1,768.79 +8.46 (0.48%)
Pre-market: 7:00AM EST
|Bid||1,770.00 x 1100|
|Ask||1,771.50 x 1400|
|Day's range||1,745.44 - 1,764.00|
|52-week range||1,307.00 - 2,035.80|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.52|
|PE ratio (TTM)||78.00|
|Earnings date||29 Jan 2020 - 3 Feb 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||2,167.56|
Amazon still has a booming business in China.
General Mills' (GIS) second-quarter fiscal 2020 results are expected to reflect gains from global growth strategies and cost-saving efforts.
(Bloomberg) -- Oracle Corp. gave a sales forecast for the current quarter that was in line with analysts’ estimates, signaling muted demand for the company’s software amid its uneven transition to cloud computing.Revenue will increase 1% to 3% in the fiscal third quarter, Chief Executive Officer Safra Catz said Thursday on a conference call with analysts. Wall Street projected a 2.3% jump.Earlier, the world’s second-largest software maker reported sales gained less than 1% to $9.61 billion in the period that ended Nov. 30, short of analysts’ projections of $9.65 billion. Shares declined 3% in extended trading after closing at $56.47 in New York. The stock has gained 25% this year.Oracle’s report was the first since the October death of Mark Hurd, its top sales executive and one of the company’s two chief executive officers. Chairman Larry Ellison said on the call that the company had no plans to replace Hurd, leaving Catz as sole CEO. He pointed toward Oracle’s next line of executives, who lead business divisions, saying, “those people will be the next CEO when Safra and I retire, which will be no time soon.”Since Hurd’s death, Ellison and Catz have sought to reassure investors about the company’s stability, emphasizing Oracle’s advantage in the market for financial planning applications, where it’s seeing some of its strongest sales growth.While Oracle has made little headway in its effort to compete with the biggest cloud companies to rent computing power and storage, it remains a leader in database software. Now, the company is betting on its new Autonomous Database, which runs without a need for human administrators, to spur revenue in the face of strong competition from Amazon.com Inc.’s cloud division.After inconsistent sales growth the past five years, Catz pledged to investors in September that revenue would accelerate this fiscal year and next, and that earnings per share would grow by a double-digit percentage. To help reach that goal, the company that month announced a new artificial intelligence-driven operating system, as well as partnerships with software makers such as VMware Inc. and Box Inc.In the fiscal second quarter, revenue from cloud services and license support climbed 2.6% to $6.8 billion. While that metric includes sales from hosting customers’ data on the cloud, a large portion is generated by maintenance fees for traditional software housed on clients’ corporate servers.Cloud license and on-premise license sales decreased 7.5% to $1.13 billion in the period, suggesting the company is signing fewer new deals.Profit, excluding certain items, was 90 cents a share, compared with analysts’ average estimate of 89 cents. In the current quarter, Oracle projected earnings of 95 cents a share to 97 cents a share. Analysts, on average, estimated 96 cents a share.(Updates with forecast in the second paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Nico Grant in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(NASDAQ:AMZN) – Amazon Studios announced today that it has ordered a fourth season of the Emmy and Golden Globe-Award winning comedy The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. The third season premiered Friday, Dec. 6 on Amazon Prime Video in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide. The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel received two Golden Globe nominations this week, for Best Television Series, Musical or Comedy, and for star Rachel Brosnahan for Best Performance by an Actress in a Series, Musical or Comedy.
Shares of Amazon (AMZN) have slipped 6% in the past six months, while the S&P 500 climbed 9%. So when will Wall Street and investors start to think about buying Amazon stock again?
Amazon.com Inc said on Thursday it will open a distribution center in the northeastern state of Pernambuco, its second in Brazil, strengthening its logistics infrastructure to speed up deliveries and ultimately expand its footprint. The move comes almost a year after the U.S. e-commerce giant launched its first in-house fulfillment and delivery network in Brazil, posing a challenge to local retailers and other international players like Mercado Libre . It also follows the introduction of Amazon's Prime subscription service offering unlimited nationwide free shipping to Brazilian consumers.
Given the huge success of Disney's streaming service, investors could tap the opportune moment with consumer ETFs having the largest exposure to this global media and entertainment company.
Factors like the ongoing trade uncertainty and sluggish industrial production are likely to have hampered FedEx (FDX) Express performance in second-quarter fiscal 2020.
Tik Tok-parent ByteDance's new music app Resso is expected to challenge the dominance of Spotify (SPOT) and Apple in the music streaming space.
Smart speaker market in Asia-pacific (APAC) region is gaining steam on the back of growing efforts by Amazon (AMZN), Google, Alibaba, Baidu and Apple.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As the 2010s come to a close, it’s safe to say that the decade has been an enchanted one for U.S. stocks. The hard question is what lies in the decade ahead, and the data suggests that investors shouldn’t expect a repeat performance. When the U.S. narrowly averted an economic meltdown at the end of the last decade, few anticipated that the following one would feature a historic rally for U.S. stocks. The S&P 500 Index has returned 13% a year from 2010 through November, including dividends, easily outpacing its long-term annual return of roughly 9%. It’s also the market’s fifth best decade since 1880. Only the 1920s, 1950s, 1980s and 1990s produced higher returns.The surprising rally from the rubble of the 2008 financial crisis has touched off a fierce debate about what fueled the resurgence and, more important, whether it can continue. One popular theory is that the Federal Reserve goosed the market by unleashing a mountain of cheap money through low interest rates and quantitative easing. Another theory is that corporate earnings were boosted by a handful of fast-growing companies, such as Facebook Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., and by a wave of share buybacks, all of which lifted the market. The implication is that as long as the Fed keeps the money flowing, and highfliers and stock repurchases continue to supercharge earnings, the party can continue.But none of those theories stand up to scrutiny. To see why, it’s helpful to break down the market’s return into its component parts: dividends, earnings growth and changes in valuation. Blogger Ben Carlson recently posted numbers compiled by late Vanguard Group founder Jack Bogle for each decade since 1900. I ran the numbers going back to 1880 using data compiled by Yale professor Robert Shiller, and the results closely resemble Bogle’s.So what do the numbers reveal about the last decade? Of the S&P 500’s 13.3% annual return since 2010, 2.3% came from dividends, 10.2% from earnings growth and 0.8% from the change in the market’s valuation, as measured by the 12-month trailing price-to-earnings ratio. In other words, the vast majority of the gains can be attributed to a spike in earnings rather than investors’ willingness to pay more for stocks. In fact, the decade’s earnings growth was the highest on record.That’s a problem for those who credit the Fed for the market’s stellar decade because cheap money doesn’t appear to have pushed investors to splurge for stocks. That jibes with the recent experience of much of the developed world, where a flood of monetary stimulus in Europe and Japan over the last decade failed to expand their stock market valuations. It’s also consistent with the longer-term record in the U.S., which shows no correlation between P/E ratios and the level of interest rates since 1871, as measured by 10-year Treasury yields (-0.12), counted monthly. (A correlation of 1 implies that two variables move perfectly in the same direction, whereas a correlation of negative 1 implies that two variables move perfectly in the opposite direction.)Nor is there any indication that monetary policy is behind the record jump in earnings. Here again, earnings growth has been muted in Europe and Japan in recent years despite aggressive stimulus by central banks. And there’s been no correlation in the U.S. between the level of interest rates and subsequent earnings growth, whether measured over rolling one-year (-0.06), five-year (0.02) or 10-year periods (0.04) since 1871. While the focus on earnings is correct for understanding the last decade, the theories about what’s behind their surge are no more appealing. For one, the growth was generated by more than just a handful of companies. Of the roughly 370 companies in the S&P 500 for which earnings growth over the last decade can be calculated, 183 increased profits by more than the average of 10.2% a year for the index, according to Bloomberg data. And the median earnings growth was 9.6%, which closely matches the index’s average and shows that the gains were broadly distributed. Buybacks don’t account for the growth, either. Yes, all else equal, buybacks reduce the number of outstanding shares and thereby lift earnings per share, the number commonly used to gauge earnings growth and P/E ratios. But total earnings have grown by 9.4% a year since 2010, just shy of earnings-per-share growth of 10.2%, so buybacks don’t appear to have contributed much. It’s not even clear that the recent rate of buybacks is unusually high.Instead, the better explanation is also a simpler one: Earnings are extraordinarily volatile, even more unstable than stock prices by some measures. The volatility of yearly changes in earnings per share has been nearly three times greater than that of stock prices since 1871, as measured by annualized standard deviation — a whopping 52% for earnings compared with 19% for stock prices. And lest you’re tempted to conclude that much of that earnings volatility is a relic of the ancient past, consider that two of the three most severe earnings recessions on record were the previous two around the dot-com and housing busts. The only one that rivaled them was the 1920-21 recession (no, not even the Great Depression).Given that volatility, it’s unlikely that the last decade’s record earnings growth will spill into the next one. Unfortunately, investors can’t expect much more from the other two sources of stock returns. The dividend yield is likely to remain around 2%, which is roughly where it’s been for decades. And the 12-month trailing P/E ratio is roughly 24, which is 50% higher than its long-term average of 16, so future changes in the market’s valuation are more likely to eat into returns than enhance them.Those sobering figures explain why most Wall Street firms expect U.S. stocks to deliver more muted returns during the next decade. It’s a good reminder that what appears in the rearview mirror is no indication of the road ahead.To contact the author of this story: Nir Kaissar at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Nir Kaissar is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the markets. He is the founder of Unison Advisors, an asset management firm. He has worked as a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell and a consultant at Ernst & Young. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Digital sports provider DAZN Group has won the German rights to broadcast European soccer Champions League matches for the 2021/22 season, the Bild daily reported on Thursday, along with Amazon.com, a blow to Comcast's Sky. Bild reported that DAZN had won the rights to all other matches.
Disney+ downloads passed 22 million on mobile devices, the independently owned app-tracking company Apptopia announced Tuesday.
Should investors think about buying beaten down FedEx stock before it releases its second quarter fiscal 2020 earnings results on Tuesday, December 17?
(Bloomberg) -- Big tech companies like Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, long seen as some of the world’s most desirable workplaces offering countless perks and employee benefits, are losing some of their shine.The Silicon Valley companies dropped out of the Top 10 “best places to work” in the U.S., according to Glassdoor’s annual rankings released Tuesday. HubSpot Inc., a cloud-computing software company, grabbed the No. 1 ranking while tech firms DocuSign Inc. and Ultimate Software were three and eight, respectively.Facebook, which has been rated as the “best place to work” three times in the past 10 years, was ranked 23rd. It’s the social-media company’s lowest position since it first made the list in 2011 as the top-rated workplace. Facebook, based in Menlo Park, California, was ranked seventh last year.Google, voted “best place to work” in 2015 and a Top-10 finisher the previous eight years, came in at No. 11 on Glassdoor’s list. Apple Inc., once a consistent Top-25 finisher, was ranked 84th. Amazon Inc., which has never been known for a positive internal culture, failed to make the list for the 12th straight year.Microsoft Corp. was one of the lone big technology companies to jump in the rankings. The Redmond, Washington-based software company moved to No. 21 from 34 a year ago. A few technology companies made the list for the first time, including SurveyMonkey at No. 33, Dell Technologies Inc. at No. 67 and Slack Technologies Inc. at No. 69.Twenty companies on the list have their headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, more than any other metro area, Glassdoor said.The annual list ranks companies using employee reviews on areas such as compensation, benefits, culture and senior management. Many of the big tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have been criticized this year for a myriad of issues, and in some cases employees have publicly opposed executive decisions.At Google, employees have protested against the company on a number of topics, including the company’s “intimidation” tactics against worker organizers. The results of an internal employee poll at the internet search giant, reported by Bloomberg in February, showed that fewer employees were inspired by Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai’s vision than a year earlier. It also found fewer workers believe senior management could successfully lead the company into the future.At Facebook, which just like Google provides employees with perks including free meals, corporate transportation and laundry services, workers have pushed back internally against leadership on some policy issues, such as the decision not to fact-check political advertisements.(Updates with new tech entrants in the fifth paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Kurt Wagner in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Andrew Pollack, Molly SchuetzFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The sixth and final season of the HBO comedy show “Silicon Valley” — which concluded, sadly, on Sunday — begins with a speech.Richard Hendricks, the chief executive officer of Pied Piper, the internet company he started five seasons earlier, is testifying before a Senate committee alongside executives from Facebook, Google, Amazon and, of course, Hooli, run by Hendricks’s archnemesis Gavin Belson. The hearing is about data privacy.When it’s Hendricks’s turn to speak, he gets up from his seat on the panel and starts pacing (“I just think better on my feet”), grabbing a bulky microphone box so the senators can hear him. Thomas Middleditch, who plays Hendricks, is a master of physical comedy, and the image of him walking back and forth with a big microphone box under his arm is hilarious. But what he’s saying isn’t remotely comical:These people up here — you want to rein them in. But you can’t. Facebook owns 80% of mobile social traffic. Google owns 92% of search. And Amazon Web Services is bigger than their next four competitors combined. … They track our every move. They monitor every moment in our lives. And they exploit our data for profit. You can ask them all the questions you want, but they’re not going to change. They don’t have to. These companies are kings and they rule over kingdoms far larger than any nation in human history. They won. We lost.For the previous five seasons, “Silicon Valley,” which was created by Mike Judge — the same man who gave us “Beavis and Butt-Head” and “Office Space” — had gleefully skewered the inanities and pretensions of the tech industry. Who can forget Judge’s eccentric venture capitalist Peter Gregory (said to be based on Peter Thiel) inspecting the sesame seeds on the burger buns arrayed on his desk (all bought from Burger King) and realizing that a shortage of said seeds was on the horizon — and that he could make a killing in the sesame seed market?Or the time the pompous stoner Erlich Bachman, whose house is “incubating” Pied Piper, goes to a private dinner claiming to be a “pescapescatarian” — “one who eats solely fish who eat other fish” — and all the other tech execs decide they want to be pescapescatarians, too.Or, in perhaps the single greatest line in the entire series, the ruthless, platitude-happy Belson, warning of a coming “datageddon,” tells his executives that Hooli’s compression algorithm has to beat Pied Piper’s. After all, he explains, “I don’t want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do.”(1)But as Hendricks’s speech suggests, this season felt a little different. Having mocked everything from companies that viewed revenue as a distraction to billionaires comparing their treatment to Holocaust victims, “Silicon Valley” seemed this season to turn its attention to more pressing matters. The short, seven-episode final season had its share of gags and funny lines, but it also seemed to me that Judge and his fellow showrunner, Alec Berg, wanted to point out not just what was inane and pretentious about tech culture but what was wrong with it.In the second episode for instance, Hendricks finds out that a contractor is using an internet game he created to collect data from Pied Piper’s customers — something the CEO has vowed his company would never do. When he tries to get rid of the contractor by collecting some of the conversations he has taped, the man instead plays them for his board — who are impressed with his gaming software’s ability to mine data.In the next episode, a sleazy billionaire offers Hendricks $1 billion for Pied Piper. Why? Because he wants to use it to sell data he will collect from the company’s customers. Hendricks turns him down, intent on creating a “new, democratic, decentralized internet” where the bad behavior of Big Tech “will be impossible.” That, he believes, is the only viable workaround to such problems as monopoly behavior and privacy violations. (The billionaire then buys the contractor’s gaming company.)But the high point of the season comes in the fifth episode, when Belson, who has been tossed out of Hooli (Pied Piper bought it), realizes that he can create a new persona by promoting ethics in the tech industry. “Tethics,” he calls it. Pretty soon he has every tech titan in the valley signing on to his “tethics pledge” and contributing money that will allow Belson to build the “Belson Institute of Tethics.”It turns out that every banal line in the tethics pledge was plagiarized from the mission statements of Applebee’s, Starbucks and other companies. Thus do Judge and Berg dispense with the hollow promises of Facebook and others to do better whenever they are called out on some new example of, well, untethical behavior. As Odie Henderson, a coder-turned-critic who recapped “Silicon Valley” for Vulture, put it recently, “Tech goodness is a naive fantasy.”Needless to say, the crew at Pied Piper fail spectacularly in its attempt to create a new democratic internet. In the final episode, filmed partly as a documentary a decade in the future, Hendricks, now the Gavin Belson professor of ethics in technology at Stanford, is asked whether he thinks Pied Piper made the world a better place.“I think we did OK,” he says wistfully. Judge and Berg, on the other hand, did better than that. For six too-brief seasons, they did indeed succeed in making the world a better place.(1) Mocking the phrase “making the world a better place” was a “Silicon Valley” preoccupation. See here, for instance.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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.
Amazon (AMZN) strengthens competitive position in the video streaming market with broadcasting rights of European soccer Champions League matches in Germany.