9.85k followers • 30 symbols Watchlist by Yahoo Finance
Follow this list to discover and track tech stocks with highest percentage of hedge fund ownership.
Atlassian Corporation Plc
CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
InterXion Holding N.V.
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
CDK Global, Inc.
MKS Instruments, Inc.
First Solar, Inc.
New Relic, Inc.
LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.
Acacia Communications, Inc.
PROS Holdings, Inc.
SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc.
Clarivate Analytics Plc
Mastercard's (MA) Q4 results reflect revenue gains from increase in gross dollar value and cross-border volumes, partly offset by rise in expenses.
LiveRamp (RAMP) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Coherent (COHR) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Monolithic (MPWR) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- How would you feel if your doctor, on hearing you’ve got diet-related health concerns, just told you to watch your diet? “I know,” you respond. “But which parts of my diet? What should I cut out and how much?” The reply: you should closely study the list of ingredients in anything you eat and decide for yourself.This is pretty similar to the European Union’s recommendations for dealing with Huawei Technologies Co., the world’s largest maker of telecommunications equipment. The Chinese firm has become a source of concern, not least in the U.S., over risks that it could create backdoors in the networks it helps build for exploitation by Chinese state actors.The EU’s executive body on Wednesday unveiled its much-anticipated guidelines for how the bloc’s national governments should handle cybersecurity in the era of fifth-generation mobile networks. The suggestions are sensible. They include assessing the risk profile of suppliers, putting restrictions on those that don’t pass the smell test, auditing operators and ensuring a diversity of suppliers. Crucially, it fails explicitly to name Huawei or China, instead referring to “high-risk suppliers.” Member states have the leeway to determine what constitutes such a supplier and then implement any solutions themselves.The problem is that some countries are far better equipped to tackle the challenge than others, as exhibited by the U.K.’s measured and well-considered solution to tackling Huawei unveiled on Tuesday. The soon-to-be-former EU member’s plan will clearly require constant ongoing work and revisions, but Britain has been proactively tackling the issue for more than a decade. Back in 2010, it set up a center in Oxfordshire that evaluates all of Huawei’s products before they enter the British network.Along the way, the U.K. has been proactive about limiting Huawei’s role in its domestic telecoms industry. So when Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the Chinese firm would be kept out of the core network and restricted to 35% of the radio-access network, he was to an extent simply reaffirming the existing reality.The situation is significantly different in Germany. The country’s incumbent operator, Deutsche Telekom AG, is dependent upon Huawei products for half of its network equipment, perhaps more. A similar lab to the one in Oxfordshire was only set up in 2018 in Bonn, and is considered less advanced.“We’re very late to wake up,’’ Thorsten Benner, co-founder of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told me. “The U.K. intelligence services saw it as a problem all along. Germany just went for the cheapest supplier.”So as much as the measures outlined by the European Commission make sense, following them effectively is a tougher proposition. And if it’s hard for Germany, Europe’s largest and most prosperous nation, the prospects are dimmer for smaller states. Take Hungary, for instance, where Huawei employs 2,000 people and has a major logistics center.Some of the responsibility for the quandary must be borne by the Commission itself. Competition policy has repeatedly blocked mergers in the region that might have helped carriers’ profitability: average revenue per user has fallen from 21.60 euros ($23.75) a month in 2008 to 12.80 euros in 2018. That has forced carriers to find cost-savings elsewhere, providing an opening for Huawei to make inroads with its low-cost gear (thanks to subsidies from the Chinese state), and displace the pricier European rivals, Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj.The situation is exacerbated in markets such as Poland or Romania, where revenue per user averages less than 10 euros. The contrast with the U.S., where AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. enjoy income of close to $50 per user, is stark. They enjoy far healthier returns on investment.The EU is finally proposing checks and balances that should have been in place a long time ago. But they are little more than a starting point. Don’t be surprised if the likes of Germany, France, Spain and Italy lean more heavily on the U.K.’s lead. For the rest, there’s still plenty of scope for member states to continue voraciously gobbling down the Chinese candy.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of 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/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- The U.K.’s decision to allow China’s Huawei Technologies Co. to be involved in building its 5G telecom networks won’t affect trans-Atlantic intelligence sharing, despite U.S. threats to the contrary, Digital Secretary Nicky Morgan said.Britain gave the green light for Huawei kit to be used in non-sensitive parts of its new networks Tuesday, ending a protracted debate. In the run-up to the decision, there was a steady drumbeat of warnings from President Donald Trump’s administration that the U.S. may hold back secret intelligence if Prime Minster Boris Johnson pressed ahead with giving the company a role.Asked in a Bloomberg Television interview whether she’d had assurances before the decision to include Huawei -- deemed a high-risk vendor, Morgan said: “Yes, we’ve obviously had a lot of advice from our various security agencies about that,” before adding: “There is no reason why the decision should or would affect our ability to share classified data with the U.S. or our allies.”U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who was among officials to warn Britain ahead of the decision, is in London on Wednesday and is likely to raise the issue in meetings with ministers. A slew of U.S. congressional figures have already criticized the U.K.’s position and Johnson and Trump spoke about the issue on Tuesday evening, with the premier underlining the need for Western allies to work together to break the market dominance of a small number of companies.“I know that there are very strong feelings in the U.S. particularly in relation to China, but there are many, many areas where we cooperate very fully in lots of different ways with the U.S., and I think that special relationship will remain,” Morgan said on Wednesday. “We would like eventually to have more providers to work with the U.S. and other countries creating or supporting companies to have this capability,” she said, “so we don’t have to rely on high-risk vendors in the future.”U.S. Disappointed as Johnson Gives Huawei Partial 5G Role (1)With Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj the only alternatives, Huawei’s involvement is needed to ensure the networks are resilient because “we would never want to rely just on two vendors,” Morgan said.“That’s why a third provider is necessary,” she said. “At the moment it’s deemed to be Huawei, it’s a high risk vendor, but hopefully the market will respond to calls for more diversification so we will have a better choice in the future.”Morgan, who earlier told LBC Radio that the National Security Council decision on Huawei was “unanimous,” pointed out that the U.K. has monitored the Chinese company’s involvement in U.K. telecom networks for years, and is “clear-eyed” about the risk. That, she said, informed the decision to keep the company out of core networks and sensitive locations and limit them to a 35% share of the market.“We know more about Huawei, the way they operate, their capabilities, than any other country, which means we are confident we can mitigate the risk,” Morgan said. “We would not make the decision if we thought that it compromised national security at all.”\--With assistance from Anna Edwards and Matthew Miller.To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at email@example.com, Giles Turner, Thomas PennyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson risked a rift with President Donald Trump as he gave Huawei Technologies Co. the green light to help develop Britain’s next-generation broadband networks.While the U.K. government announced it will keep what it calls high-risk vendors such as Huawei out of the most sensitive core parts of its 5G mobile networks, the company will be able to supply other equipment that is critical to the roll-out of broadband such as antennas and base stations.That is a blow to the Trump administration, which wanted Johnson to impose an outright ban on the Shenzhen-based tech giant, citing concerns that its gear could be vulnerable to infiltration by Chinese spies. The two men spoke about the U.K. decision on Tuesday, according to Johnson’s office. American officials had warned the U.S. may be forced to hold back secret intelligence from the U.K. in future, if Johnson pressed ahead with giving Huawei a role. The company has always denied it poses any security risk.A key pillar of Johnson’s vision for a future outside the world’s richest single market is a trade deal with the U.S. and the Huawei license risks setting up a clash with Trump. On their call on Tuesday, Johnson “underlined the importance of like-minded countries working together to diversify the market and break the dominance of a small number of companies,” his office said.The initial reaction from Washington was muted.A senior U.S. administration official expressed disappointment at Johnson’s decision, but also hope that the U.S. and the U.K. could still find some way to exclude components from untrusted vendors in 5G systems in future. Trump himself has yet to comment, and is preparing to announce his Middle East peace plan later Tuesday.Read More: U.K. Still Wary of China Hacking Threat After Limiting HuaweiReactions from Congress were more critical. “Here’s the sad truth: our special relationship is less special now that the U.K. has embraced the surveillance state commies at Huawei,” said Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska.Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee suggested curtailing intelligence-sharing with any allies whose networks run on the equipment of “untrusted” vendors. “If we have exhausted our carrots with the Brits, it may be time to use a stick,” Blackburn said in a statement. Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, in a reference to Brexit, said: “I fear London has freed itself from Brussels only to cede sovereignty to Beijing. Allowing Huawei to build the U.K.’s 5G networks today is like allowing the KGB to build its telephone network during the Cold War.”In London, too, senior members of Johnson’s ruling Conservative Party expressed dismay at his decision. Former party leader Iain Duncan Smith, and ex-cabinet minister David Davis warned of the security risks the Chinese company posed. “The size and complexity, the problem we are trying to protect against, is enormous,” Davis told the House of Commons. “Huawei should be banned from our networks.”The widely-expected announcement by Johnson’s government is a compromise between the outright ban on Huawei sought by the U.S. and the access sought by telecommunication companies. While it ends months of political wrangling in the U.K., the process remains fraught with peril for Johnson as he prepares to end Britain’s 47 years of European Union membership and plans to negotiate a new trade deal with the U.S.Market ShareUnder the U.K.’s policy, a cap of up to 35% will be imposed on Huawei’s share of the non-sensitive parts of the next-generation networks, such as antennas, masts and even fixed-line fiber-to-the-home components.High risk vendors, a category which would also include China’s ZTE, which is already banned from the U.K., are also to be “excluded from sensitive geographic locations, such as nuclear sites and military bases.”The 35% cap will be kept under review and could reduce over time, the government said. The cap is roughly in line with Huawei’s current overall market share in 4G, and Huawei said it was expected and reasonable. U.K. officials said the cap could be reduced over time, and the aim is to work with allies to help develop alternatives and get to a stage where the country doesn’t need to rely on high-risk vendors at all.However, the cap may mean that phone carriers like BT Group Plc’s EE, Vodafone Group Plc and Three have to rejig their 5G plans to comply. Three, a unit of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd., had been depending on Huawei to deliver the entirety of its 5G radio-access network, with Nokia chosen to provide the core.Dave Dyson, chief executive officer of Three U.K., said in a statement: “We note the government’s announcement and are reviewing the detail.”Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj are the primary Huawei rivals in networking equipment now, but the U.K. decision may help create more options for certain segments of wireless networks. Cisco Systems Inc., Juniper Networks Inc., Ciena Corp. and Infinera Corp. may benefit as wireless operators look for alternative suppliers, said Woo Jin Ho, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.Huawei ReassuredIn a statement, Huawei Vice-President Victor Zhang said it was “reassured” that the U.K. will let the company keep working with carriers on 5G.“This evidence-based decision will result in a more advanced, more secure and more cost-effective telecoms infrastructure that is fit for the future,” he said, committing to build on Huawei’s more than 15 years supplying U.K. telecom operators.The Confederation of British Industry, the leading business lobby in the country, said “this solution appears a sensible compromise that gives the U.K. access to cutting-edge technology, whilst building in appropriate checks and balances around security.” Vodafone, which uses Huawei in its U.K. radio network, said “we aim to keep any potential disruption to customers to a minimum.”By curbing Huawei’s access but still allowing the supplier to play a role in 5G, British officials are betting they can manage any security risks at home and still maintain intelligence-sharing ties with the U.S. and other allies.Johnson discussed Huawei in a phone call with Trump on Friday, and clearly wasn’t swayed by the push for a total ban. The prime minister said the U.K. could have the best of both worlds: retaining access to the best technology while protecting the data of consumers. British security services deem the risks manageable.For the U.K. timing of its announcement is particularly sensitive. U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who had warned Johnson’s predecessor not to “wobble” on the issue, is due to visit on Wednesday.Huawei has been a key supplier to the U.K. and many other European phone networks for over a decade so this decision will be closely watched by others. In fact, many European nations are leaning in the same direction as the U.K.QuickTake: Can a 70-Year-Old Spy Alliance Endure in Era of 5G?The EU will publish its own guidelines on Wednesday which give leeway to member states to restrict or ban Huawei without forcing them to do so. According to a draft of the document seen by Bloomberg, countries should consider banning suppliers based in countries with insufficient “democratic checks and balances” from core 5G components.Canada has also indicated interest in a similarly split decision -- allowing Huawei while also pledging to contain any security risk.A key concern of the U.S. is that other countries will copy-and-paste the U.K.’s solution, relying on its regulatory system and high level of access to Huawei technology.“The U.K. model isn’t easily replicated,” warned Ian Levy, technical director of the National Cyber Security Centre, in a blog published alongside the decision. “The approach we’ve come up with for the U.K. is specific to the U.K. context. Others shouldn’t assume they’re getting the same level of protection for modern networks if they do similar things without performing their own analysis.”The market is broken, he added, because it’s not commercially attractive to build good security into networks.(Updates with Huawei alternatives in 16th paragraph)\--With assistance from Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Josh Wingrove and Kevin Cirilli.To contact the reporters on this story: Thomas Seal in London at firstname.lastname@example.org;Alex Morales in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson at firstname.lastname@example.org, Tim Ross, Rebecca PentyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
MKS Instruments (MKSI) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 13.21% and 5.90%, respectively, for the quarter ended December 2019. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
New Relic (NEWR) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
CDK Global (CDK) possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Entegris (ENTG) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
(Bloomberg) -- In the end, the prospect of eye-watering costs and delays to the roll-out of critical technology proved more daunting for the British government than American threats.On Tuesday, the U.S. lost its long battle to persuade the U.K. to ban China’s Huawei Technologies Co. from fifth-generation wireless networks. The decision to let Huawei build the periphery of the 5G system showed the awkward position of U.S. allies asked to choose between Washington and Beijing. It also reflects waning U.S. leverage in Europe—including post-Brexit U.K.—at a time when the transatlantic alliance is strained.President Donald Trump’s administration has been clear about what it sees as the problem: a potential Chinese breach of allied national security. It’s been less clear on a viable solution for countries desperate not to fall behind in the race for the infrastructure that will underpin such advances as driverless cars and automated factories.Read More: U.K. Allows Huawei to Build 5G NetworksWith few alternative companies able to supply the 5G market, the U.S. couldn’t counter the significant added costs and delays involved in banning Huawei outright. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo arrives in London on Wednesday and it’s now up to the U.S. to decide whether to raise the temperature in a public dispute between close allies.The threats so far have included cuts to intelligence sharing, although that would come at significant cost to the U.S. itself and British officials don’t believe it would follow through. GCHQ, the British equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, operates a hub for the “Five Eyes” members—Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.But as Britain leaves the European Union on Friday, there’s much more in play. The response to the Huawei decision has potential to bleed across to trade negotiations, British plans for a digital tax on tech giants and the broader post-Brexit relationship including a budding political friendship between Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.“It’s in the U.S. gift to accept that even if we disagree in the details, we agree on the fundamentals and move on to the much more important issue of developing western vendors” for 5G telecommunication networks, said Malcolm Chalmers, a former U.K. diplomat and now deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, in a briefing.QuicktakeHow Huawei Landed at the Center of a Global TussleThe EU is expected to announce on Wednesday guidelines for member states to use in deciding 5G issues, including rules that would permit, but not require, governments to restrict or ban the use of Huawei equipment.Going forward, said Chalmers, countries will need to redress the market failure at the root of the Huawei dispute: The tiny number of vendors—none of them American—that are able to build 5G networks at scale. Not only does that force an over-reliance on Chinese suppliers, it also reduces options to build backups into networks—a key cyber security tool—so that if one manufacturer’s antenna stops working, another’s will continue. Britain’s reliance on just three suppliers, including Huawei, is “crazy,” according to Ian Levy, technical director at Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre. He made the comment in a blogpost published on Tuesday to explain how U.K. security agencies plan to protect its 5G network.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. said last year it aimed to boost its share of the global telecommunications equipment market to 20% gear from less than 7%. But the hurdles to new entrants Levy checked off in his post—including low margins, high research and development costs, patent license fees and scale—are considerable. U.S. OptionsThis month, Thomas Donahue, a former senior director for cyber operations on the U.S. National Security Council, wrote that the federal government had three options: invest heavily in Huawei’s European alternatives, Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj, buy one of them, or massively fund the development of a U.S. competitor.The U.S. Defense Science Board recommended in June that the federal government should provide seed funding for “western industrial base alternatives” to Huawei.When it comes to an immediate Huawei ban, though, the U.S. has struggled to persuade European countries to follow the lead it has set with Australia, a Pacific nation that faces a more immediate security threat from China.The argument centers on whether, in the new world of 5G, risks posed by a potentially hostile equipment supplier can be managed. Britain’s electronic intelligence agencies appear to have rejected U.S. claims that in 5G networks the core has become “virtual” and so widely distributed that the distinction at the heart of Tuesday’s decision—between a sensitive core and dumb periphery—no longer exists.The edge of a network will still face the consumer and, if hacked, give access almost exclusively to metadata, not the sensitive materials in the core, said James Sullivan, RUSI’s head of cyber research. “5G networks are not revolutionary,” said Sullivan, who just completed a nine-month study on the issue. “They are evolutionary.”Huawei has been building mobile network infrastructure in the U.K. for more than 15 years. British officials were concerned enough about the security risks involved that in 2010 they set up an inspection center to reverse engineer the company’s equipment and assess it for security risks.The center’s annual reports have been damning. Last year’s concluded that “it will be difficult to appropriately risk-manage future products in the context of U.K. deployments, until the underlying defects in Huawei’s software engineering and cyber security processes are remediated.”It was because of the center’s work “that we know more about Huawei, and the risks it poses, than any other country in the world,” U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told parliament on Tuesday. He also pledged to attract more 5G vendors.But if it shares U.S. concerns about Huawei, the U.K. is also in a very different starting position. To ban Huawei it would need to first rip out existing Huawei 4G hardware, causing significant costs and delays. That’s in addition to forgoing the steep price discount the company offers over competitors. In the U.S., the Chinese company has sold equipment only to some smaller rural networks.That cost raises questions about how much more secure it would be to use non-Chinese hardware, another gray area. Equipment supplied by Western companies is shot through with Chinese components, while some of the most prolific hacking is done by Russia, which does not produce any of the hardware it hacks.“The initial argument—why would you allow a Chinese provider, a frenemy, right into the core of your network—does sound crazy,” said Emily Taylor, chief executive of Oxford Information Labs, a cyber consultancy. “But when you look at it, no piece of equipment will ever be 100% secure.”To contact the author of this story: Marc Champion in London at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Rosalind Mathieson at firstname.lastname@example.org, Rodney JeffersonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Proofpoint's (PFPT) fourth-quarter 2019 results are likely to reflect strong demand for its products. However, higher capital expenditure and depreciation might have dented the margins.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There’s a fine line between a fudge and a workable compromise. In Britain’s handling of Huawei Technologies Co., Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just about managed to secure the latter.The U.K. has brushed off the U.S.’s complaints and decided to allow its telecoms operators to install equipment made by “high-risk vendors” — read: Huawei — in their networks. But the government drew a line, excluding it outright from sensitive core parts of the network and capping its gear’s presence in the non-sensitive parts at 35% of the total.Outwardly, President Donald Trump won’t like the solution. But if the U.S.’s loudest protestations about security concerns were genuine, and not in fact an effort to stymie Chinese economic influence, then it should be able to stomach the compromise. American concern has focused on the risk of Huawei building backdoors into networks that can be readily exploited by Chinese state-sponsored actors. After all, China passed a law in 2017 obliging companies to assist the state with espionage efforts. And while no such backdoors have yet been found, that isn’t proof that they don’t exist.QuicktakeHow Huawei Landed at the Center of Global Tech TussleBut at the same time, a great deal of capital, both political and actual, has been invested in the promise of fifth-generation networks. Globally, revenue from the so-called Internet of Things will quadruple to $1.1 trillion by 2025, industry body the GSMA estimates. With about a third of the $50 billion global telecoms equipment market, Huawei has become the biggest player, with some of the best technology and lowest prices. Banning it would have ramifications for the pace of the 5G rollout.That is why the U.K. approach is a pragmatic one. It’s allowing Huawei products into the radio-access network — essentially the antenna and base stations — but keeping it out of the core: the server hubs that direct data around the network. Network security focuses on three pillars: confidentiality, integrity and availability. The first one focuses on ensuring that bad actors can’t see your data. The second is about making sure no-one is altering data during transmission. And the third is about guaranteeing network access when it’s needed.By those criteria, the U.K. decision seems to eliminate most, though not all, of the risk. If there are indeed backdoors into the parts of the network using Huawei gear, then they will likely only have access to data from that 35% of the network using it. It should still be possible to keep the equipment out of sensitive networks, such as those running the power grids and police communications. Indeed, France won’t let operators use Huawei antenna in Toulouse, for instance, where the airplane giant Airbus SA is based. BT Group Plc was already stripping Huawei gear out of its existing core networks. It likely would have been hard to secure lucrative government contracts without doing so.At any rate, telecommunications firms’ cybersecurity efforts will be on heightened alert where the slice of their operations that do still contain Huawei products is concerned. It might be easier to spot disturbing anomalies. If a base station is siphoning off gobs of data to somewhere in Asia, that will be more noteworthy than if it’s coming from the core network. As the distinction between core and edge networks blurs in the move toward full 5G, Huawei’s role must be managed even more carefully.Johnson had three sets of interests to navigate: the Americans threatened to cut off intelligence sharing with Britain in response; China’s ambassador warned a Huawei ban would have “substantial” repercussions for investment in the U.K.; and Britain’s own network operators — Vodafone Group Plc., BT, O2 (part of Spain’s Telefonica SA) and Three (owned by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd.) — also had their say.The stakes are higher for these companies than for their U.S. peers, who are already prevented from using almost any Huawei products. That’s because they’re poorer. AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. enjoy average revenue per customer of close to $50 a month. In the U.K., Vodafone gets just 14 pounds ($18.22), according to Bloomberg Intelligence.British carriers are therefore much more cost sensitive. Knocking Huawei out of the running in the radio-access network would have left a duopoly of Nokia Oyj and Ericsson AB, giving the suppliers a huge amount of pricing power. Samsung Electronics Co. is accelerating into the industry, but its gear is often even pricier. And U.S. suppliers such as Juniper Networks Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. compete more effectively in the core network.The European Union looks set to issue guidelines that imitate the U.K. approach. The U.S. may not like it, but Johnson was never going to keep everyone happy.To contact the author of this story: Alex Webb at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Melissa Pozsgay at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of 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/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Avnet, Inc. (NASDAQ:AVT) last week reported its latest quarterly results, which makes it a good time for investors to...
In the last 30 months (2017 2H onwards), a total of 21 U.S.-based, VC-backed SaaS companies have gone public, including Zoom, Slack, Datadog and others1. Here is a scatterplot of the ARR and cumulative capital raised at the time each company went public. Most companies are clustered close to the diagonal line that represents ARR and capital raised matching each other.
Weakness in the components industry due to macroeconomic downsides and sluggish Farnell business affect Avnet's (AVT) second-quarter fiscal 2020 results. However, cost-saving efforts are a breather.