2.56k followers • 31 symbols Watchlist by Yahoo Finance
Follow this list to discover and track stocks have the highest Environmental scores as rated by Sustainalytics Research. This list is generated daily and limited to the top 30 stocks that meet the criteria.
Jul.24 -- Satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. has agreed to pay $5 billion for wireless assets in a deal with T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. Nabila Ahmed reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Asia."
Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple spent a combined $12.7 on federal lobbying in the second quarter of 2019.
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) -- Satellite-TV provider Dish Network Corp. has agreed to pay $5 billion for wireless assets in a deal with T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp., setting the stage for the Justice Department to approve the $26.5 billion merger of the mobile-phone carriers, according to people familiar with the matter.After weeks of negotiations, the parties have hammered out an agreement under which Dish will pay about $1.5 billion for prepaid mobile businesses and roughly $3.5 billion for spectrum, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the details are still private. Under the terms of the deal, Dish can’t sell the assets or hand over control of the agreement to a third party for three years, the people said.The accord should allow the Justice Department to sign off on T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint as soon as Thursday. T-Mobile also is expected to reiterate that the economic terms of the Sprint deal, which it said would generate about $43 billion in savings, won’t be affected by the asset sale to Dish, the people said.Representatives for Dish, T-Mobile, Sprint and the Justice Department declined to comment.Shares of SoftBank Group Corp., the Japanese owner of Sprint, rose as much as 3.2% after Bloomberg reported on the Dish deal. T-Mobile is backed by Deutsche Telekom AG.T-Mobile and Sprint -- and their overseas parent companies -- have spent more than a year fighting to get their merger approved. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai recommended in May that his agency clear the deal, but the Justice Department has been harder to win over.As part of the Dish agreement, the satellite-TV company gets a seven-year wholesale agreement allowing it to sell T-Mobile wireless service under the Dish brand. The package also includes a three-year service agreement from T-Mobile to provide operational support as prepaid customers shift to Dish.Fourth CarrierThe Justice Department’s antitrust chief, Makan Delrahim, has pushed for an agreement that would be a win for consumers and compensate for the fact that T-Mobile’s merger with Sprint would reduce the number of major players in the wireless industry to three from four.Dish’s role would satisfy the government’s longstanding demand that there be four national mobile-service companies remaining, even after the merger of the third- and fourth-ranked carriers in the market.Critics have noted that the track record for competitors created by divestitures has been dismal. French communications firm Iliad SA became Italy’s fourth carrier last year after buying assets divested by two larger rivals that merged. Iliad had an initial surge in subscriber growth, followed by a slowdown.Even if T-Mobile and Sprint secure the Justice Department’s blessing, they face resistance from a group of state attorneys general. They say the deal should be blocked because it will hinder competition and raise prices.(Updates with attorneys general in final paragraph)To contact the reporters on this story: Nabila Ahmed in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;David McLaughlin in Washington at email@example.com;Scott Moritz in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Liana Baker at email@example.com, Nick TurnerFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- A JPMorgan Chase & Co. unit violated India’s foreign investment rules and helped property developer Amrapali Group divert funds from realty projects, the nation’s Supreme Court said in a ruling and ordered an investigation.The court on Tuesday ordered the federal anti-money laundering agency to investigate Amrapali, based in Noida, near New Delhi, for diverting funds overseas with the help of JPMorgan and others. The violations, based on a forensic audit, range from disregarding foreign investment norms, paying dividend without generating profits, setting up fake companies and overvaluing shares.JPMorgan’s Singapore-based spokesman Chris Cockerill declined to comment. The biggest U.S. bank is allowed to seek a review of the ruling. Any criminal charges will only be filed in a lower court once investigation is complete.Developers, including Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and Unitech Ltd., have been taken to courts by irate homeowners and creditors as apartment sales slumped in the once red-hot South Asian market following the triple whammy of a surprise cash ban, tax reforms and a consumer-protection law for the sector. Home prices in India’s financial capital dropped and unsold inventory rose 14% in first half of 2019.JPMorgan invested around 850 million rupees ($12.3 million) in an Amrapali Group company’s shares and later sold them to an office boy and nephew of the auditor for 1.4 billion rupees, according to the ruling published on the top court’s website.“The shares were overvalued for making payment to JPMorgan,” the court’s two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra said in its ruling, agreeing with the forensic auditor regarding JPMorgan’s role. “It was adopted as a device for siphoning off the money of the home buyers to foreign countries.”The ruling can impact lenders’ efforts to recover dues as the court held that home buyers have the first right over the projects rather than banks that have lent funds to the builder.The court scrapped Amrapali’s registration under real estate laws and directed government-owned NBCC India Ltd. to complete all incomplete projects.The investigations will be done under the court’s supervision by police and the federal anti-money laundering agency.“We are not a country in which courts will permit such action and permit a person to go scot-free,” according to the ruling.The case is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 940/2017, Bikram Chatterji and others v. Union of India and others in Supreme Court of India.(Updates with JPMorgan declining to comment in third paragraph)To contact the reporter on this story: Upmanyu Trivedi in New Delhi at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Unni Krishnan at email@example.com, Abhay SinghFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. technology companies urged Japan and South Korea to negotiate a resolution to a dispute that threatens to up-end the global supply chain that the world’s top electronics brands rely on make their products.Five of America’s largest tech industry groups including the Semiconductor Industry Association, which counts Qualcomm Inc. and Intel Corp. among its members, issued a joint letter to Japanese Economy Minister Hiroshige Seko and South Korean Minister of Trade Yoo Myung-hee. They asked both sides to refrain from escalating their conflict, which flared after Japan slapped restrictions this month on exports to South Korea of three materials vital to the production of chips and cutting-edge screens.Resurgent tensions between Japan and South Korea threaten to wallop chipmakers from Samsung Electronics Co. to SK Hynix Inc., upsetting a carefully choreographed global supply chain by smothering the production of memory chips and other components vital to widely used devices.The groups’ letter is well-timed: U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton is in Seoul Wednesday for wide-ranging talks that come on the same day that marks the end of a public consultation period on whether Japan should exclude South Korea from its so-called “white list” of trusted export destinations treated as presenting no risk of weapons proliferation. “Japan and South Korea are important players in these global value chains,” the trade groups, which also include the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote. “Non-transparent and unilateral changes in export control policies can cause supply chain disruptions, delays in shipments, and ultimately long-term harm to the companies that operate within and beyond your borders and the workers they employ.”South Korean suppliers of key materials for chipmakers have surged since Japan unveiled measures targeting its neighbor, buoyed by hopes that they may win new business from key players including Samsung and SK Hynix Inc.To contact the reporter on this story: Sohee Kim in Seoul at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Elstrom at email@example.com, Edwin Chan, Jon HerskovitzFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(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.
Edwards Lifesciences (EW) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 3.76% and 4.00%, respectively, for the quarter ended June 2019. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
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.