|Day's Range||0.0500 - 0.0500|
(SOUNDBITE) (English) DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ELIZABETH WARREN SAYING: "To make real change in Washington, we have got to beat back the corruption in Washington. We have got to beat back the influence of money." Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren campaigning in the key swing state of Iowa on Sunday took a swipe at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, after Facebook ran a political ad which falsely accused former Vice President Joe Biden of blackmailing Ukrainian officials to stop an investigation of his son. (SOUNDBITE) (English) DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ELIZABETH WARREN SAYING: "And when Mark Zuckerberg doesn't like it, too bad for Mark Zuckerberg." Last week, the Biden campaign sent a letter to Facebook arguing the ad should be taken down. While the Trump campaign has been pushing out ads with similar false accusations in recent weeks... the video in question was released by an independent political action committee, or super PAC...called 'the Committee to Defend the President.' Biden's campaign pointed out that although Facebook has a policy of allowing all political leaders a platform, the ad by the super PAC was not from a politician but an organization...and so it should have been rejected. Zuckerberg last week defended the social media company's stance on free speech, whether true or false. (SOUNDBITE) (English) FACEBOOK CEO, MARK ZUCKERBERG, SAYING: "I don't think it's right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy." The Facebook controversy flared up after a leaked audio recording was published by The Verge where Zuckerberg was critical of Warren's views on tech. (SOUNDBITE) (English) FACEBOOK CEO, MARK ZUCKERBERG, SAYING: "If she (Warren) gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don't want to have a major lawsuit against our own government." In March, Warren called for breaking up Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet,
The Biden campaign going after Facebook once again... this time for running a video ad which falsely accused the former Vice President of blackmailing Ukrainian officials to stop an investigation of his son. On Thursday the Biden campaign sent a letter to Facebook, viewed by the New York Times, arguing the ad should be taken down. While the Trump campaign has been pushing out ads with similar false accusations in recent weeks... the video in question was released by an independent political action committee, or super PAC...called 'the Committee to Defend the President.' Biden's campaign pointed out that although Facebook has a policy of allowing all political leaders platform, the ad by the super PAC was not from a politician but an organization...and so it should have been rejected. The letter came on the same day that Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg delivered a speech in Washington defending his company's approach to political ads, arguing that even falsehoods from a politician were important for public discourse. (SOUNDBITE)(ENGLISH) FACEBOOK CEO, MARK ZUCKERBERG, SAYING: "I don't think its right for a private company to censor politicians or the news in a democracy." Zuckerberg faced swift backlash to the speech- especially from Senator Elizabeth Warren who tweeted: "Once again, we're seeing Facebook throw its hands up to battling misinformation in the political discourse, because when profit comes up against protecting democracy, Facebook chooses profit." After the Biden campaign's letter- The Times reported that a Facebook executive confirmed that the ad was taken down. And if it ran again it would be submitted to fact-checking.
An all-star team of former NBA players and tech entrepreneurs have developed an app that is the equivalent of Airbnb for pick-up basketball games.
(Bloomberg) -- The head of Facebook Inc.’s Libra project said that it could use cryptocurrencies based on national currencies like the dollar, rather than the synthetic one it initially proposed, Reuters reported.David Marcus, who oversees the Libra initiative for Facebook, told a banking seminar hosted by the Group of 30 in Washington that Facebook is open to looking at alternative approaches for the currency token it uses.“We could do it differently,” he said. “Instead of having a synthetic unit...we could have a series of stablecoins: a dollar stablecoin, a euro stablecoin, a sterling pound stablecoin, etc.”Marcus said the currency-pegged stablecoins aren’t Libra’s preferred option. He said the project is still aiming for a June 2020 launch.“We’ve always said that we wouldn’t go forward unless we have addressed all legitimate concerns and get proper regulatory approval,” Marcus told Reuters. “So it’s not entirely up to us.”Facebook has faced growing skepticism about its digital currency project. Last week Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JP Morgan Chase & Co., called it “a neat idea that’ll never happen.”More: Libra Is ‘Neat Idea That’ll Never Happen,’ Dimon SaysTo contact the reporter on this story: Hailey Waller in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: James Ludden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Matthew G. Miller, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Facebook Inc , facing growing skepticism about its digital currency project Libra, on Sunday said the initiative could use cryptocurrencies based on national currencies such as the dollar, instead of the synthetic one it initially proposed. David Marcus, who heads the Libra project for Facebook, told a banking seminar the group's main goal remained to create a more efficient payments system, but it was open to looking at alternative approaches for the currency token it would use. "We could definitely approach this with having a multitude of stablecoins that represent national currencies in a tokenized digital form," he said.
Which stocks are ready to take off in 2020? This is the question growth investors constantly have on their minds. However, finding these stocks that are primed for explosive growth is no simple task.That’s where TipRanks comes in. Using the platform’s Stock Screener tool, I got access to market data that let me zero in on 3 stocks with strong long-term growth narratives.I’m putting these names at the top of my buy list based on their upside potential from the current share price. We’re talking 20% or more here. Not to mention each boasts a “Strong Buy” consensus rating, which is generated from all ratings assigned by Wall Street analysts over the last three months. Here are the 3 monster growth stocks poised to soar in 2020: L3Harris Technologies (LHX)L3Harris is a technology, defense and information services provider that designs C6ISR systems and products, wireless equipment and tactical radios. The company, which is a product of the Harris Corporation and L3 Technologies merger this past June, looks poised to deliver gains in 2020 on top of the 47% year-to-date growth it has already achieved.LHX has the advantage over other defense companies in that the merger has led to several synergies. For example, the combination of antennas from L3 and combined processing from Harris for avionics applications and the integration of Harris’ payloads on L3’s airborne platforms is expected to lead to an increase in revenue generation.4-star Morgan Stanley analyst Rajeev Lalwani also sees possible wins from the company's tactical radios that include Manpack, its electronics for F-35 and its electronic warfare for F-16 and F-18. All of this lends the analyst to his conclusion that LHX has “positioned itself as one of the better margin narratives in the industry”.Lalwani rates LHX stock a "buy" along with $259 price target. If everything goes as planned, LHX will soar about 30% over the next 12 months. (To watch Lalwani's track record, click here)“Given above-average potential around sales growth, margin expansion, FCF generation, and capital returns, alongside a leadership team that has previously executed, we see no reason why the legacy HRS premium valuation should not be retained has previously executed, we see no reason why the legacy HRS premium valuation should not be retained,” Lalwani added.The rest of the Street takes a similar approach when it comes to LHX. The defense stock sports a ‘Strong Buy’ analyst consensus and $238 average price target, indicating 20% upside potential. (See L3Harris stock analysis on TipRanks) Facebook (FB)Facebook has been a tear this year — with shares soaring 42% — and analysts say the gains may not be done yet.Ahead of its upcoming Q3 earnings release, the Street is standing firmly in Facebook’s corner with both Barclays and Deutsche Bank recently publishing bullish calls.Based on each firm’s channel checks, demand for Facebook ads remains healthy. According to Deutsche Bank’s Lloyd Walmsley, data indicates that there wasn’t any ad spend deceleration from the second quarter and that same client spending improved for FB.Adding to the good news, Walmsley sees gains in store thanks to Instagram Checkout as well as the company’s focus on monetizing Instagram influencers. Instagram Checkout lets users easily buy products they discover on the social media platform. Its growing number of partners and the addition of new features like alerts is expected to contribute to impressive top-line results in 2020.Walmsley rates FB stock a Buy along with $230 price target, which implies about 23% upside from current levels. (To watch Walmsley's track record, click here)Similarly, Barclays’ Ross Sandler likes what he’s seeing. “We get the sense that Facebook is starting to come out of the privacy and regulatory fog it has been in the past two years, and get back to a stronger innovation cycle. Management likely paints a scenario of steady deceleration and heavy investment for 2020, but we think Facebook may be the only mega-cap to see margin expansion and rapidly accelerating EPS growth next year,” the analyst explained.As a result, the 5 star analyst reiterated his Buy rating and $240 price target. He is confident in FB’s ability to surge 29% over the next twelve months. (To watch Sandler’s track record, click here)Overall, Wall Street is clearly bullish on FB. With 7 Buy ratings received from top analysts in just the last 25 days, it’s no wonder the stock has a ‘Strong Buy’ analyst consensus. In general, analysts see 28% upside potential for FB based on its $237 average price target. (See Facebook stock analysis on TipRanks) Atlassian (TEAM)Despite some recent shakiness, Atlassian stock is up over 30% year-to-date, and several Wall Street analysts believe it remains one of the strongest names in the software space.According to 5-star SunTrust analyst Joel Fishbein, the force behind popular software products like JIRA and Service Desk presents investors with an exciting growth opportunity thanks to upcoming catalysts. Specifically, TEAM’s partnership with Okta (OKTA) could drive significant growth. The collaboration will see Okta's authentication technology integrated into Atlassian's cloud products, allowing IT admins to automate provisioning. The analyst notes that this partnership as well as the enhancement of its cloud products through its Code Barrel acquisition could result in annual contract value (ACV) expansion.Fishbein believes that these positive catalysts and its solid past performance make it a stand-out. On October 17, TEAM reported that during its fiscal first quarter, it saw revenue gain 36% year-over-year and added more than 7,000 new net customers.“Atlassian’s low touch sales and marketing, viral product adoption, focus on R&D and product innovation, and highly profitable model sets them apart in a crowded field,” the top analyst commented. This prompted him to rate the stock a Buy along with $162 price target, which implies about 40% upside potential. (To watch Fishbein’s track record, click here)The rest of the Street echoes the analyst’s sentiment. 8 Buy ratings and 2 Holds received in the last three months add up to a ‘Strong Buy’ analyst consensus. Additionally, its $153 average price target puts the upside potential at 31%. (See Atlassian stock analysis on TipRanks)
With the S&P 500 suffering an earnings recession for the first time since 2017, a few big names deserve most of the blame.
The international reputation of large American tech firms can impact how the global community perceives the U.S., says a former top national security official under Barack Obama.
While the hearing is focused on Facebook's Libra project, the congressional grilling could also extend to Facebook's acquisitions, antitrust concerns and posture on free speech.
Companies including Facebook and Twitter committed in May to take "transparent, specific measures" to prevent the amplification of violent content, after the killing of 51 people in Christchurch, New Zealand was livestreamed on Facebook. Releasing the data would provide an indication of the impact of the new policies.
The WSJ, which first reported about the deal, said news publications Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, and Business Insider have also reached a similar deal with Facebook. The news organizations will be paid a licensing fee to supply headlines, the WSJ reported.
Facebook critics, from Donald Trump to Democratic presidential nominee candidate Elizabeth Warren, are rushing to the platform to promote their campaigns.
Facebook's Libra digital currency project is "a neat idea that will never happen," JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said on Friday, adding to skepticism about the project that has faced criticism from policymakers and some regulators. Dimon, who made the comments at an event in Washington hosted by the Institute of International Finance, did not elaborate on why he believed Libra was a non-starter.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. lawmakers from both parties slammed Apple Inc. and Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook on Friday for “censorship of apps” at the “behest of the Chinese government.”Senators Ted Cruz, Ron Wyden, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mike Gallagher and Tom Malinowski expressed concern about the removal of an app that let Hong Kong protesters track police movement in the city.“Apple’s decisions last week to accommodate the Chinese government by taking down HKmaps is deeply concerning,” they wrote in a letter to Cook, urging Apple to “reverse course, to demonstrate that Apple puts values above market access, and to stand with the brave men and women fighting for basic rights and dignity in Hong Kong.” Apple didn’t respond to a request for comment on Friday.Apple removed the HKmap.live app from the App Store in China and Hong Hong earlier this month, saying it violated local laws. The company also said it received “credible information” from Hong Kong authorities indicating the software was being used “maliciously” to attack police. The decision, and the reasoning, was questioned widely.Cook, in a recent memo to Apple employees, said that “national and international debates will outlive us all, and, while important, they do not govern the facts.” On Thursday, the CEO met with China’s State Administration for Market Regulation head Xiao Yaqing in Beijing to discuss consumer-rights protection, boosting investment and business development in the country, according to a statement from the Chinese regulator.The Cupertino, California-based company isn’t the only one referenced in Friday’s letter. The lawmakers mentioned recent headlines involving the National Basketball Association and Activision Blizzard Inc., a video game company that suspended a professional game player for supporting the Hong Kong protests.“Cases like these raise real concern about whether Apple and other large U.S. corporate entities will bow to growing Chinese demands rather than lose access to more than a billion Chinese consumers,” the lawmakers wrote.They also slammed Apple for removing other apps, including VPN apps that helped Chinese people get around the government’s online censorship. The letter said Apple has “censored” at least 2,200 apps in China, citing data from non-profit organization GreatFire. Apple says on its website that it removed 634 apps in the second half of last year globally due to legal violations.The letter implied that Apple made the removal decisions to maintain its huge business in China and appease the government. Greater China was Apple’s third-largest region by revenue last year, generating more than $50 billion in revenue.Apple is one of the rare tech companies that operates in China, with rivals like Google and Facebook Inc. hardly operational in the market. China’s importance to Apple means the company has to balance its own values with following local laws.In the past, the company has pulled the Skype and New York Times apps from its App Store in China. More recently, it removed a Taiwanese flag emoji for users in Hong Kong and Macau and was criticized for sending some browsing data to China’s Tencent Holdings Ltd. as part of a privacy feature.To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at email@example.com;Ben Brody in Washington, D.C. at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at email@example.com, Alistair Barr, Robin AjelloFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Chinese-owned video-sharing app TikTok, which has exploded in popularity globally, has recently come under fire for censoring content that Beijing deems unacceptable.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The New Yorker and the Atlantic have never been known for their business coverage, so when both magazines published long articles about Amazon.com Inc. in their current issues it signaled that something is in the air. That something is antitrust.More precisely, what’s in the air is the question of what the government should do to rein in the tremendous power of the big four tech companies: Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc. and Amazon.Once the province of think tanks and law reviews, this topic has become such a public concern that 48 of the 50 state attorneys general are conducting antitrust investigations, presidential hopefuls are calling for tech giants to be broken up, and general interest magazines like, well, the New Yorker and the Atlantic are asking whether the companies abuse their market power. In this particular case, the magazines are asking it about Amazon.The Atlantic article is by Franklin Foer, who has long raised concerns about Big Tech. Five years ago, for instance, he wrote a cover story for the New Republic titled “Amazon Must Be Stopped.” It focused on Amazon’s dominance over the book business.This time around, he is writing about the unbridled ambition of Amazon’s founder and chief executive officer Jeff Bezos. (The new article is “Jeff Bezos’s Master Plan.”) “Bezos’s ventures are by now so large and varied that it is difficult to truly comprehend the nature of his empire, much less the end point of his ambitions,” Foer writes. He then goes through a list. Bezos wants to conquer space with his company Blue Origin. Bezos’s ownership of the Washington Post makes him a significant media and political figure. Bezos’s brainchild, Amazon, “is the most awe-inspiring creation in the history of American business.” And so on.He also points out that while critics fear Amazon’s monopoly power, the company is loved by consumers. “A 2018 poll sponsored by Georgetown University and the Knight Foundation found that Amazon engendered greater confidence than virtually any other American institution,” he writes. I have no doubt that this is true; Amazon’s obsession with customer service instills tremendous loyalty among consumers. It’s no accident that over 100 million people now pay the company $119 a year to be Amazon Prime members. That loyalty is also one reason taking antitrust actions against Amazon would be much more difficult than going after Facebook or Google. I’ll get to some other reasons shortly.Charles Duhigg’s New Yorker article “Is Amazon Unstoppable?” is both smarter about Amazon and more pointed about its power. Duhigg captures its relentless culture, comparing it to a flywheel that never stops. He described Bezos’s efforts to ensure that Amazon never loses the feel of a scrappy startup. The phrase that came to mind as I was reading Duhigg’s article was Andy Grove’s famous dictum: “Only the paranoid survive.”Duhigg is also interested in what Amazon’s critics have to say. Amazon paid no federal taxes last year. Amazon's work culture can be difficult for women who have children. Amazon’s warehouse workers are sometimes fired after being injured on the job. Amazon doesn't effectively police the sale of counterfeit goods on its site. (In the article, Amazon’s representatives deny these allegations.)Then there’s the fact that Amazon both serves as a platform for companies wanting to sell things and sells things itself. In other words, it competes with the same companies it enables. According to Duhigg, Amazon has been known to track items that do well, and then make its own version of the same item — which it then sells at a discounted price. (Amazon denies this, too.) Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s commissioner for competition, told Duhigg that the practice “deserves much more scrutiny.”The story’s killer anecdote, at least as it concerns antitrust, is about Birkenstock USA LP’s experience with Amazon. Although Birkenstock sold millions of dollars of shoes using the Amazon platform, it was constantly hearing customer complaints that the shoes were defective. Why? Because, according to Birkenstock, Amazon allowed counterfeits to be sold on the site. Not only would Amazon not take down the counterfeit goods, but it also wouldn’t even tell Birkenstock who was selling them.Amazon also had stocked a year’s worth of Birkenstock inventory, which terrified the company. “What if Amazon decides to start selling the shoes for 99 cents, or to give them away with Prime membership, or do a buy-one-get-one-free,” wondered Birkenstock’s chief executive officer, David Kahan. “We were powerless.”Kahan’s complaints went nowhere. So he pulled Birkenstocks off Amazon. What did Amazon do? It solicited Birkenstock retailers, offering to buy shoes directly from them. Today, if you search for Birkenstocks on Amazon you’ll be deluged with choices even though the company itself refuses to do business with Amazon. I found a pair of Arizona oiled leather sandals — listed on Birkenstock's website for $135 — marked down to $60 on Amazon. Is it the real thing, or is it a counterfeit?The hard question: What do you do about this kind of behavior? On one extreme is the Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren, who believes the most appropriate solution is to break up Amazon. At the other end of the spectrum, there are still plenty of antitrust economists who believe that if a $135 sandal is being sold for $60, that’s good for consumers. They argue that the government should just stay out of the way.I’m a proponent of breaking up Facebook, mainly because I believe if you force it to disgorge two of its prized platforms, Instagram and WhatsApp, you’ll instantly create serious competitors. That could help raise the bar on privacy, data usage and other concerns. But I’m not sure that would work with Amazon.For instance, if Amazon had to separate its highly profitable cloud service, Amazon Web Services, from its retail business the power dynamic between Amazon and the companies that use its platform would remain.What’s more, it’s harder to make a classic antitrust case against Amazon than it is against Facebook and Google. According to the research firm EMarketer Inc., Amazon is expected to account for 37.7% of all online commerce in 2019. By contrast, Google controls 89% of the search market.Still, for too many retailers, Amazon has the power to control their destiny, for good or ill. As the antitrust activist Lina Khan wrote in her now-famous 2017 article in the Yale Law Journal: “History suggests that allowing a single actor to set the terms of the marketplace, largely unchecked, can pose serious hazards.” I take that assessment to mean that government intervention at Amazon is needed.To my mind, the simplest and most sensible solution is from the economist Hal Singer: Don’t allow platform companies to favor their own products over competitors’ products. Singer calls this a “nondiscrimination regime,” and models it after the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which prevents cable distributors from favoring their own content over content from competitors. In that scenario, a company that felt it was being discriminated against by Amazon could bring a complaint to federal regulators just as cable stations can do now. This regime has worked well for the TV industry. It could work for Amazon, too.Secondly, the government should hold Amazon accountable for counterfeits. Counterfeiting is against the law, and although Amazon told Duhigg that it spends “hundreds of millions of dollars” on anti-counterfeiting efforts it’s no secret that many deceptively labeled goods are still sold on the site. (See, for instance, this recent Wall Street Journal story.) Companies like Birkenstock have a right to expect that a platform selling its products will rigorously police counterfeits — and will identify counterfeiters so manufacturers of authentic goods can take legal action.These are solvable problems. They don’t require extreme measures. What they do require is a government with the will to transform Amazon’s platform from what it is now, a vehicle that squelches competition, to one that lets competition flower.(Corrects paragraph eight to accurately describe the year in which Amazon paid no federal taxes and to more accurately describe the experiences of women with children who work for the company. Also changes language in paragraph eight to more accurately describe how effectively Amazon combats the sale of counterfeit goods on its site. Also corrects paragraphs 12 and 13 to accurately reflect pricing disparities between sandals sold on Birkenstock's website and those sold on Amazon.)To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
In the ever-evolving social media war, Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and FB stock stand out to me as the true winners. Sure, Facebook's year-to-date haul of nearly 40% doesn't hold a candle to Snap's (NYSE:SNAP) startlingly brilliant 137% rally. And of course Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) receives free marketing from the highest office of the land.Source: Wachiwit / Shutterstock.com Yet comprehensively, no one beats out the social media network that Mark Zuckerberg built. First, we can talk about the company's 2.4 billion monthly active users. To put this figure into perspective, that's over 31% of the world's population, which stands around 7.7 billion. It's no hyperbole to say that buying Facebook stock is buying a share of the world.More critical for FB stock is the social media king's demographic distribution. Unlike other rivals like Snap, which caters to a very young audience, FB features considerably more balance. For instance, in a Pew Research Center study in 2015, 82% of internet users aged 18 to 29 also used Facebook. For internet users aged 30 to 49, this allocation only slipped to 79%.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsImpressively, a whopping 64% of internet users aged between 50 to 64 use Facebook. And for the 65-plus crowd, the distribution is still a remarkably high 48%. * The 7 Best Penny Stocks to Buy Thus underlines the core bullish thesis of Facebook stock: social media is all about people. And the more people you have, the more relevant your platform is. Moreover, relevancy has a direct correlation with attracting advertisers.Because of this comprehensive dominance of FB stock in the metrics that matter, it's difficult to imagine anyone rivaling it. That said, a relatively new phenomenon should give some shareholders pause. Is It TikTok for FB Stock?A few days ago, CNBC ran a report that TikTok was aggressively poaching Facebook employees. Being that I'm ridiculously old and irrelevant, my first thought was, why is Kesha stealing Facebook employees? Later, I realized that TikTok - a subsidiary of Chinese parent-company ByteDance - represented the latest phenomenon in social media.After reading about TikTok, I'm still not 100% sure what it is, so forgive this brief and potentially inaccurate summary. But from my understanding, it's an app designed for budding singers, musicians, and entertainers. Ranging from amateurs to those with real talent, these active users - called "Musers" - submit videos showcasing their skills.As Alphabet's (NASDAQ:GOOG, NASDAQ:GOOGL) YouTube platform demonstrates, real demand exists for such platforms. I've seen countless videos of amateur musicians play covers of famous songs, as well as original material. Admittedly, many of these contributors are very good.And for the lucky few who turn heads on TikTok, they can achieve both social media fame and a record deal. Thus, it's a great gig for talent agents, where potential stars come to them. For everyone else, I'm assuming at the least it's a fun way to blow off some steam.While TikTok doesn't have the North American numbers - it has about 26.5 million MAUs in the U.S. - it has 500 million MAUs altogether. Unsurprisingly, a majority of this tally comes from Asia.Plus, the biggest threat to Facebook stock is that TikTok resonates with young people - the audience Facebook bought out Instagram to capture. In fact, TikTok is the number one most-downloaded app for Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) iPhones. Overall, the company has over one billion downloads.The fact that the company is setting up shop in Mountain View, California is surely no coincidence. But should investors panic on FB stock? Stay the Course with Facebook StockAlthough the TikTok phenomenon is one to be respected, I don't think people should read too much into it. While the parent company is poaching Facebook employees, I view this more as personal opportunism: the rewards are potentially greater for cashing out on a brilliant upstart rather than a long-established name.Furthermore, the biggest weakness I see for TikTok - aside from demographic imbalance - is functional limitations. Primarily, the consumer driver here is a platform for budding professional entertainers. Surely, that appeals to many people - just watch "American Idol," for instance. But I just don't see this as a sustainable, long-term platform.With Facebook, what you do is only limited by your imagination. You can market your business, reach out to potential employers, or look for a long-lost friend. There is no underlying pressure to do anything more than what you want. That, among many other attributes, makes Facebook practical for almost everyone. And this is why you shouldn't worry about FB stock.As of this writing, Josh Enomoto did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * The 7 Best Penny Stocks to Buy * 7 Bank Stocks to Avoid Now at All Costs * The 10 Best Mutual Funds for Your 401k The post TikTok Is Just Noise for Facebook Stock appeared first on InvestorPlace.
A finance professor made a startling discovery about the stock market: Over a 90-year span, 96% of all stocks collectively performed no better than risk-free 1-month Treasury bills. After analyzing the lifetime returns of 25,967 common stocks, Hendrik Bessembinder determined that just 1,092 of those stocks -- or about 4% of the total -- generated all of the $34.8 trillion in wealth created for shareholders by the stock market between July 1926 and December 2016. Even more striking, a mere 50 stocks accounted for well over one-third (39.3%) of that amount.But before we get to our profiles of the 50 best-performing stocks of all time, many of which are (or were) components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a word of caution. Accurately identifying the precious few "home run" stocks amid the many thousands of underachieving names is extremely difficult. It might be impossible. Your portfolio is more likely to suffer because you guessed wrong and failed to invest in the top long-term winners, says Bessembinder of Arizona State University's W. P. Carey School of Business.A better alternative to trying to find a needle in a haystack? To paraphrase Jack Bogle, the Vanguard founder and pioneer of index investing: Just buy the haystack. "The results reinforce the importance of diversification," says Bessembinder, "and low-cost index funds are an excellent way to diversify broadly."Take a look at the 50 best stocks since 1926. SEE ALSO: 101 Best Dividend Stocks for 2019 and Beyond
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped nearly 200 points after Reuters reported that Boeing might have misled the FAA about safety features in its 737 MAX, causing the stock to tumble.
ECB Director Benoit Coeure said that the EU financial regulator doesn't plan to ban Libra. The European Commission doesn’t intend to ban stablecoins either.