|Bid||1,110.73 x 1300|
|Ask||1,111.36 x 800|
|Day's range||1,107.00 - 1,122.72|
|52-week range||977.66 - 1,296.97|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||1.18|
|PE ratio (TTM)||27.79|
|Earnings date||22 Jul 2019 - 26 Jul 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y target est||1,336.80|
Google announced new features for Google My Business, its free tool that lets businesses create and edit their business profiles.
Tesla, Waymo, General Motors and Netflix are the companies to watch.
Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan said his firm has “more to gain than anybody” from the booming trend of non-cash transactions.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin is a man of routine, and one might have been tempted to ignore his 17th annual call-in show with voters as another pointless set piece. This year, however, the context made it more important than most of the previous ones: Putin, who’s trying to return to pedestrian domestic concerns after a long foray into great-power politics, is facing a drop in popularity and Russians’ growing fatigue.He made a valiant attempt to show he cares, but he ultimately failed. The spirit of what happened during the more than four-hour broadcast was best described by feminist blogger Alena Popova: “The citizens of a poor country call the president of some other, rich country”.For about a year, polls have shown that Russians are no longer elated about Putin’s ability to thumb his nose at the U.S., or enthusiastic about the 2014 Crimea land grab. They are tired of incomes stagnating far below the 2014 level, irritated by an increase in the retirement age and a hike on the value-added tax, and worried the country is moving in the wrong direction. Putin’s so-called national projects – a five-year, $400 billion infrastructure and social spending plan meant to signify his domestic comeback – have failed to register in the polls.Widespread poverty is a major issue. Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, who now heads Russia’s budget accountability office, the Accounting Chamber, called it a “disgrace” this week that 19 million Russians, out of a population of 144 million, live below the official poverty line. He got a sharp rebuke from Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev for his “populist rhetoric.”Other clouds hung over the Putin show: A growing movement against the proliferation of landfills and poor garbage collection, and a recent episode in Moscow, where an investigative journalist was seemingly framed for a drug offense and only released after angry protests that led to Putin’s personal intervention. The arrest of the reporter, Ivan Golunov, highlighted two issues: The excessive power and corruption of law enforcement agencies, and the ease with which police can turn anyone into a drug dealer by planting small quantities of controlled substances in one’s bag or apartment.Putin, by all appearances, took time for careful preparation before the call-in show. Official photographs showed him poring over a pile of questions he’d received ahead of the broadcast. During the show itself, the Russian president frequently interrupted the smooth production, cutting off the moderators in mid-sentence to read and answer sometimes irreverent questions that scrolled on giant screens in the TV studio. And at the very end of the broadcast, asked if he’d ever felt ashamed, he appeared to be near tears as he recalled an episode that, according to him, occurred early in his presidency. In some provincial town, he said, an elderly woman dropped to her knees to pass him a note. “I handed it over to my aides, and then it got lost,” Putin said. “I still can’t forget it.”The message was clearly supposed to be that Putin would never willingly ignore an ordinary Russian’s request. In reality, though, what he said in response to desperate pleas about low wages often sounded insensitive. When a teacher complained she was making just 10,700 rubles ($170) a month, Putin said something was wrong indeed: The minimum wage was supposed to be in line with the official subsistence minimum of 11,300 rubles ($179). When a civilian firefighter complained he couldn’t live on his 16,000 ruble salary, Putin said a uniformed officer in his job would be making 43,000 rubles.He also went into a long and patently incorrect spiel about how real disposable income was the wrong benchmark, and that people should watch the growth in nominal salaries instead. Putin, who has a Ph.D. in economics, said,Real disposable income, which statistics show are falling, consist of many indicators – that is, of income and expenses. One of the expenses these days is payments on loans, and banks offer loans to citizens, basically, against 40 percent of their salary, which, of course, is dangerous.Not many people in Putin’s audience could follow that pseudo-economic gibberish, let alone accept it in lieu of higher wages. But as if this weren’t enough, the president followed Medvedev’s lead in kicking Kudrin: He joked that the former minister’s views appeared to be moving toward those of an old leftist opponent, Sergey Glayzev. The only way for Kudrin to take this is as a calculated insult from his boss, who clearly didn’t appreciate his input at this critical moment.On issues that have caused recent protests, Putin’s performance was similarly subpar.Ahead of the call-in show, residents of the Arkhangelsk and Komi regions in northern Russia, who have resisted the construction of an enormous landfill for Moscow’s excess garbage, recorded a video for Putin. Addressing him without a customary honorific, they demanded that he stop the project, which they said would poison the local water supply. On Thursday, a large crowd of locals gathered near Shies railway station, where the landfill is being built, hoping to be noticed during the call-in show. Instead, Putin got a couple of softer questions about the problems of his “garbage reform,” meant to improve waste collection and disposal, and was given a chance to resolve a different water-related problem – that of a town near the oil city of Tyumen where residents had lived for years without running water. As usual during the call-in shows, the governors of all Russian regions and key ministers stood ready to deal with questions and take Putin’s orders via video link as needed, and Putin publicly told the Tyumen governor to deal with the complaints. Shies and the landfill project, a rallying point for environmental protesters in the last few weeks, didn’t get a mention.Asked whether he felt personally responsible for corruption in Russia, Putin replied glibly, “Of course I do, otherwise you wouldn’t even know about any corruption cases.” And, prodded on the excessive harshness of the drug laws, he said stubbornly that he was against any kind of liberalization and that police officers simply need better supervision to prevent abuses.The message a Russian citizen might get after four hours of this was that Putin could personally take care of any problem if it was a simple matter of giving an order. If you have a problem like that, finding a way to Putin will get results. On the tougher issues, though, Putin, as ever, finds it easier to troll and dissemble than to offer solutions. That isn’t going to endear him to anyone. On average, the ratio of dislikes to likes in the five YouTube broadcasts of the call-in show was about nine to one. That could be skewed by Ukrainians, who often make a point of expressing their feelings about Putin when he makes him major appearances. But I doubt the Russian president will get a bump in the polls after such a performance.Putin, of course, isn’t on the verge of being overthrown. But he’s gradually losing the voters who have backed him through thick and thin – the ordinary people in small towns and villages, who are older, poorer and more dependent on government support than the relatively cheeky urban Russians. That loss could be catastrophic – if not for Putin himself, then for his plans to engineer a smooth succession.To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion's Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As Slack Technologies Inc. flips a switch later Thursday and becomes a public company, it’s another sign of how far the world has progressed beyond the old times of corporate technology. What’s different now is that it actually matters what you want.Until the last decade or so, the technology that workers used in office jobs was largely chosen by bosses far above them. The computer at the desk, the email system, the software that workers used to keep track of expenses or crunch a business unit’s finances were all imposed on them. And it was frequently terrible, because ease of use wasn’t necessarily an important quality to sell software. Cubicle jockeys have a lot more say in what tech they use at work these days. Relatively young software from the likes of Slack, Box Inc., Zoom Video Communications Inc., Google’s G Suite and SurveyMonkey parent SVMK Inc. have free or inexpensive versions for people to try by themselves. The idea is that a few workers will test it out unofficially and like it enough to persuade their employers to pay for the tech because it helps them do their jobs more effectively. And many companies are listening. This “bottom-up” business strategy has become a standard approach for cloud software aimed at businesses. Similar tactics were key for Amazon Web Services and other services used by technical specialists inside companies, and that has spread to more departments.Slack is perhaps the apotheosis of the bottom-up boom. Video conferencing or spreadsheet software can be useful even if one person at a company uses it. But team communication software like Slack is truly only handy if a critical mass of people are using it. That’s why Slack needs to win over workers and then persuade their bosses to pay for versions that are tuned to a corporation’s security and data-compliance needs. (Bloomberg Beta, the venture capital arm of Bloomberg LP, is an investor in Slack.)Some things in corporate IT don’t change, though. Young cloud software companies like Slack still court systems-integration firms that customize technology for corporations and other large organizations. The bottom-up crew also builds sales teams to pitch software at big companies, and those salespeople still get expensive cars when they sign up big customers.And like the Oracle and Microsoft of old, young companies still want to stitch their software into many other corporate technologies, which makes their product harder to ditch. They want, in short, to become a “platform” — a word that appeared 39 times in Slack’s prospectus for potential investors and more than 300 times in Zoom Video’s IPO document in April. Another thing that hasn’t changed from software’s olden days, at least for Slack, is a dependence on a relatively small number of big customers. Slack says it has more than 10 million daily users and 600,000 organizations that pay for use by three or more people. But about 40% of Slack’s revenue in the latest fiscal year came from just 575 organizations writing at least $100,000 in annualized checks to Slack. The company might be bottom-up in strategy, but it still needs the whale customers to pay its bills. Slack isn’t alone in this regard. Domo Inc., which makes corporate data analysis software, generates nearly half of its revenue from 450 top-paying customers. At Zoom, a few hundred customers generate 30% of revenue. Of course, some kinds of technologies — think databases or inventory-management systems — aren’t likely to appeal to employees and instead are pitched straight to tech-buying executives. That probably won’t stop startups from trying the new approach, though.Courting the rank-and-file is now standard procedure for many types of software. But one old fashioned tactic has lasting appeal: Persuade big companies to write big checks. A version of this column originally appeared in Bloomberg’s Fully Charged technology newsletter. You can sign up here. To contact the author of this story: Shira Ovide at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Shira Ovide is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. She previously was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
As the Trump administration puts tariffs on a range of imported goods and pushes a replacement deal for Nafta, lobbying on trade-related issues could set a new record this year.
Almost 40,000 people die each year in the United States mostly due to automotive accidents. Self-driving cars are expected to bring down the numbers.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As part of her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a broad effort to revive and expand American manufacturing. Bloomberg Opinion columnists Karl Smith and Noah Smith met recently online to debate her proposal.Karl Smith: Noah, from what I can tell you’re a fan of Warren’s Economic Patriotism platform and you’ve written yourself in favor of industrial policy. My concerns are essentially two-fold. First, I think that given the U.S.’s strength in what we might call knowledge industries such as tech, biotech, fracking and finance, it's going to be difficult for U.S. manufacturing to thrive as a major employer.Second, although industrial policy has a fantastic track record bringing countries to the technological frontier, it is precisely on the frontier where industrial policy is dangerous. Is it really possible or desirable for the U.S. government to predict the next winners in clean energy, or choose the right structure for U.S. retail or global social media?There is room for more infrastructure spending, especially with interest rates this low, but that should be done with eye toward boosting the entire range of economic possibilities rather than picking a specific -- necessarily manufacturing-centric -- approach to U.S. growth.Noah Smith: First of all, I don’t see manufacturing as a big source of employment -- it will be increasingly automated. Instead, it has other benefits. First, advanced manufacturing is itself a knowledge industry, just like software or biotech. Second, manufacturing helps attract other parts of the supply chain -- it’s cheaper and easier to design things and sell things closer to where those things are made. This is probably why economists Ricardo Hausmann and Cesar Hidalgo founnd that the more different kinds of products a country makes, the faster it tends to grow.And third, manufactured goods are easy to export, which helps not just the country but also the cities where the products are made. Economist Enrico Moretti found that every high-skilled manufacturing job in a city generates about 2.5 jobs in the nontradable sector (retail, construction and so on) in that same city.As for industrial policy, I’m glad we’re in agreement that it’s useful for countries catching up to the technological frontier, and that it’s harder for rich countries to pick the winning industries of tomorrow. That’s why Warren’s plan focuses on research and infrastructure. But I think there is also a strong case for export promotion, which pushes domestically focused companies to enter more competitive global markets.KS: I agree with you that American manufacturing is likely to be advanced and highly automated. Yet, this does not appear to be what Warren has in mind. She explicitly criticizes those who blame automation for the decline of manufacturing jobs and points to Germany as a positive example of a nation that has maintained jobs despite deploying five times as many robots per worker as the US. In terms of value of manufacturing produced, the U.S. may be second to China, but it's far ahead of the rest of the world, including Germany, Japan and the entire eurozone.Further, while she would put $400 billion into a Green Apollo Program, she would put four times as much into a combination of buy-America provisions and export subsides. These are exactly the type of measures we’ve criticized President Donald Trump for making in regard to the steel and aluminum industries.As for the Green Apollo Program, it prioritizes research and development that can be commercialized rather than basic research and is explicitly geared towards sectors that are under-represented in green technology. That’s sounds like an explicit promise to pick and develop winners that would otherwise not be commercially viable.To be blunt, Warren repeatedly uses the defense industry as a model, suggesting that the creation of an energy-industrial complex is precisely what she has in mind.NS: First of all, total numbers can be deceptive -- although the U.S. is a big manufacturer, its manufacturing sector is only 12 percent of its economy, compared to 21 percent for Germany and Japan and 28 percent for South Korea. A more worrying statistic is industrial production in manufacturing, which has flat-lined since the turn of the century:I agree that buy-American provisions are bad. But export subsidies are something we need more of because there’s a good chance they increase productivity. They are not the same as tariffs.Also, I’d hold off on criticizing the type of research Warren would fund. The so-called DARPA model or ARPA model -- multidisciplinary, mission-driven research into promising emerging technologies -- has proven extremely effective in the past. I love basic research too, but it’s a long-term thing, and we need new technologies right away.KS: The DARPA model was impressive, but I strongly doubt that it’s replicable, particularly in the context. Indeed, Pierre Azoulay, et al. emphasize that DARPA was at its best in high-risk, high-reward ventures chosen at the discretion of the scientists and engineers involved. That makes it difficult to produce the type of targeted and accountable change that Warren's plan is looking to produce. Furthermore, the era of big rewards from writing blank checks to smart scientists has likely passed. As Michael Mandel has pointed out, Bell Labs made extraordinary progress during that era largely because of the freedom and lack of accountability that ATT’s monopoly status afforded its researchers. Google’s dominance has afforded its researchers a similar latitude. Although in the long-term they may fundamentally change the way we work and live, their near-term results have been underwhelming.Lastly, as you correctly point out, the need for green energy advances is urgent. That means we are more likely to have luck with carbon prices or low-carbon production credits that reward increased deployment of clean energy no matter what technology it uses or where in the world that technology is created.NS: I agree that we need incentives to expand existing low-carbon energy technology. Solar, wind, batteries and other energy storage will be key, as well as the electrification of home heating and cooking. This is where the biggest gains will come from in the fight against carbon.But we can always use better and more diverse options for energy storage and we need to create better low-carbon production processes for cement and steel. That's what mission-driven research like DARPA did -- where government decides the goal and scientists and project managers decide how to get there, will probably be the most effective.Manufacturing is still important, though not for all of the same reasons it was important a century ago; export-oriented industrial policy is smarter and more promising than picking winners; and big expenditure on DARPA-style green technology research is extremely promising. Thus, despite some missteps like “buy American,” I like Warren’s plans.To contact the authors of this story: Karl W. Smith at firstname.lastname@example.orgNoah 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.Karl W. Smith is a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina's school of government and founder of the blog Modeled Behavior.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.
Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. are most at risk if government regulators are serious about pursuing antitrust actions against Big Tech.
U.S. stock futures are indicating a sharply higher Thursday open on Wall Street, as the Fed's dovish stance fuels hopes for future interest rate cuts.
Google parent Alphabet Inc. faced a wave of critical proposals from activists and employees during its annual shareholder meeting Wednesday, including one to split up the internet search and ad-selling giant before regulators break it into pieces.
Ireland has become the main regulator enforcing rules on how big tech companies collect and process user data under Europe's privacy law called GDPR.
Voice technologies have a long way to go before they can be used reliably for health and medical services, but Google is furthest along, a study finds.