting trend. By 2025, I don't think many households in the U.S. will be paying for cable TV. Instead, I think most households will bundle together several streaming packages at a cost that's similar to what they paid for cable, but with a lot more content and enhanced convenience. Deloitte agrees, saying that as early by the end of 2020, 20% of adults in developed economies will be paying for 10 digital media subscription services. * 10 Marijuana Stocks That Could See 100% Gains, If Not More What's the investment implication here? Buy streaming TV stocks. The streaming TV gold rush that will play out in the 2020's will create a rising tide that will lift most boats in this segment. Streaming TV Stocks to Buy: Netflix (NFLX)Source: Riccosta / Shutterstock.com Streaming Service(s): NetflixIndustry pioneer and leader Netflix is widely seen as a big loser with the oncoming onslaught of competitive streaming TV services from the rest of the media industry.But, this fear seems overstated to me. Netflix will be just fine. As mentioned earlier, the norm by 2025 will be multiple streaming TV subscriptions per household. Probably somewhere around four to five. An over-the-top complete TV package like YouTube TV or AT&T TV will likely be one of them, since consumers still have huge demand for live TV. That leaves three to four open spots. So, when all is said and done, all Netflix needs to be is a top three to four streaming service.Netflix will inevitably be that. The core value prop of Netflix is the original content. Original content streaming hours as a percent of total streaming hours on Netflix has risen from 14% in January 2017, to 24% in October 2017 to 37% in October 2018. Bears will say that the bulk of viewing hours are still allocated for licensed content. I'd argue that the trend implies that by the time Netflix loses its licensed content (2020/21), the percent of viewing hours dedicated to original content will be north of 50%.Thus, contrary to what the bears will have you believe, the original content strategy is working here. Netflix subscribers are watching more and more Netflix originals, and they are liking them, too (a hefty portion of Netflix originals score really well on IMDb). This strategy will continue to work for the foreseeable future. Netflix has huge data and resource advantages. They have more viewership data than anyone else in this space, and they also spend more money on content than anyone else.Net net, Netflix will be just fine in the wake of intensified streaming TV competition. The platform will continue to add subs at a record rate during the streaming TV gold rush of the early 2020's, and NFLX stock will march higher. Disney (DIS)Source: ilikeyellow / Shutterstock.com Streaming Service(s): Disney+ (launching November 2019), ESPN+ and HuluPerhaps the one company that investors and consumers are most excited about with regards to its streaming TV market entry is global media giant Disney (NYSE:DIS).Streaming TV isn't brand new for Disney. The company launched EPSN+, a streaming extension of ESPN, in 2018. The company has also long held a stake in streaming platform Hulu, and now owns the entire service. But, those two services pale in comparison to the forthcoming launch of Disney's branded streaming service and true competitor to Netflix -- Disney+.Disney+ will do really well. As stated in the Netflix segment, all Disney+ has to be is a top three to four streaming service to be successful at scale. That means all Disney+ needs is to have a top three to four content library in the streaming TV world. The platform will inevitably have that, given that Disney owns a treasure chest of content dating back several decades and that the company consistently dominates the box office every single year.Further, Disney is offering a package that bundles Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu together. That package should do very well, because it checks off every entertainment type -- great movies with Disney+, live sports with ESPN+ and great shows with Hulu. * 11 Stocks Under $10 to Buy Now Net net, Disney's streaming TV push over the next several years will yield hugely positive results, led by Disney+ turning into one of the biggest streaming TV services in the world. As this happens, DIS stock will naturally rally as cord-cutting headwinds become old news and as profits start marching higher with a consistently robust pace. Apple (AAPL)Source: Shutterstock Streaming Service(s): Apple TV+ (launching November 2019)Another company which both investors and consumers are excited about with regards to its streaming TV market entry in late 2019 is Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL).The big story at Apple is pretty simple. Over a decade ago, the genius known as Steve Jobs came up with the iPhone. That small gadget changed the world. Ever since, Apple has sold a ton of iPhones to a ton of consumers everywhere and Apple's revenues, profits and market cap have exploded higher.But, the hardware growth narrative has largely run its course. That is, pretty much everyone who wants a smartphone, already has a smartphone. Thus, Apple is looking for alternative revenue streams to sustain growth in the absence of robust hardware growth.The biggest of these alternative revenue streams? Software. Specifically, because Apple has sold so many iPhones over the past decade-plus, the company has a huge opportunity to monetize the world's largest hardware install base through various subscription software services like a streaming music service, a curated news service, a cloud storage service so on and so forth.The most promising of these services? A streaming TV service dubbed Apple TV+, which is set to launch in November 2019.The big question marks for Apple TV+ revolve around content. Apple hasn't ever produced TV shows or movies before. But, the company has a ton of cash it can spend to attract top talent, and top talent usually makes strong content that consumers are willing to pay for.Thus, given Apple's huge resources, Apple TV+ does project as a top three to four streaming TV service at scale, meaning that Apple TV+ could be set to add tens of millions of subs over the next few years. If so, that software revenue growth bump will provide a lift to AAPL stock. AT&T (T)Source: Lester Balajadia / Shutterstock.com Streaming Service(s): AT&T TV, DirectTV Now and HBO Max (Spring 2020)The dark horse in the streaming TV gold rush is telecom and media giant AT&T (NYSE:T). But, because AT&T's streaming TV potential is presently so understated, I actually think AT&T stock could be one of the biggest winners in the streaming TV gold rush of the early 2020's.The idea here is simple. AT&T -- much like Disney -- has struggled with cord-cutting for the past several years. Those headwinds have kept a lid on AT&T stock. Also much like Disney, AT&T is attempting to remedy those headwinds with a forthcoming big push into the streaming TV arena. AT&T is set to launch both AT&T TV (an over-the-top TV package that is basically cable, but cheaper and in the streaming format) and HBO Max (an HBO-focused streaming service with additional WarnerMedia content) soon.Unlike Disney stock, though, AT&T stock has not benefited from a major uptick over the past few quarters in anticipation of this streaming TV push. This disconnect is an opportunity.Both AT&T TV and HBO Max will be huge. As more streaming services rush to the forefront, consumers will increasingly look to cut the cord. But, they will still want to watch live TV. AT&T TV will allow them to do that, at a fraction of the cost of cable. Thus, AT&T TV will become the de-facto live TV replacement in the streaming world.At the same time, HBO Max is equipped with enough content firepower from HBO and WarnerMedia to compete pound-for-pound with industry heavyweights Netflix, Amazon and Disney. * 7 Stocks the Insiders Are Buying on Sale In total, then, AT&T's streaming TV push over the next few years could be tremendously successfully. Tremendous success on the streaming TV front isn't priced into dirt-cheap AT&T stock today. As such, the potential upside in AT&T stock from the streaming TV gold rush is quite compelling. Roku (ROKU)Source: jejim / Shutterstock.com Streaming Service(s): All of them.When it comes to the streaming TV gold rush, perhaps the best way to play the trend is to buy shares of streaming device maker and service aggregator Roku (NASDAQ:ROKU).Plain and simple -- Roku is becoming the cable box of the streaming TV world. That is, the streaming TV world in 2025 will look a lot like the linear TV world of 2015. There will be a whole bunch of streaming services (which are basically just different "channels"). There will also be a ton of consumers trying to access those streaming services. Thus, there will be an increasing need for someone to step in and act like a cable box -- connecting all that demand to all the supply in seamless manner.Roku does that. They also do it better than anyone else for several reasons. First, they are content neutral, so every service can be accessed without friction and bias. Second, they have the most intuitive UI, which consumers broadly understand and love. Third, they dominate the smart TV market, with one out of every three smart TVs in the U.S. last quarter being a Roku TV. Fourth, their separate set-boxes are dirt cheap.Given these factors, Roku is not just the cable box of the streaming TV world today. But, they project to remain the cable box of the streaming TV world for a lot longer, too. As such, this platform will grow with the entire streaming TV industry for the next several years. All that growth will inevitably push ROKU stock higher in the long run.As of this writing, Luke Lango was long NFLX, AMZN, DIS, T and ROKU. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Marijuana Stocks to Ride High on the Farm Bill * 8 Biotech Stocks to Watch After the Q2 Earnings Season * 7 Unusual, Growth-Oriented REITs to Buy for Your Portfolio The post 5 Streaming Stocks to Buy for the TV Streaming Gold Rush appeared first on InvestorPlace.
The DOJ's antitrust chief said he was working with several state attorneys general to investigate alleged anti-competitive behavior of big tech companies.
Aug.21 -- Amazon.com Inc. today opened its largest campus building globally in the south Indian city of Hyderabad as it prepares for a furious expansion and battle with nemesis Walmart Inc. in one of the world’s fastest-growing retail markets. Bloomberg's Brad Stone has more on "Bloomberg Technology."