88.46 +0.39 (0.44%)
Pre-Market: 8:57AM EDT
|Bid||87.76 x 1200|
|Ask||88.57 x 800|
|Day's Range||87.21 - 88.40|
|52 Week Range||66.53 - 90.00|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.11|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||35.37|
|Earnings Date||Sep 24, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.88 (1.00%)|
|1y Target Est||93.55|
(Bloomberg) -- The trade war is taking its toll on Apple Inc., a new survey of Chinese consumer attitudes shows.The company tumbled to No. 24 in an annual report on China’s top brands, falling from No. 11 a year ago. In 2017, before the trade war started, Apple was fifth in this ranking. Meanwhile, Apple’s biggest local rival, Huawei Technologies Co., climbed two spots and came in second, behind only Chinese payment service Alipay.The shuffle in the rankings is a sign of the growing challenge American brands face in the second year of Donald Trump’s tariff showdown with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. The survey findings show Chinese consumers growing cooler towards some American brands, especially after smartphone giant Huawei saw its Chief Financial Officer, Meng Wanzhou, arrested in Canada last year at the behest of the U.S. government.Trump followed with a ban on Huawei products, which helped fuel a surge of local support for the Shenzhen-based brand, according to Jay Milliken, senior partner in Hong Kong with Prophet, the San Francisco-based consultancy that conducted the survey of 13,500 Chinese consumers.Prophet’s survey, conducted annually, this year asked Chinese consumers in large cities for their views on more than 250 brands across 27 categories. Respondents evaluated brands they used or were considering using, rating rated their relevance to the lives of consumers based on qualities such as innovation, usefulness and dependability.‘Nationalistic Buying’“There’s a lot of nationalistic buying in that category, because Chinese consumers interpreted what happened to Huawei as an attack,” he said.Patriotism helped fuel the rise of other Chinese brands, too. Sportswear maker Li Ning Co. cracked the top 40 for the first time, ranked No. 34, just two spots behind market leader Nike Inc.Named after its founder, the famous gymnast, Li Ning capitalized on the nationalistic sentiments of many Chinese consumers with the launch last year of a China Li-Ning collection at New York Fashion Week that heavily used red and yellow, China’s national colors.There were only two American names in the top ten this year -- Android at No. 3 and Intel at No. 9 -- compared to five in the 2017 survey.Switching AllegiancesUnlike Apple, Android and Intel don’t have to worry about consumers switching allegiances to local competitors, Milliken said, and that explains why they manage to remain highly ranked.“Some Western brands are so integral in the lives of Chinese consumers, they’re almost predisposed to not losing relevance,” he said. “There are no Chinese alternatives so those remain super relevant.”Geopolitical tensions aren’t the only problem Apple faces in China, its biggest market after the U.S.While Beijing is pushing to make the country a leader in the introduction of high-speed 5G networks, Apple’s phones -- even the newly announced iPhone 11 -- don’t support that latest wireless standard.To contact the reporter on this story: Bruce Einhorn in Hong Kong at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Emma O'Brien at firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhuma Shrivastava, Rachel ChangFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Nike has opened a 1.5-million-square-foot distribution center in Ham, Belgium, that underscores the company's commitments to direct sales and a decreased carbon footprint. The distribution center will serve customers in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Nike's core business plan, which it calls the Consumer Direct Offense, emphasizes getting products to consumers quicker.
Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) CEO Elon Musk wants to streamline the logistics of delivering the automaker's vehicles. Starting next quarter, the company will ship cars to local delivery centers and allow customers to pick them up at their convenience, according to website Electrek, which spoke to people who were on a call last week with Musk. Customers currently have to schedule appointments to pick up their cars before they are moved out of the Fremont, California factory.
Among retail stocks to watch, Lululemon is back below its buy point, feeling for direction after a Sept. 6 breakout. What should investors be watching for?
U.S. equities seem ready to push higher with a number of key large-cap stocks perking up on evidence the American consumer is hanging tough. Of course, there continues to be lingering hopes of a thaw in U.S.-China trade relations as well. * 7 Tech Stocks You Should Avoid Now As a result, a number of Dow Jones Industrial Average components are perking up nicely and look good for new money. Here are seven to watch:InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips JPMorgan Chase (JPM)Shares of Dow component JPMorgan (NYSE:JPM) are blasting to fresh highs today, pushing towards the $120 level with a move above its April and July highs. This puts an end to a two-year consolidation range going back to early 2018.The company will next report results on Oct. 15 before the bell. JPM stock analysts are looking for earnings of $2.44 per share on revenues of $28.14 billion. Boeing (BA)Boeing (NYSE:BA) shares are gaining some altitude and look ready for a breakout from their long post-737 MAX malaise as its engineering team rapidly work towards getting the plane re-certified and back in the air by the end of the year. * 7 Discount Retail Stocks to Buy for a Recession BA stock shares have been in a sideways pattern since early 2018, so watch at the least for a retest of the early 2019 highs. The company will next report results on Oct. 23. Analysts are looking for earnings of $2.24 per share on revenues of $20.8 billion. Caterpillar (CAT)Caterpillar (NYSE:CAT) shares are pushing back towards the upper end of its down channel resistance going back two years. A breakout here would set the stage for a run at the early 2018 highs near $165, which would be worth a gain of more than 20% from here.Dow member CAT stock will next report results on Oct. 23 before the bell. Analysts are looking for earnings of $2.95 per share on revenues of $13.6 billion. DuPont de Nemours (DD)Shares of DuPont (NYSE:DD) look ready for a break above its 200-day moving average, threatening an end to a two-year downtrend channel on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Look for a rebound to the April high, which would be worth a gain of nearly 15% from here. * 10 Battered Tech Stocks to Buy Now The company will next report results on Oct. 31, before the bell. DuPont stock analysts are looking for earnings of 96 cents per share on revenues of $5.5 billion. Goldman Sachs (GS)Goldman (NYSE:GS) shares are rising to fresh highs as excitement builds around the company's co-branded credit card with Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) -- a slick unit with functionality integrated into the iPhone that includes a physical card built out of titanium. This is the type of innovation Apple CEO Tim Cook loves, given his training as an accountant.The company will next report results on Oct. 15 before the bell. GS stock analysts are looking for earnings of $5.63 per share on revenues of $8.7 billion. Nike (NKE)Nike (NYSE:NKE) shares are preparing to break up and out of a sideways consolidation range going back to March thanks to repeated bounces off of its 200-day moving average. Nike stock will benefit from the fresh tailwinds being enjoyed by the U.S. consumer thanks to a strong job market. * 10 Recession-Resistant Services Stocks to Buy NKE will next report results on Sept. 24 after the close. Analysts are looking for earnings of 71 cents per share on revenuers of $10.4 billion. Walmart (WMT)Walmart (NYSE:WMT) shares are also pushing to fresh highs, extending a bounce off of its 50-day moving average on the Dow. Morgan Stanley recently raised their price target on WMT stock on its PhonePe financial services play.The company will next report results on Nov. 14 before the bell. Analysts are looking for earnings of $1.09 per share on revenues of $127.8 billion.As of this writing, William Roth did not hold any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * 10 Recession-Resistant Services Stocks to Buy * 7 Hot Penny Stocks to Consider Now * 7 Tech Stocks You Should Avoid Now The post 7 Dow Titans Breaking Higher appeared first on InvestorPlace.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. fights the world’s biggest tax case in a quiet courtroom this week, trying to rein in the European Union’s powerful antitrust chief ahead of a potential new crackdown on internet giants.The iPhone maker can tell the EU General Court in Luxembourg that it’s the world’s biggest taxpayer. But that’s not enough for EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager who said in a 2016 ruling that Apple’s tax deals with Ireland allowed the company to pay far less than other businesses. The court must now weigh whether regulators were right to levy a record 13 billion-euro ($14.4 billion) tax bill.Apple’s haggling over tax comes after its market valuation hit $1.02 trillion last week on the back of a new aggressive pricing strategy that may stoke demand for some smartphones and watches. The company’s huge revenue -- and those of other technology firms -- have attracted close scrutiny in Europe, focusing on complicated company structures for transferring profits generated from intellectual property.A court ruling, likely to take months, could empower or halt Vestager’s tax probes, which are now centering on fiscal deals done by Amazon.com Inc. and Alphabet Inc. She’s also been tasked with coming up with a “fair European tax” by the end of 2020 if global efforts to reform digital taxation don’t make progress.“Politically, this will have very big consequences,” said Sven Giegold, a Green member of the European Parliament. “If Apple wins this case, the calls for tax harmonization in Europe will take on a different dynamic, you can count on that.”Vestager showed her determination to fight the tax cases to the end by opening new probes into 39 companies’ tax deals with Belgium on Monday. The move addresses criticism by the same court handling the Apple challenge. A February judgment threw out her 2016 order for them to pay back about 800 million euros.At the same time she’s pushing for “fair international tax rules so that digitization doesn’t allow companies to avoid paying their fair share of tax,” according to a speech to German ambassadors last month. She urged them to use “our influence to build an international environment that helps us reach our goals” in talks on a new global agreement to tax technology firms.Apple’s fury at its 2016 EU order saw Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook blasting the EU move as “total political crap.” The company’s legal challenge claims the EU wrongly targeted profits that should be taxed in the U.S. and “retroactively changed the rules” on how global authorities calculate what’s owed to them.The U.S. Treasury weighed in too, saying the EU was making itself a “supra-national tax authority” that could threaten global tax reform efforts. President Donald Trump hasn’t been silent either, saying Vestager “hates the United States” because “she’s suing all our companies.”“There is a lot at stake given the high-profile nature of the case, as well as the concerns that have been raised from the U.S. Treasury that the investigations risk undermining the international tax system,” said Nicole Robins, a partner at economics consultancy Oxera in Brussels.Apple declined to comment ahead of the hearing, referring to previous statements. The European Commission also declined to comment. Ireland said it “profoundly” disagreed with the EU’s findings.Richard Murphy, a professor at London’s City University, said the EU’s case “is about making clear that no company should be beyond the geographic limits of tax law.”“Selective attempts to get round the law -- which is what tax avoidance is -- are unacceptable when companies seek the protection and support of that same law” in the rest of their business,” Murphy said.Vestager has also fined Google some $9 billion. She’s ordered Amazon to pay back taxes -- a mere 250 million euros -- and is probing Nike Inc.’s tax affairs and looking into Google’s taxation in Ireland.The first hints of how the Apple case may turn out will come from a pair of rulings scheduled for Sept. 24.The General Court will rule on whether the EU was right to demand unpaid taxes from Starbucks Corp. and a Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV unit. Those judgments could set an important precedent on how far the EU can question tax decisions national governments make on how companies should be treated.“It’s very clear that the largest companies in the world -- the frightful five I call them -- are hardly paying taxes,” said Paul Tang, a socialist lawmaker at the European Parliament. “Cases like these, Amazon in Luxembourg or Apple in Ireland, started to build public and political pressure” for tax reform in Europe.The legal battles may go on for a few years more. The General Court rulings can be appealed once more to the EU’s highest tribunal, the EU Court of Justice. Meanwhile, Apple’s back taxes -- 14.3 billion euros including interest -- sit in an escrow account and can’t be paid to Ireland until the final legal challenges are exhausted.For Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network campaign group, the issue is already in the past and “it’s not even the biggest tax scandal that Apple has” after reports on other structures it may use. Tax reforms under discussion “will ensure much closer alignment of taxable profits and the real economic activity” generated by them.The cases are: T-892/16, Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe v. Commission, T-778/16, Ireland v. Commission.(Updates with Vestager comment in seventh paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at email@example.com;Aoife White in Brussels at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at email@example.com, Peter ChapmanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NIKE's (NKE) Consumer Direct Offense as well as international and NIKE Direct businesses position it to beat estimates in first-quarter fiscal 2020. But higher costs and currency may be spoilsports.
EVP: CFO of Nike Inc (30-Year Financial, Insider Trades) Andrew Campion (insider trades) sold 6,301 shares of NKE on 09/11/2019 at an average price of $86.96 a share. Continue reading...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The California Assembly has 61 Democrats and 18 Republicans. The California Senate has 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans. As with everywhere else in the U.S., the two parties are divided on most issues, from regulating the gig economy to limiting gun purchases. But there is one issue on which both Democrats and Republicans in California are aligned: paying, at long last, college athletes.(5)On Monday, a bill that would override the “amateurism” rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and give athletes at the major California universities the right to capitalize financially on their name, likeness and image passed the Assembly by a vote of 72-0. Then, on Wednesday, the state senate passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which allows athletes to market themselves for things like personal sponsorships, endorsements, and video-game licensing, by a margin of 39-0. Not a single dissent! I still can’t quite believe it.There have always been a few lonely voices calling for the athletes who play college football and basketball -- the revenue sports, as they’re called -- to be paid. One such person, believe it or not, was Walter Byers, the man who ran the NCAA from 1951 to 1987. In retirement, he turned against the amateurism rules he had long enforced, describing them (correctly) as the means by which the college sports cartel avoided paying its labor force.Another was Sonny Vaccaro, who did as much as anyone to commercialize college sports; he marketed basketball sneakers for Nike, Adidas and Reebok before quitting to fight the NCAA. His beef was that it was wrong for everyone involved in college sports to be making money except the players.But until recently, those voices went largely unheard. Most people -- even ardent fans -- ignored the question of whether college athletes were being exploited. If they got angry at the NCAA it wasn’t because of its cartel-like nature, or the harshness of its bylaws. It was usually because the school they cheered for was being punished “unfairly” for violating some rule or other. (Fans always think their university is being punished unfairly.)Then, in 2009, the former UCLA basketball star, Ed O’Bannon, sued the NCAA after seeing his avatar in a video game -- and realized that the video game company was paying the NCAA for the rights to his image instead of him. Two years later, Taylor Branch wrote his ground-breaking article in The Atlantic, “The Shame of College Sports.” It included this memorable line: “The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athlete are getting paid” -- under the table, he meant -- “but that more of them are not.”The coastal elites started paying attention.I jumped in a few month later, after doing some research that convinced me that the exploitation of basketball and football players at big-time college programs was unconscionable. “Frontline” did a documentary about exploited athletes, “Money and March Madness.” Sports columnists began regularly taking the NCAA to task. The issue was rising to the surface.When the O’Bannon case went to trial in June 2014, it was widely covered in the media and the NCAA did not come off well. (Charles Pierce, writing in Grantland, described the NCAA’s arguments as “the threadbare piety in which it wraps its heedless commercialism.”) It ended with both the trial judge and the appeals court agreeing that the NCAA’s rules outlining and defining amateur athletics amounted to an antitrust violation. But sadly, the appeals court bought the NCAA’s argument that amateurism was what differentiated college sports from professional sports, so the remedies it allowed did nothing to overturn the status quo.The unanimous vote in favor of the Fair Pay to Play Act shows just how far we’ve come since then. It’s a little like marriage equality. For years, public opinion moved an inch at a time -- and then all at once, it seemed, two-thirds of the country supported it.California State Senator Nancy Skinner, the sponsor of the bill, is a perfect example of how people have come around. In November 2015, she heard the economist Andy Schwarz speak at a Rotary Club meeting in Oakland. Schwarz has been fighting the NCAA since 2004; he was one of the people who helped gin up the O’Bannon case. He can be absolutely withering about the NCAA cartel.As Skinner listened to him, she later told the New York Times:All of a sudden the light bulb went off. Rather than being the bystander going, “Gosh this is so unfair, how do these people get away with this?” I’m like, “Hey, if I’m in the Senate, can the state do something about it?”She also framed the issue in exactly the way critics like Schwarz and Vaccaro have all these years: “I don’t know of any other industry that can rely on a large set of people’s talent for which they deny them any earnings and all compensation.”The bill embraces what’s called the Olympic model. Olympic athletes aren’t paid directly for competing, but they are allowed to accept money from endorsements, sponsorships, autographs, and the like. Skinner’s bill gives athletes at the big California universities the same ability, overriding NCAA bylaws that forbid such payments. It’s not everything. Athletes who lack the star power to reap endorsement money will still be unable to capture their economic value to a university. But it’s a start.Or perhaps I should say, it might be a start. You see, assuming the bill is signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, it won’t take effect until 2023. That would give the NCAA and the affected California universities plenty of time to sue to have it overturned.Absurdly, the NCAA says that the bill is “unconstitutional,” because it “would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports.” In a letter to Newsom, the NCAA also claimed that if California athletes are allowed “an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme” it will put every other Division 1 university at a disadvantage.I’m not so sure about that. For one thing, Schwarz has co-founded the Historical Basketball League, an eight team league that will pay college-age basketball players upwards of $150,000 a year before they enter the pros. Its first year of operation will be 2020, and if it’s even mildly successful in drawing top high school players away from college basketball it will put enormous pressure on the NCAA’s amateurism model.For another thing, California is unlikely to be the only state to pass a law similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act. Earlier this year, Washington State considered similar legislation, which will likely go forward now that California has led the way. I imagine by 2023 ten or 15 states might have their own version of the law – at which point the move to give athletes their economic rights, the same rights as any other American, could turn into a stampede.Yes, the winds of change are blowing. What the California bill suggests most of all is that the days when the NCAA could hold back progress are finally coming to an end.(1) The more common term, of course, is “student athlete,” but I avoid it at all costs. It is an Orwellian phrase, devised by the NCAA in the 1950s to avoid having to pay workers’ compensation to injured football players.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.
Indicators of traffic to the company’s website and app, along with demand for its shoes on resale sites, point to solid recent growth, Cowen’s John Kernan said.
Nike (NKE) is set to release its Q1 2020 earnings and revenue results on September 24. Is now the time to buy NKE stock amid Lululemon (LULU) & Adidas (ADDYY) competition?
Breaking down Lululemon's (LULU) Q2 2019 financial results that wowed Wall Street last week. And why Lulu stock looks like a buy as it expands its digital, international, and menswear businesses to further challenge Nike (NKE) - Full-Court Finance.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") upgraded its ratings for Calceus Acquisition, Inc. ("Cole Haan"), including the Corporate Family Rating (CFR) to B1 from B2, Probability of Default Rating to B1-PD from B2-PD, and senior secured term loan rating to B1 from B2. The upgrade reflects Cole Haan's improvement in credit metrics and liquidity, driven by the company's strong operating performance, including an over 50% increase in earnings over the past year.