|Day's Range||51.70 - 51.70|
Google released its latest models of the Google Pixel last week and it didn't take long for people to start comparing it to Apple's iPhone 11 series. Yahoo Finance's Brian Sozzi, Alexis Christoforous, and Dan Howley discuss the different smartphone models on The First Trade.
The Pixel 4 is an exciting device, serving as a showcase for what Google thinks Android can be. It packs excellent cameras (including a new zoom lens), and improved voice Assistant, motion sensing radar, and an upgraded screen. But look past those features and bugs, half-finished software, and disappointing battery life paint a more complicated picture.
The Google Pixel 4 has one of the best cameras around. But with limited storage and plenty of affordable Android alternatives, this phone and the Pixel 4 XL are just too expensive.
(Bloomberg) -- A top-performing global technology fund manager has raised bets on Samsung Electronics Co., making the stock the number one holding in his portfolio, ahead of Apple Inc. or Alphabet Inc.Hyunho Sohn, portfolio manager at FIL Investment Management whose Fidelity Global Technology fund runs about $4.8 billion of assets, said he has been adding positions in the world’s largest memory-chip maker since late 2018. He interpreted the sharp plunge in Samsung’s share price toward the end of that year as an opportunity, and he believes in the long-term growth of the tech giant.“If you ask me why I bought the stock, while the chip cycle was experiencing a downturn, I’d say I have faith in its fundamentals from a long-term perspective,” Sohn said in a telephone interview from London. “Samsung is a typical example of my strategy, which is buying an undervalued stock that the market participants hate temporarily.”Read about Bloomberg Intelligence’s take on the global chip sector hereHis fund, which holds about 60 global technology stocks, has beaten 98% of its peers with an annualized return of about 20% over the past five years, according to Bloomberg-compiled data. The fund’s top five holdings also include Alphabet, Apple, Intel Corp., and Microsoft Corp.The potential growth in demand for memory chips is apparent in the growing needs of cloud storage and service providers alongside the artificial intelligence industry that needs data storage, he said. Compared with global tech stocks, valuations of Samsung are “still attractive,” he added.Read more: Samsung’s Stock Is Signaling a Bottom for the Global Chip MarketAlthough Samsung’s forward price-to-earnings ratio of 12.6 times is not cheap compared with its historical average, it still lags Micron Technology Inc.’s 14.7 times and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company’s 18.6. On forward price-to-book terms, Samsung is trading at 1.2 times, lower than almost all of its peers.Shares of Samsung have risen about 30% this year as overseas investors bought net 4.3 trillion won ($3.6 billion) of shares, the most sought-after stock on Korea’s KOSPI benchmark this year.Read more: TSMC’s $15 Billion Splurge Galvanizes Hope of 5G-Led ReboundTo be sure, it’s not all rosy for the memory chip sector. Micron, the third-largest player in the industry, released disappointing sales forecasts last month. And Samsung’s third-quarter preliminary earnings guidance announced earlier this month is less than half of its operating profits a year earlier. Chip prices have also been mixed. Contract prices for 32-gigabyte DRAM server modules fell 13.8% in the third quarter from the previous three-month period, while those for 128-gigabit MLC NAND flash memory chips rose 12.3%, according to inSpectrum Tech Inc.“I know we don’t see clear signs of recovery in the memory chip industry yet,” Sohn said. “But for me, based on valuations, long-term growth potential, and balance sheet metrics like free cash flow, Samsung is a stock that I am comfortable with having large positions in. I still see an upside for the stock.”(Adds a link to BI report about chip sector)To contact the reporter on this story: Heejin Kim in Seoul at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lianting Tu at email@example.com, Vlad SavovFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The Silicon Valley company has been steeped in secrecy for most of its five years of existence. Few have seen its electric car, described in a Bloomberg report as a “carlike robot about the size and shape of a Mini Cooper.”
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- When political outsider Joko Widodo was first sworn in as Indonesia’s president five years ago, a little company called PT GO-JEK Indonesia was barely known. Their rise together since then has broken a technology barrier that was holding back the world’s fourth-most-populous country and promises the chance for a better future.Jokowi, as he’s known, is starting his second term with the dramatic, yet pragmatic, appointment to his cabinet of Nadiem Makarim, the chief executive officer and co-founder of what’s now called Gojek, which has gone from ride-hailing novelty to one of the engines of tech transformation in Indonesia.At the time of Jokowi’s first presidential run, his tech ambitions centered on attracting device manufacturing in a bid to diversify the economy away from dependency on mining and energy. Then governor of Jakarta, he worked hard to lure Taiwan’s Foxconn Technology Group to build a factory to manufacture iPhones and create thousands of jobs.A deal signed with Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou in February 2014 to invest $1 billion into Indonesia amounted to a de facto endorsement of Jokowi’s economic chops, helping the former furniture maker win election as Indonesia’s first president who didn’t hail from the traditional elite or the military.The Foxconn investment never materialized. But it never really had an impact on Jokowi’s standing as the development of Indonesia’s technology sector came from a very different direction. A play on the word ojek, or motorcycle taxi, Gojek was mostly operating as a call center for courier deliveries and motorbike rides when Jokowi took office. Three months later, Gojek launched the mobile app that would make it one of Southeast Asia’s biggest startups, with a valuation of around $10 billion.Today, Gojek offers ride hailing, food delivery, payments and a host of other digital products not just in Indonesia, a nation of some 265 million people, but throughout the region. More importantly for Jokowi, it has more than 2 million drivers and 400,000 merchants on its platform — creating far more jobs and livelihoods than an iPhone factory ever could.In Indonesia, Gojek is now a national champion. Its riders vie on Jakarta’s notoriously crowded streets with those of Singapore-based rival Grab Taxi Holdings Pte, both of them oddly liveried in green and black. They notably upended Uber Technologies Inc.’s expansion into Southeast Asia and are vigorously competing around the region, total population nearly 650 million.Now, Gojek will have a man on the inside. Harvard-educated Makarim, 35, resigned from the company Monday in order to join the cabinet, portfolio to be determined. The appointment is in line with Jokowi’s goal of bringing industry professionals and millennials into the inner circle. It’s hard to discern who’s the bigger winner. Imagine Mark Zuckerberg resigning from Facebook Inc. to join President Donald Trump’s cabinet. Neither carries the baggage of their American counterparts. But Makarim is a political novice and risks becoming just one more pawn in the constant maneuvering that consumes Indonesian governments.Jokowi set policies in motion early in his first term to open the economy. They have had mixed success. A deep streak of economic nationalism has long frustrated foreign direct investors. Growth has chugged along at a steady 5% for years. He has struggled against entrenched interests. Yet at a time when regulators and traditional taxi companies worldwide were pushing back against ride-hailing companies, Jokowi’s government refused to crush them. His biggest contribution may have simply been to get out of Gojek’s way. Being a local favorite hasn’t hurt Gojek. It now has a coveted e-money license, allowing it to offer financial services to millions of customers who don’t have a bank account or credit card. Grab now gets around this by teaming up with local partner OVO.Gojek isn’t alone in Indonesia’s expanded tech universe. Online travel provider Traveloka, e-commerce company Tokopedia and online marketplace Bukalapak have all become unicorns. From $8 billion in 2015, the internet economy grew to $40 billion this year and will triple again to $130 billion by 2025, according to a research report from Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Temasek Holdings Pte and Bain & Co.The common element: Each operates in a space called O2O, or online-to-offline. They leverage internet technology to deliver physical-world services, helping people eat, shop, and travel in a nation where infrastructure is unevenly parceled out across 18,000 islands straddling the Indian and Pacific oceans.A strong and viable digital services economy employing millions was an accidental achievement of Jokowi’s first term. It may not be enough to sustain future economic growth, however. The president and the entrepreneur will need to sit down and write the second act.To contact the author of this story: Tim Culpan at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tim Culpan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
As they fight for control of the music streaming market, Spotify and Google have found themselves counting on the same partner to help them succeed.
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Five months after the Trump administration blacklisted China’s Huawei Technologies Co., its business seems alive and well while American firms still don’t know whether they can work with the Chinese company or not.The Department of Commerce in May added Huawei to what’s known as the entity list in an effort to block U.S. companies from selling components to China’s largest technology company, which it accuses of being a threat to America’s national security. Huawei has denied those claims.Despite those actions, Huawei reported last week that its revenue grew 24% in the first ninth months of 2019, boosted by a 26% jump in smartphone shipments. There are also signs that U.S. efforts to block the company from the development of 5G technology have yet to make a big dent: Huawei said it has signed more than 60 5G commercial contracts to date worldwide.LicensesThe entity listing, which requires American firms to obtain a government license in order to sell to blacklisted firms, has caused complications for U.S. companies.Tech leaders and their lawyers have argued for months in closed-door meetings with Trump administration officials that the blacklisting of Huawei, one of their biggest customers, is detrimental to their businesses. Many industry executives are confused about the administration’s end goals and haven’t been able to get clarity on when license approvals will be offered despite those discussions, according to several people familiar with the matter.President Donald Trump said in June after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Osaka that he’d “easily’’ agreed to allow American firms to continue certain exports to Huawei. Weeks later Trump said he’d accelerate the approval process for licenses but none have been granted so far. The president as recently as this month green-lit the approval of licenses in a meeting with advisers, according to people familiar with the matter, but an announcement has yet to be made.The Commerce Department, in a statement, said it has received more than 200 license requests about Huawei and its affiliates. “Given the complexity of the matter, the interagency process is ongoing to ensure we correctly identified which licenses were safe to approve,” according to the statement. “Moreover, the Temporary General License remains in effect and was recently renewed.”Sales ImpactMicron Technology Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer Sanjay Mehrotra said in September that the lack of decision on its license applications could result in a worsening decline in sales over the coming quarters. The company gave a disappointing quarterly profit forecast last month, pointing in part to the Huawei restrictions. Broadcom Inc. in June also slashed its annual forecast, citing the U.S.-China trade war and disruption to its relationship with Huawei.One of the industry’s main arguments for allowing shipments of non-national security sensitive items is that Huawei can buy some of those components from competitors around the world, including South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.“Unless the ban succeeds in ‘killing’ Huawei, the result will be reduced U.S. global market share in a number of technology areas, something that will hurt, not help U.S. tech competitiveness,’’ said Robert Atkinson, president of ITIF, a Washington-based think tank.WorkaroundsSome firms have resumed shipments to Huawei even without a verdict on license requests. After a closer look at the rules since May, they determined they could continue supplying products based on an export control law. The rule doesn’t subject a product or service to the entity listing’s constraints if a company can prove that a piece of technology owes less than 25% of its origins to U.S.-based activities.Micron in June said it had resumed some memory chip shipments to Huawei. Intel Corp., the U.S.’s biggest chipmaker with plants in Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona, has as well. The company also has facilities in Ireland, Israel and China -- enabling it to argue that a chunk of the intellectual property in its chips isn’t created in the U.S.“We know many U.S. companies continue to ship to Huawei but do so using murky workarounds by way of other countries and third parties,’’ said Samm Sacks, a cybersecurity fellow at New America, a think tank. “It’s questionable whether the Huawei ban has helped U.S. national security so much as created a messy tangle of new problems.’’James McGregor, chairman of consulting firm APCO Worldwide’s greater China region, said he’s focused on what unintended consequences may result from the White House’s actions.“I’m worried about tech companies decoupling from America over time by removing some of their operations from the U.S.," McGregor said in an interview with Bloomberg Television Monday. “They have to look out for the long-term disruption of their business.”Atkinson cautioned not to over-interpret Huawei’s sales figures because the company has been stockpiling supplies for a while, in anticipation of the U.S. action. He said fourth quarter sales will be a more accurate indicator of the export ban’s impact, or whether the company has largely circumvented it.Huawei has said it expects U.S. export restrictions to reduce annual revenue at its consumer devices business by about $10 billion, in part because Google can no longer supply Android updates and apps from Gmail to Maps for the Chinese company’s newest handsets.U.S.-China DealTrump has indicated on various occasions that he’d be willing to consider removing the ban on Huawei for better terms in a trade agreement, drawing sharp criticism from China hawks on Capitol Hill.With the U.S. reaching a “phase one’’ deal with China earlier this month, the big question now is whether Trump will consider removing Huawei from the entity list or ease restrictions. When announcing the accord on Oct. 11, the administration said the issue wouldn’t be part of this initial pact but that it could be a part of phase two.(Updates with comments from McGregor.)To contact the reporters on this story: Jenny Leonard in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org;Ian King in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Margaret Collins at firstname.lastname@example.org, Brendan MurrayFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The stock market continued strong in late trading as earnings remained strong and a top China official made positive comments about trade talks.
UPS announced the expansion of its Flight Forward drone delivery subsidiary which includes the University of Utah Health Network and CVS Pharmacies.
FAANG stocks are popular. • Over a long stretch, Netflix’s stock significantly outperformed the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) S&P 500 Index (SPX) and the Nasdaq-100. • Netflix had been the darling of FAANG stocks.
Unfortunately, many advocates of total market funds don’t realize they aren’t fundamentally different from S&P 500 funds. As you probably know, the S&P 500 is made up of 500 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States. Sure, there are 500 stocks in the index, and that should provide quite a bit of diversification.
To hear Qantas CEO Alan Joyce tell it, it will be four years before the flights actually take off. "Simple Flying" reported that Joyce told "Flight Global" that the aircraft that Qantas needs won't be available until 2023. Airbus Industries has confirmed that it offered Qantas its A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Can you generate market-beating returns, or alpha, above and beyond the stocks you pick or by managing to time the markets? Yes, says Fran Kinniry, global head of portfolio construction at Vanguard Group, and this week's guest on Masters in Business.In 2001, Kinniry’s team created the concept of what the firm calls investor’s alpha, which is based on the idea that professional advice can add substantially to an individual's investment performance. He said that anywhere from 150 to 300 basis points of annual return can be added via a combination of financial planning, tax-loss harvesting and -- most of all -- behavior management. He also notes that many people lack the time, willingness and ability to manage their own portfolios well: People with those characteristics derive the greatest benefits from professional financial planning, earning benefits that exceed the costs.Kinniry’s His favorite books are here; a transcript of our conversation is available here.You can stream/download the full conversation, including the podcast extras on Apple iTunes, Overcast, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Bloomberg and Stitcher. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.Next week, we speak with economics Nobel laureate Michael Spence about his work on the dynamics of information flows and market structures, and his book, "The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World."To contact the author of this story: Barry Ritholtz at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The question of how to distribute the fruits of the economy’s production is central to economics. Many take a utilitarian approach: Let the private sector produce what it wants, and then tax the wealthy to help the poor. Utilitarians don’t spend much time worrying about who deserves what; the goal is simply to maximize human happiness. Marxists tend to take a more class-based view, believing that the fruits of production ought to belong to workers.Then there’s Henry George. George was a 19th-century American economist who believed that land was the source of human inequality. As the population and the economy grow, he reasoned, land remains scarce, so rents go up. Landowners don’t actually produce anything that benefits the economy, but they capture much of the value created by workers and businesses that do use the land. Thus, land ownership is a vast engine of human poverty and concentration of undeserved wealth.Modern history seems to bear out George’s assessment. In the 140 years since George wrote his magnum opus “Progress and Poverty,” land has been a remarkably good financial investment across a range of developed countries:And much of the increasing wealth inequality documented by economist Thomas Piketty is due not to corporate profits, but to the increasing value of land.George believed that it was government’s job to redistribute these unearned profits on land ownership to the public at large. His preferred policy for doing this was a land-value tax, which is like a property tax with an exemption for the value of useful structures or other improvements that are built on top of the land. A century later, economists began to realize that land-value taxes are a very efficient way of funding local government services like education.The land-value tax is a simple, elegant policy on paper, but it tends to be tricky to implement. Some economists trained in the Georgist tradition have focused on more direct means of redistributing wealth earned from land. For example, Wolf Ladejinsky, who served as an adviser to the governments of Japan and Taiwan in the postwar years, engineered sweeping programs of agrarian land reform. Some credit these programs with jump-starting East Asian economic development, as well as creating a sense of fairness that diminished the appetite for communist revolutions.In the modern day, neo-Georgist ideas tend to focus on urban land rather than farmland. As the knowledge economy becomes more important, high-earning workers are crowding into cities, sending rents soaring. Housing co-ops, public housing and programs to help lower-earning people buy houses are all ways to redistribute urban land.But it’s unlikely that land reform and taxation, by itself, will be enough to make Americans feel like they’re living in a fair society. As spectacular profits accrue to the owners of a few dominant companies, it’s worth asking whether those companies have some advantages that, like land, allow them to make profits out of proportion to the value they create. Patents and ownership of online platforms might be two such assets.Economists call unearned profits “rent,” drawing an explicit analogy with the income earned by a landlord. One source of rent is monopoly power: When a company doesn’t have to face the pressures of competition, it can jack up prices beyond the efficient level in order to earn extra profits. Industrial concentration has been rising in the U.S. as a few so-called superstar companies gobble up market share. And as concentration goes up, profits have taken a larger share of economic output:Beefing up the antitrust system is a very good idea, but it won’t be sufficient to halt the rise of monopoly rents. Stronger unions and other pro-labor institutions can complement legal remedies.But the age of knowledge industries brings new challenges that older policies are ill-equipped to address. In the digital age, a lot more companies have strong network effects, meaning that the more people use a product, the more valuable it is. Facebook is the classic example: People are on the site not because it has the best features, but because all of their friends are on it.Network effects are a little like land, only in digital form. Because Facebook successfully occupied the social network space — kind of like claiming empty land — it’s difficult for later competitors to grow. It’s not impossible. More recent platforms such as Snap and Pinterest have carved out networks of their own, and eventually some newcomer may dethrone Facebook the way it dethroned MySpace. But the strength of network effects for first movers leads to market concentration and a few dominant companies.The patent system is another source of rent extraction: The government allows companies a temporary monopoly in order to encourage innovation. But since new technologies tend to build off of older ones, patents can allow first movers to block out the possible competition and hog profits for a long time.Modern-day Georgists should think about how to redistribute this digital land. Early ideas involve regulating online platforms to allow more competition, reforming the patent system and a progressive corporate tax that only kicks in when companies have very high margins.Businesses, entrepreneurs and inventors certainly put in plenty of effort and take plenty of risks to create new platforms and patentable innovations. But the rewards may be out of proportion to the value created. Finding new ways to redistribute the rents from digital land may help to avert damaging class warfare.To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
eMarketer reported that Amazon is taking advertising market share from Google. Snap has also caught up with Google in the business of selling dynamic ads.
MacRumors recently reported that Quanta Computer supplied autonomous driving solutions to Apple. Apple has tested its self-driving car in Cupertino.
Netflix Inc (NASDAQ: NFLX )'s inclusion in the prestigious "FAANG" acronym should come to an end, with its replacement being the "far less episodic" Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT ...
Now, Disney, WarnerMedia, NBC, and others are about to enter the battle for streaming subscribers. If cord-cutting accelerates among traditional cable customers, these companies will need to win streamers quickly. If TV viewers stick with their cable bundles for longer than expected, companies could end up having overspent to go over-the-top.
(Bloomberg) -- Google searches for a popular antibiotic and a baby teething product send some users to suspect websites, according to a report released on Monday by a firm that tracks trademark and copyright infringement online.Earlier this year, six of the 10 results on the first page for the Google search “buy Bactrim online” showed links to websites that were “operating unlawfully and misusing” the Bactrim trademark, Incopro Ltd. said in the study.Another Google search for “wholesale Comotomo teether” produced nine organic results that directed users to an online marketplace or e-commerce website. Three of those sites listed “potentially harmful products that misuse the Comotomo trademark,” Incopro also reported.The results are based on searches Incopro ran using its software and data from web marketing firm SimilarWeb Ltd. Incopro wrote to Alphabet Inc.’s Google about its findings and the company said it got a written response from the internet giant, which it quoted in the study.“Google aggregates information published on the web returning users different web pages that relate to their search requests, but we don’t make any claims about the content of these pages,” Google wrote in its response, according to Incopro.Google has had a mixed record in dealing with contentious websites, Incopro said. The internet giant will remove website addresses from its search index for infringing copyright. But it won’t act when it is told that its search engine is pointing to sites selling counterfeits and infringing trademark rights, Incopro said. The firm noted that that other large internet companies including Facebook Inc., EBay Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. will take action in these cases.“Google takes the view that it is not (and cannot be) a ‘publisher’ when it is told that it is returning results for counterfeit web pages and so it does nothing,” Incopro wrote in its report. “If Google did remove these websites from their index these sites would be starved of oxygen and would fail.”The study suggests that Google search results for antibiotics are still showing suspect websites almost as much as they were three years ago, when another report from the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies showed 65% of search results for prescription drug terms led U.S. consumers to sites selling unapproved and dangerous medication.Search engines like Google should do more to protect consumers from unsafe results, Incopro said. “The FDA and other government bodies have limited resources and cannot be expected to solve every problem,” the report said. “Brand owners should be able to request that search engines de-index these sites themselves.”To contact the reporter on this story: Gerrit De Vynck in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair Barr, Anne VanderMeyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.