|Bid||0.00 x 1100|
|Ask||0.00 x 900|
|Day's range||207.29 - 208.91|
|52-week range||142.00 - 233.47|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||1.09|
|PE ratio (TTM)||17.57|
|Earnings date||30 Jul 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||3.08 (1.49%)|
|1y target est||213.41|
Stocks rose Tuesday thanks to media reports suggesting in-person U.S.-China trade talks are set to resume as soon as next week, but that’s not changing the trade outlook for Kristina Hooper, Invesco’s chief global market strategist.
The ‘buy the dip’ theme appears to be in full swing, as Bank of America Merrill Lynch clients took advantage of last week's stock market decline.
When I went swimming in my local pool this week, my Apple Watch tracked not only my time on each lap, but my heart rate throughout. Apple was not the first to imagine heart sensors. Apple Watch does not feel Orwellian but many cases of data surveillance do.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The U.S. technology superpowers need better talking points — and fast.The U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday that it would start reviewing how “market-leading online platforms” became big and whether they are squashing competition, limiting innovation or hurting consumers in other ways that may violate U.S. antitrust laws. The government didn’t name names, but rest assured you can throw Google parent company Alphabet Inc., Facebook Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and maybe Apple Inc. into that mix.This shouldn’t be a surprise to those tech giants or to anyone who has been following the news. It emerged in the last couple of months that the Justice Department and its antitrust counterparts at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission were divvying up responsibility for the U.S. tech powers to look into their compliance with the law. And just about the only bipartisan issue among politicians in Washington is bashing big technology companies for ills real or imagined.To state the obvious: Government investigators crawling all over Silicon Valley hunting for evidence of illegal monopolies is not at all good for the superpowers of the technology industry. Government inquiries are messy, lengthy, tricky to untangle from politics and impossible to predict. Investors know this, and it’s now clear that new legal constraints or regulatory crackdowns are among the biggest worries of tech investors.Now that the antitrust cops are coming in the door, the technology powers need to freshen their playbook in how they rebut questions about their size, power and influence. The playbook is not good.The standard lines — like the ones trotted out at a House of Representatives antitrust hearing last week — go something like this: Scrutiny of big companies is healthy, but do not worry about us. The titantic technology companies of America are not that big or powerful. Really, we could die at any moment. And we help people, businesses, American workers, the U.S. economy and democracy. Have we mentioned that if you hurt us, China might take over the world? (Stage note: Wave American flag.) All of that may very well be true. Amazon does help small businesses find buyers for their merchandise in a way that big retailers of the past never did. Google and Facebook do democratize the distribution of information and help local businesses find customers. Apple has created an app economy that never existed before. All these companies have made products that are genuinely useful and novel, and the success of these companies is a credit to the best of America. (Wave American flag again.) And they are not invincible. It’s possible changes in technology may leave them in the dust.But that is not the whole story, and that’s not all that government antitrust authorities care about. What they want to know, and what the public deserves to know, is whether these technology companies have used their success to cheat their way into more success. Have they used their muscle to tilt the game in ways that unfairly help them and hurt consumers by giving them ultimately inferior products and services? It’s not about the companies’ morals or even their size. What matters is what the technology superpowers do. The public and lawmakers cannot allow the technology companies to answer questions that are irrelevant or to engage in pedantic arguments about the companies’ size relative to the planet Jupiter. Let’s keep the focus on behavior. Does Google, as revealed in portions of an FTC staff report from earlier this decade, boost the web search rankings of its own local business listings above those of other companies — even when Google’s computer systems determine rival companies had more relevant information? (FTC commissioners unanimously voted not to pursue an antitrust lawsuit and possibly a breakup of what was then a smaller Google.) Do Apple or Amazon use their popular consumer products to nudge the dial in ways give their own apps or products an advantage over alternatives from other companies? That behavior is how consumers get hurt — and it happens even if people don’t feel as if they’re being taken advantage of.I read this June speech from the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division and came away thinking he is dead serious about going after tech companies. Among the messages I heard was that antitrust cops don’t care if the tech companies make products people like, even if those companies have lowered prices or made free services. None of that absolves them of responsibility to play fair with their power and keep the competition fair for the good of consumers. Behavior and intent are not easy things to figure out. That’s why government investigators and congressional subpoenas are so powerful. They reveal the inner workings of powerful companies. The talking points don’t matter. Flag-waving doesn’t matter. What matters is what the companies do. 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.
(Bloomberg) -- The Justice Department said it’s investigating whether dominant technology companies are thwarting competition in their markets, stepping up scrutiny of the industry’s biggest names as they come under fire in Washington.The department’s antitrust division will look at concerns that consumers, businesses and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and online retail, according to a statement Tuesday. The statement didn’t name any companies.“Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” said Makan Delrahim, the head of the department’s antitrust division. “The department’s antitrust review will explore these important issues.”The announcement marks the latest sign of the escalating scrutiny facing tech companies in Washington from lawmakers and antitrust enforcers. The giants of the industry are under fire over massive collection of user data, failing to police content on their platforms, and claims that they are harming competition and reducing choices for consumers.President Donald Trump has railed against many of the biggest names in the industry for silencing conservative viewpoints. Earlier this month, he said he’d summon social media companies to discuss political bias on their platforms.For More: Big Tech Is Taking a Bipartisan Beating All Over WashingtonAmazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc. and Facebook Inc. declined to comment on the Justice Department’s statement. Shares of Facebook, Amazon and Alphabet all fell on the news. Facebook dropped 1.5%, Amazon was down less than 1%, in extended trading around 5:49 p.m. in New York, while Google and Apple rose less than 1%.“We ultimately believe this is more noise versus the start of broader structural changes across the tech food chain,” said Webush analyst Daniel Ives, writing in a note with three other analysts. He said the inquiry “will likely result in business model tweaks and potential DOJ/FTC fines in a worst-case scenario, rather than forced breakups of the underlying businesses.”Last week, executives from the four companies were grilled by the House antitrust panel, which is investigating whether dominant companies are thwarting competition and harming innovation.On Tuesday, the chairman of that committee, Democrat David Cicilline of Rhode Island, sent follow-up questions to Facebook, Amazon and Google, saying he was “deeply troubled” by the companies’ “evasive, incomplete, or misleading answers.”The Justice Department move, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, comes after the antitrust division and the FTC took early steps toward investigating four of the biggest tech companies, with the Justice Department taking oversight of Google and Apple and the FTC getting Facebook and Amazon.For More: Far From Silicon Valley, Trustbusters Plotted Big Tech AssaultThe Justice Department’s move followed the FTC’s decision in February to form a tech task force to examine conduct by companies and past deals in the industry.(Updates with analyst comment in eighth paragraph. An earlier version of the story was corrected to say that FTC started tech task force in February)\--With assistance from Naomi Nix.To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at email@example.com, Ben BrodyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
We take a look at some Chinese ETFs in the wake of increasing number of U.S. manufacturers relocating their production units to other Southeast Asian countries.
Apple is closing in on a deal to possibly pay over $1 billion to Intel for a division that has been unprofitable. Here’s why it could work out well for both companies.
Welcome to the latest episode of the Full-Court Finance podcast from Zacks Investment Research where Associate Stock Strategist Ben Rains dives into Netflix's (NFLX) recent Q2 earnings report. The episode then transitions into why Amazon (AMZN) and Disney (DIS) could be real challengers...
5G is anticipated to spur the smartphone industry out of its slump. Apple (AAPL) is making a big bet on 5G with a potentially $1 billion deal with Intel (INTC) in the works.
Apple is said to be buying Intel's 5G modem business to integrate the technology into its iPhones and bring it on line in 2020. These ETFs would rally if the move materializes.
(Bloomberg) -- Sign up for Next China, a weekly email on where the nation stands now and where it's going next.Apple Inc. has asked the Trump administration to exclude components that make up the forthcoming Mac Pro high-end desktop computer from import tariffs, weeks after planning to re-locate production of the line to China from Texas.The Cupertino, California-based technology giant is seeking relief from duties of 25% on key Mac Pro parts and accessories that go with it, ranging from the stainless steel and aluminum frame, power supplies, internal cables and circuit boards, and its optional wheels, according to filings posted by the Office of U.S. Trade Representative. The documents don’t specifically mention the Mac Pro, but the features and dimensions listed by Apple in the filing closely resemble the planned computer.The exclusion requests from the iPhone maker were posted July 18 and are now subject to a public comment period before they’re reviewed. Some Apple products have been spared from tariffs in the past, including the Apple Watch and AirPods. Apple declined to comment on the filing.U.S. President Donald Trump has promised relief if companies can show that parts or products can only be obtained in China, aren’t “strategically important” to Chinese industrial programs, or that the duties would cause “severe economic harm.” Trump has tweeted that companies won’t face a tariff if they make their goods “at home in the USA.”The new Mac Pro will be manufactured in China, a person familiar with the company’s plans said last month, shifting production of what had been Apple’s only major device assembled in the U.S. The previous design had been built in Texas since 2013. The new model was announced in June and will go on sale later this year, starting at $5999. Apple said last month that “final assembly is only one part of the manufacturing process.”Apple is also seeking duty exclusions on its Magic Mouse and Magic Trackpad, complementary devices for operating the computer, as well as an accompanying USB cable for charging external mobile devices.Trump slapped tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods last year in response to a trade deficit and allegations of intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices as the world’s two largest economies seek to negotiate a sweeping trade deal.Trump had threatened tariffs on an additional $300 billion in Chinese imports in May in response to what he said was Beijing’s reneging on agreed provisions. But he put them on hold after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in June in Japan to restart negotiations.To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org;Mark Niquette in Columbus at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Margaret Collins at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;Tom Giles at email@example.com, Molly Schuetz, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Apple (AAPL) possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
FAANG stocks, including Facebook, Apple and Amazon, are set to beat earnings in one of the busiest earnings stretches this season. These stocks flaunt a positive Earnings ESP.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Since the U.K. decided more than three years ago to leave the European Union, the nation's savviest investors have succeeded by putting their money where Brexit matters least.Uncertainty about the date of Britain’s departure (now pushed back to Oct. 31) and the terms of the divorce has meant purging the U.K. from their holdings or limiting them to investments traditionally impervious to man-made and natural disasters. Over 38 months, British sterling depreciated 16 percent, the worst shrinkage for any similar period in 8 years. The pound remains the poorest performer in the actively-traded foreign exchange market and inferior to the No. 3 euro.Europe's strongest major economy in the 21st century became a shadow of its former self, reversing two decades preceding the June 23, 2016 referendum when the U.K. outperformed the European Union in growth and investment. London's stock and bond markets similarly languished as laggards to world benchmarks, after beating them consistently in the 20 years prior to the decision to leave the EU, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.“If I give myself some credit, I would say that we acted reasonably fast liquidating U.K. shares” in 2016, said Ben Rogoff, whose Polar Capital Technology Trust PLC has been the most consistent winner out of the 212 British global funds with at least 1 billion pounds this year and during the past three years. His team's 114 percent total return (income plus appreciation) was 22 percentage points better than the Dow Jones World Technology Index, mostly because 68% of the fund is invested in the U.S., two-thirds of that in California companies, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. “It's all about the Internet and where do you get exposed to the Internet? The U.S. and China,” Rogoff said last month during an interview at Bloomberg in London.While Rogoff reduced his holdings of three California tech powers during the past year — Cupertino-based Apple Inc., Menlo Park-based Facebook and Santa Clara-based Advanced Micro Devices — he acquired more shares in Shenzhen-based Tencent Holdings Ltd., Hangzhou-based Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. and Tokyo-based Yahoo Japan Corp., according to data compiled by Bloomberg.The 46-year-old graduate of St. Catherine's College, Oxford, became the lead manager of the trust in 2006, “and at that time,” he said, “the U.K. weighting might have been 5% to 10%, so if you had already been backing away to the door, it's a lot easier to escape than if you built a career around being an expert in U.K. equities.” Since the Brexit referendum, he said, “There's just been a complete buyers' strike of U.K. equities.”Proof of such disdain comes with the crisis this year at the LF Woodford Equity Income Fund, Britain's most-prized investment when it was launched by star money manager Neil Woodford in 2014. The celebrated stock picker became even more prominent with his contrarian bullish stance on Brexit. The fund plummeted 31% during the past two years by holding a combination of large and small U.K. companies and has frozen redemptions indefinitely.“It's symptomatic of a broader problem,” Bank of England Governor Mark Carney told reporters earlier this month. “Our sense is that the financial-stability risks are increasing.”One U.K. investor who’s successfully resisted the trend away from domestic stocks is Nick Train, who manages Finsbury Growth & Income Trust. It returned 61% the past three years — more than twice the FTSE All-Share Index benchmark — as the most consistent one- and three-year performer among the 129 U.K.-based funds investing mostly in domestic stocks or bonds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Unlike Woodford, who doubled down on the British economy writ large, Train, a 60-year-old graduate of Queen’s College, Oxford, dramatically increased his holdings in consumer staples. These are the companies that make such essentials as food, beverages and household goods and can resist business cycles because their products always are in demand.Train, who declined to be interviewed, increased the consumer staples weighting relative to the benchmark to 27% from 23% in 2015 and he enhanced his holdings of Deerfield, Illinois-based Mondelez International Inc., which manufactures and markets packaged food products, and London-based Diageo PLC, the world's largest producer of spirits and beer, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.That's likely to be a safe bet as no one is counting on the British economy rebounding significantly from near the bottom of the EU while the uncertainty created by Brexit persists. “If you take a long view, then this may well be a great time to be investing in U.K. equity,” said Rogoff. “Thankfully, I don't have to make that binary call because there are very few U.K. companies I'm frankly interested in.”(Corrects location of Tencent Holdings headquarters in fifth paragraph of article published July 16.)\--With assistance from Shin Pei, Richard Dunsford-White, Kateryna Hrynchak and Suzy Waite.To contact the author of this story: Matthew A. Winkler at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Matthew A. Winkler is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the editor-in-chief emeritus of Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Today should be a good news day for AMS AG, the Austrian maker of key components for the facial recognition system in Apple Inc.’s iPhone.It seems finally to be delivering on its repeated promise that a multi-year, $2 billion investment in 3-D sensing technology would ultimately pay off. It forecast third-quarter revenue of between $600 million and $640 million, well above analysts’ $526 million average estimate.Yet the good news came with a sting in the tail. Chief Executive Officer Alexander Everke said AMS was again evaluating the possibility of a bid for Osram Licht AG, after being approached by unidentified “potential financial partners.” The revelation comes just a week after AMS decided not to pursue an offer for the Munich-based lighting maker, which had already agreed a sale to private equity firms Bain Capital and Carlyle Group LP. That climbdown from AMS in turn came after re-entering talks it had previously abandoned, and… well you get the idea. It’s flip-flopping in the extreme.Maybe Everke has made the right calls technologically. AMS’s initial struggles stemmed from the disappointing sales of Apple’s iPhone X range of handsets. Now Android handset-makers are following up with more 3-D sensors, boosting orders for AMS’s gear. Operating cash flow and order backlogs are on the increase.But Everke does himself few favors. The former NXP Semiconductors NV executive has made AMS an extremely tough investment case: the stock has consistently had the highest 120-day volatility of any European tech firm over the past three years. The Osram affair is a prime example of the behavior causing this.As a conference call on Tuesday progressed, AMS shares pared earlier gains of as much as 10%. Analysts repeatedly tried and failed to get clarity from Everke and his team on the logic behind any Osram bid, and investor faith in his strategy appeared to wane by the minute. Executives repeatedly parroted a line about any bid target needing to meet AMS’s acquisition criteria, without giving any sense as to whether or how Osram met them. By the time the call ended, the stock was trading just 1.9% higher than Monday’s close.I wrote last week how any bid would require a serious leap of faith from investors. Perhaps he thought that the upswing in earnings would help warrant such trust. But given the failure to explain why any deal for Osram might make sense, the leap he’s asking for is a blind one. Investors have been burned enough before to be wary about taking it.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jennifer Ryan at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Alex Webb is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe's technology, media and communications industries. He previously covered Apple and other technology companies for Bloomberg News in San Francisco.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.