|Bid||0.00 x 3000|
|Ask||0.00 x 1800|
|Day's Range||135.66 - 136.70|
|52 Week Range||93.96 - 141.68|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.97|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||26.94|
|Earnings Date||Oct 22, 2019 - Oct 28, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||1.84 (1.34%)|
|1y Target Est||154.72|
(Bloomberg) -- It’s time wind and solar passed their subsidies along to emerging technologies that need them more, Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates says.After decades of government incentives, wind and solar have been deployed widely enough for manufacturers and developers to become increasingly efficient and drive down costs. Now they can probably survive without them, Gates said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.“The tax benefits there should be shifted into things that are more limiting, like energy storage, offshore wind -- which still has a huge premium price,” said Gates, who co-chairs a global group of business, political and scientific leaders formed in 2018 to push for investments to help the world adapt to climate change.U.S. states including New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts see proposed offshore wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean as crucial ingredients to phase out fossil fuels and fight climate change. But the costs of building wind farms at sea are still nearly twice as high as on land. Energy storage, meanwhile, is key to allowing wind and solar plants to dispatch power even when the sun sets and breezes go slack. But big batteries remain expensive, too.“The progress in solar and wind is very helpful,” Gates said. “But the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day.”To contact the reporters on this story: Christopher Martin in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Erik Schatzker in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lynn Doan at firstname.lastname@example.org, Joe Ryan, Steven FrankFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Oracle Corp. unveiled an operating system that runs without the need for human oversight, part of a raft of new software tools meant to ease the company’s rocky transition to cloud computing.The operating system expands Oracle’s line of autonomous products beyond databases, the company’s flagship software. Chairman Larry Ellison announced the new Linux-based product Monday during remarks at OpenWorld, Oracle’s annual user conference in San Francisco.“If you eliminate human error in autonomous systems, you eliminate data theft,” Ellison said on stage. The feature makes Oracle’s products more secure than those sold by cloud leader Amazon Web Services, he said.Ellison said the operating system, which the company’s Autonomous Database runs on, will update itself without any downtime.The world’s second-largest software maker has sought to revive sales growth after years of almost stagnant revenue. Oracle hopes that a lineup of “self-driving” programs could help differentiate the company’s offerings against products from Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. Those companies are the top two in the market to rent storage and computing power, which is projected to reach almost $39 billion in 2019. The tools may also entice longtime Oracle customers to upgrade their technology to take advantage of artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities.Oracle disclosed last week that Mark Hurd, one of the company’s two chief executive officers, would take a leave of absence to treat an unspecified illness. Ellison and Oracle’s other CEO, Safra Catz, said they would fill in for Hurd, who has overseen the company’s sales and marketing efforts.The Redwood City, California-based company also announced a variety of changes and new programs to bolster its partner ecosystem:Oracle unveiled an agreement with VMware Inc. to bring virtualization software to Oracle’s cloud, similar to deals VMware has signed with Microsoft and Google.Customers will be able to buy software made by other companies in the Oracle Cloud Marketplace, which may help company partners including Cisco Systems Inc. and Palo Alto Networks Inc.Oracle also said it expanded a relationship with cybersecurity company McAfee Inc. to bring its security incident software to Oracle’s infrastructure cloud.Ellison said Oracle would offer a free version of its Cloud Infrastructure, giving developers, students and others perpetual access to the company’s autonomous database, computing and storage.The company plans to launch 20 additional cloud data-center hubs, called “regions,” by the end of 2020. Ellison said the company would have more regions around the world than AWS.Oracle will let customers run the autonomous database in their own data centers next year, and unveiled new servers with updated memory components from Intel Corp.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.
Associate Stock Strategist Ben Rains dives into Apple's (AAPL) new iPhone 11s, as well as its streaming TV service and video game push. The episode also breaks down what's next for Apple stock and why the tech firm looks strong heading into the holiday shopping season. - Full-Court Finance
(Bloomberg) -- The biggest backers of SoftBank Group Corp.’s gargantuan Vision Fund are reconsidering how much to commit to its next investment vehicle as an oversized bet on flexible workspace provider WeWork sours.Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which contributed $45 billion to the $100 billion Vision Fund, is now only planning to reinvest profits from that vehicle into its successor, according to people familiar with the talks. Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment Co., which invested $15 billion, is considering paring its future commitment to below $10 billion, the people said, asking not to be identified in disclosing internal deliberations.A partial retreat of the two anchor investors would complicate fundraising for SoftBank Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son, who upended venture capital by making huge bets on promising yet unproven companies and spurring others to follow suit. Perhaps more than any other startup, WeWork has come to symbolize that brash style, and the success or failure of its IPO is likely to impact Son’s ability to raise cash for future deals.PIF executives are still considering options and no final decision has been made, one of the people said. A spokesman for the Saudi Arabian wealth fund declined to comment. Mubadala said discussions are continuing on whether or not any investment will take place. A representative for SoftBank’s Vision Fund didn’t immediately have a comment.“The suggestion we have made any decisions on the size or timing of a potential investment is simply unfounded,” said Brian Lott, a spokesman for Abu Dhabi’s sovereign fund. “Our discussions continue at an appropriate and deliberate pace, given the importance of this effort.”Sagging ValuationThe Wall Street Journal previously reported that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund wasn’t planning to be a significant investor in the new fund but may still make a more modest commitment. A decision to only reinvest proceeds from the first fund would mark a significant shift. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said last October that he planned to invest another $45 billion into any new fund.“We would not put, as PIF, another $45 billion if we didn’t see huge income in the first year with the first $45 billion,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg.WeWork is one of SoftBank’s flagship investments, along with Uber Technologies Inc., messaging software provider Slack Technologies Inc. and U.K. chipmaker ARM Holdings Plc. SoftBank, which with its affiliates, owns a 29% stake, and in January invested at a valuation of $47 billion, more than triple the $15 billion that’s currently being discussed in an IPO.Tensions have erupted within SoftBank over how it has handled its investment in WeWork. The Vision Fund, along with PIF and Mubadala, scuttled a $16 billion investment early this year Son had championed. SoftBank ended up making only a $2 billion investment from its parent entity, rather than the Vision Fund.SoftBank said in July that other investors had expressed interest in pledging a combined $108 billion for the second Vision Fund, though that was before WeWork forged ahead with plans for an IPO. The new fund is expected to collect money from Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Foxconn Technology Group and various Japanese financial institutions, with seven having signed memorandums of understanding to participate.(Adds that talks are ongoing in fourth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Matthew Martin.To contact the reporters on this story: Gillian Tan in New York at email@example.com;Giles Turner in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at email@example.com, Christian Baumgaertel, Sree Vidya BhaktavatsalamFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma LP lays bare a distinction that the internet is making it more and more difficult to maintain: that between a company and the people who own or founded it.The Sackler family owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, an opioid that has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. There are numerous charges and more than 2,000 lawsuits against the company and its owners, and some recent joint settlements. The company has now declared bankruptcy, and wants to give control of Purdue to a trust run by the states, cities and counties that have filed suit against it.But what about the personal fortune of the Sacklers, estimated at $13 billion or more? Under traditional corporate theory, there is a clear distinction between the assets of the corporation and those of the owners. The limited liability company can go under, but the assets of the company owners are safe — just as, say, holding shares of Volkswagen in your mutual fund did not expose you to any personal liability for the automaker’s actions in falsifying emissions data.It turns out that this distinction is harder to uphold, if only in the eyes of the public, when a single family owns and runs a company. Last week New York State alleged that the Sackler family drained at least $1 billion from Purdue for the purpose of avoiding penalties against the corporation and thus shielding its wealth. If it looks like the Sackler family was trying to avoid legal penalties and fines, there will be strong political pressure, possibly backed by public opinion, to go after those additional funds.More generally, if a company is endangered by lawsuits, and the suits are not settled, its owners have a rationale to extract money from the company and stash it far away. But doing so will elicit a legal and public response, and the distinction between the personal and the corporate will not always be respected.Consider the Federal Trade Commission’s recent settlement with Facebook, under which some of founder Mark Zuckerberg’s personal assets are potentially on the line if Facebook does not respect its privacy agreements with the federal government. Some FTC commissioners suggested harsher treatment yet for Zuckerberg’s personal assets.Or, to give another example, Senator Elizabeth Warren has been promoting the notion of personal criminal liability for corporate CEOs if the firms engage in wrongdoing. Her bill would extend corporate liability beyond the company itself, and of course most CEOs of major companies are also shareholders to some extent. Maybe the goal is to punish these individuals in their roles as executives rather than as shareholders. But such penalties would blur these distinctions in the mind of the public — and eventually, perhaps, under the law.So how does the internet matter in all this? First, social media is very effective at drumming up outrage, and negative news seems to have a longer lifespan than positive news. The media’s pre-existing negative bias has been amplified, creating further animosity against any actual or supposed corporate villain.More important, social media personalizes agency — in effect, making it easier to accuse particular individuals of wrongdoing. Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and the Koch brothers all have images or iconic photos that can be put into a social media post, amplifying any attack on their respective companies. It is harder to vilify Exxon, in part because hardly anyone can name its CEO (Darren Woods, since 2017), who in any case did not create the current version of the company. Putting the Exxon logo on your vituperative social media post just doesn’t have the same impact. With Bill Gates having stepped down as Microsoft CEO in 2000, it is harder to vilify that company as well.This personalization of corporate evil has become a bigger issue in part because many prominent tech companies are currently led by their founders, and also because the number of publicly traded companies has been falling, which means there are fewer truly anonymous corporations. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which the most important decision a new company makes is how personalized it wants to be. A well-known founder can spark interest in the company and its products, and help to attract talent. At the same time, a personalized company is potentially a much greater target.The more human identities and feelings are part of the equation, however, the harder it will be to keep the classic distinction between a corporation and its owners. As the era of personalization evolves, it will inevitably engulf that most impersonal of entities — the corporation.To contact the author of this story: Tyler Cowen at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include "Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- In IBM’s vision of cloud computing, Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. will be allies rather than rivals.Chief Executive Officer Ginni Rometty is betting on the hybrid cloud, which lets IBM offer services on corporate customers’ cloud-based servers as well as on third-party clouds operated by the likes of Amazon and Microsoft. International Business Machines Corp. has traditionally viewed these cloud giants as direct competitors, but it now aims to partner with them by supporting clients as they shift sensitive databases on to the cloud, regardless of which provider they use.Armonk, New York-based IBM has gone through many transformations in its 108-year history: shifting from punched card tabulating equipment to mainframe computers and now to the cloud.“This company has had to be reinvented many times,” Rometty said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s CEO Spotlight show. “It’s something many other companies have yet to face. It is one thing to put out new products, but it is something else when the competitive landscape attacks your core business models and you have to develop a new one.”After struggling to keep up in the cloud market for more than a decade, IBM has switched to a hybrid cloud strategy, cementing its future with last year’s $34 billion acquisition of Red Hat, the Raleigh, North Carolina-based open source software provider.In the interview with BTV, Rometty said Red Hat would continue to operate as a separate and distinct business unit within IBM. “They must remain committed and neutral. They have to be on all our competitor’s platforms,” she said. “You have competition and cooperation -- and in this case Red Hat is a platform that goes across all of them.”To contact the reporters on this story: Olivia Carville in New York at firstname.lastname@example.org;Caroline Hyde in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Molly Schuetz, Robin AjelloFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- The We Co. roadshow is set to begin this week, perhaps as soon as today. Such corporate processionals through the ranks of blue-blooded Wall Street institutions are usually a triumph for buoyant, young companies. WeWork’s roadshow, on the other hand, will likely more closely resemble Cersei Lannister’s humiliating march to the Red Keep in Game of Thrones.Shame! WeWork’s valuation, $47 billion in a private funding round last January, could be set as low as $12 billion.Shame! Shame! Investors will no doubt be distrustful of any evidence of apparent self-dealing by the chief executive officer, Adam Neumann, such as buying properties and leasing them to the company. (WeWork took additional steps on Friday to change some of the unorthodox aspects of its governance structure and seek an independent board member.)As the nine-year-old office-sharing startup continues its stumble to the public markets, some prognosticators see this moment as something more significant: that a WeWork belly-flop portends the end of the unicorn era in Silicon Valley.The argument goes like this: SoftBank, the Japanese conglomerate and its $100 billion Vision Fund, has become an engine pushing the technology market to its limit. If it’s forced to retreat on its $10 billion commitment to WeWork, SoftBank will reconsider the nearly blind sanguinity that has perverted incentives for founders and distorted valuations in the industry over the last few years.In this seductive vision of a calamitous—and cleansing—WeWork initial public offering, modesty will once again return to Silicon Valley; humbled venture capitalists will stop bidding the valuations of unprofitable startups into the stratosphere; and the unicorns—those magical startups worth a $1 billion or more—will be put out to pasture, their legendary horns clipped like the tusks of poached African elephants.But that’s probably wishful thinking.The current cycle in tech started more than a decade ago, fueled by excitement over the iPhone, Facebook Inc. and the infusions of cash from a new generation of VCs like Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator. Business cycles tend to last seven to 10 years in Silicon Valley, and the resulting boom should have ended by now. But that was before the longest bull market in American history and a seemingly never-ending supply of venture capital from an array of new sources, including wealthy Chinese investors and Saudi Arabian oil money.It doesn’t appear to be stopping anytime soon. The stocks of Dropbox Inc., Lyft Inc., Slack Technologies Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. are all under their IPO prices. And yet, many investors still believe.Uber lost $5.2 billion last quarter, dismissed more than 800 employees in the last two months and lost a policy battle with California lawmakers last week that could rock its business model. Somehow, Uber is still worth a cool $57 billion. Meanwhile, SoftBank says it’s going to raise another Vision Fund, with contributions from Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Foxconn—this one even larger than the last.The belief underlying the persistent tech boom is that savvy entrepreneurs in vast markets with access to enough capital can engineer their way through even the most challenging issues. Witness CloudFlare Inc., the unprofitable internet infrastructure company that raised $525 million last week at a higher-than expected market value of $4.4 billion. Investors were able to overlook recent controversies over unsavory former CloudFlare clients, like the forum where a mass shooter hung out, and the stock popped on the first day of trading.What will it take to really put an end to the unicorn era? Perhaps an economic recession and an accompanying withdrawal of overseas capital from the Valley. Perhaps it will take a total collapse of a once-promising unicorn to change the risk tolerance of conservative investors like endowments, pensions and sovereign wealth funds.If the WeWork IPO flops, technologists will try to dismiss it as an outlier, the bad fortune of a real estate startup that was never truly a tech company. It will be viewed not as an indictment of current excess in Silicon Valley but as an exception to it. That’s not realistic, but then again, neither are unicorns.This article also ran in Bloomberg Technology’s Fully Charged newsletter. Sign up here.And here’s what you need to know in global technology newsSpeaking of SoftBank, some of its other companies would be hit hard by California’s new labor bill that would force gig economy companies to hire their workers.Lawmakers are seeking information from customers of the Big Tech companies. A House panel investigating potential antitrust violations has contacted customers of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg. They also asked the companies to hand over documents.Disney CEO Bob Iger left the board of Apple. The long-allied companies are now streaming rivals.Stanford University took money from Jeffrey Epstein, too. The school, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, received a $50,000 donation from a foundation backed by the late sex offender in 2004. Other donations to Harvard and MIT are prompting scrutiny of the schools and their faculties.A former Golden State Warrior is the U.S. face of Jumia, the Amazon.com of Africa.To contact the author of this story: Brad Stone in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Milian at firstname.lastname@example.orgFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
This week has been rough for big tech companies. On Monday, 50 states and territories announced that they're launching an antitrust investigation into Google.
In terms of pricing, Apple’s seventh-generation iPad is a reasonable proposition compared to its predecessor. Now let’s see how it fares against its peers.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There's a difference between leveraged buyouts and venture capital: debt. It's a distinction one European private equity firm seems to want investors to overlook. They shouldn’t let their eagerness to jump on the tech bandwagon blind them to it.London-based private equity firm Permira Holdings LLP is preparing an initial public offering of TeamViewer AG. The deal may value the German software maker at as much as 5.5 billion euros ($6.1 billion). That’s more than 17 times 2019 billings. ServiceNow Inc., a similar enterprise cloud software firm in the U.S., trades at a mere 12.5 times forward billings.That lofty valuation isn’t necessarily a problem in and of itself. Investors may well fall over themselves to get a piece of what is, after all, a rarity in Europe: a fast-growing tech company that generates cash and operating profit.But they shouldn’t ignore the warning signs. All the roughly 2 billion euros of net proceeds from the IPO are going to Permira, which will also keep a 58% stake. In all, the firm could end up sitting on a return of almost 13 times its original investment.Then look at TeamViewer’s debt. Include the cost of servicing its borrowings, and the operating profit it posted last year turns into a net loss. After the IPO, the company’s balance sheet will be still laden with debt. TeamViewer expects net debt to fall to 3.1 times cash Ebitda by the end of this year, but that’s well above the level of its tech peers, which typically target lower debt ratios because they don’t have many fixed assets to fall back on should things go awry. In fact, TeamViewer had negative net assets at the end of June. That alone is cause for caution.Potential shareholders will need to have absolute faith that the company can continue to grow and avoid major bear-traps. On one hand, TeamViewer is shifting to a subscription-based business model, which should give it a more predictable recurring revenue stream. But it has also warned that larger U.S. competitors like Microsoft Corp. might try and muscle in on its territory. That could make it hard to continue the 35% annual growth in billings it posted this year.Then there’s the risk of cyberattack. TeamViewer’s key offering is software to monitor computers and equipment remotely, which makes just one major hack a big operational risk. Indeed, the prospectus confirms that in 2016 the company was the target of an attack on its IT infrastructure. The firm detected the activity – but only disclosed it in May when Der Spiegel revealed what it said was a breach by Chinese hackers.This IPO isn’t just a missed opportunity to improve TeamViewer’s balance sheet. Cloud software companies can be inherently volatile, as my colleague Shira Ovide pointed out last week, so it makes even less sense to include debt in this combustible mix. That investors are prepared to overlook all this is testament to the dearth of publicly traded technology companies in Europe. They have next to no choice. To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis 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.
Investing.com - The Dow is set to pass its intraday record high on Friday and other indexes were also near record highs after upbeat trade news from China, while an upside surprise on core inflation wasn't seen as enough to stop the Federal Reserve cutting rates next week.
Apple (AAPL) is once again a $1 trillion company, joining Microsoft (MSFT), with shares up 8% in the past month. So is now the time to buy Apple stock after it showed off its new iPhone 11s and its streaming TV service, Apple TV+?