Category Archives: Big Tech

1 December | 2pm GMT

As the world moves towards deskless workforces, till-less supermarkets and more cloud infrastructure than ever, it is to no surprise that digital transformation has accelerated and new innovations are emerging faster than ever before. With these new players has come greater opportunities for investors to profit from the tech boom. At the centre of this innovation are a number of companies from the renowned Silicon Valley, where some of the largest technologies were born. Although America is leading in growth potential within the tech sphere, is this due to continue or are other regions showing initial signs of opportunity for investors?

Join us for this one hour webinar as our expert panel of commentators and fund managers share their insight on the best holdings, tech sectors, and signs of top contributors for the next decade to come.

Register for free here.

Continue reading here:

IC Interviews webinar: The big tech trajectory for investors: US vs the world - Investors Chronicle

In a word: No.

In 350 words: The costs of an invasion, both human and material, almost certainly outweigh any conceivable benefits. It is true that annexing Crimea and supporting the separatist uprisings in eastern Ukraine in 2014 boosted Putin's popularity at a time when his approval ratings were flagging. And today, his popularity is again near pre-Crimea lows because of persistent economic malaise and a rampant pandemic. His moves to crush what remains of Russia's independent opposition certainly don't give the impression that he feels secure.

But consider what an invasion of even a part of Ukraine might look like today. Back in 2014, after Moscow's man in Kyiv, Viktor Yanukovich, was forced to flee a popular revolution, Russia rushed into areas of Ukraine where there were already large ethnic Russian populations. People there spooked by the anti-Russian rhetoric of the government that took power after Yanukovich's ouster were often eager to be "rescued" by Russia.

Today, no other regions of Ukraine fit that description. To invade today would mean entering an almost entirely hostile country, risking a significant amount of casualties. It's not as though the 225,000-strong Ukrainian army, reinforced since 2014 with US weapons, would roll out a red carpet for Putin. And back home in Russia, an invasion wouldn't be popular. Polls show that only 13 percent of Russians think a war with Ukraine would boost Putin's standing. Twice as many think it would hurt him. Putin could certainly manufacture a more supportive narrative, but he'd be fighting an uphill battle.

Plus, occupation isn't cheap. Nursing the separatist governments in eastern Ukraine costs Russia about $4 billion a year. Crimea about half that, annually. That comes on top of the billions in new infrastructure it has built on the peninsula.

In many ways, Putin already has Ukraine right where he wants it. No, it's not the pliant client state that he'd like, but it is largely paralyzed between East and West, which is as good an outcome as Putin can realistically get. There is no serious prospect of Ukraine joining either NATO or the EU. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 enabled the Kremlin to keep an eye on who's doing what in the Black Sea. And Ukraine's dysfunctional post-revolution politics are hardly a source of inspiration for Russians wondering about their own future.

So why is Putin mustering all these troops? It's hard to know for sure, says Alex Brideau, head of Russia analysis at Eurasia Group, but one explanation he notes is that Putin is simply sending a message to the Ukrainian government and its western backers: don't you push us too hard.

Moscow is unhappy about increased US military aid to Kyiv, Ukraine's deployment of Turkish drones near the front lines in Eastern Ukraine, and NATO warships patrolling the Black Sea. Moscow and Kyiv are also still deadlocked on how to solve the conflict: Russia wants broad autonomy for the separatist regions, while Ukraine wants control of the Russia-Ukraine border back first.

See the original post:

Nicholas Thompson on the outsized influence of Big Tech - GZERO Media

Big Tech is still on track for its biggest year of sales ever by a wide distance, but holiday issues at Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. could mean a profit decline.

The fourth quarter is definitely going to be lighter than Wall Street had previously expected, because of constraints that both Apple AAPL, -1.82% and Amazon AMZN, -2.15% talked about Thursday in the global supply chain, which are affecting their ability to meet the strong consumer demand for their products.

While revenue for both the full year and fourth quarter of 2021 is expected to see strong double-digit growth again, net income is going to take a huge hit for both the year and the quarter, depending on how much money Amazon ends up spending.

Full earnings coverage: Apple sales missed and Amazons earnings were nearly cut in half

But two other members of the five-headed Big Tech monster are poised to outperform previous expectations. Alphabet Inc. GOOG, +1.47% GOOGL, +1.51% is now expected to see the biggest growth in sales Wall Street is forecasting total revenue for Alphabet to grow about 26% to around $71.8 billion, before deducting traffic acquisition costs (TAC), in the December quarter. Googles ad business was mostly undeterred by the changes in Apples privacy settings for the iPhone that afflicted other internet companies.

With many investors looking outside of U.S. internet given the plethora of potential headwinds (IDFA, supply chain) and negative media headlines, Google kept the course and did what they needed to do, said Bernstein Research analyst Mark Shmulik in a note to clients. The 3Q print isnt the massive blowout many of you have perhaps grown accustomed to these past few quarters, but it also wasnt a miss.

More from Therese: Apples ad-megeddon is affecting Snap, Facebook and Google differently

This compares to projected revenue growth rates for the fourth quarter in the teens for Amazon (10%), Facebook Inc. FB, +2.10% (19%) and Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +2.24% (17.5%). All of these growth rates, with the exception of Amazon, are still better than the S&P 500 SPX, +0.19% projected revenue growth of 11.65% for the fourth quarter. Combined, the calendar fourth quarter revenue for these five companies is forecast at $412.2 billion, up 16.2% from $354.5 billion a year ago.

Net income, though, will be down to single-digit growth, thanks to Amazons hefty spending on product fulfillment, including big employee hires. The combined net income of the Big Five for the fourth quarter is projected at $79.9 billion, a bump up of only 2.7% from $77.8 billion in the year ago quarter. The S&P 500 will see better far earnings growth of 21.15%

And if there is a miss overall, we could see a decline on the year. Net income is expected to only be up very slightly right now, just over 1% to $228.3 billion from $224.8 billion for calendar 2020. Thats also much lower than the projections at mid-year, of net income coming in right around $300 billion, and could even come in flat to down, based on Amazons potential-downside forecast and any other surprise issues that come up for others in the Big 5.

For the full year 2021, including recent changes to estimates after Thursdays shortfalls, combined revenue for Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft is now expected to reach approximately $1.398 trillion, based on Factset estimates. That will still put 2021 on track to be Big Techs biggest year ever, with growth of 26.9% from $1.102 trillion in calendar 2020.

Investors may have seen the best times in tech already this year and until the global supply chain issues are resolved, the consumer-focused companies are probably going to be too volatile to really depend on. Tech is a varied sector, though, and the color in last weeks earnings calls suggested companies are still spending and should sustain enterprise tech names through the choppy fourth-quarter waters.

MarketWatch staff writer Emily Bary contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Big Tech is still headed for its biggest year ever, but Apple and Amazon could cut into profit - MarketWatch

The company formerly known as Facebook just revealed its new name, Meta. And while that change brings a whole lot of questions, theres one that many of us at The Verge have been pondering for about 30 minutes: how does the Meta name change the acronym used to refer to the biggest tech companies in one fell swoop?

Before Thursday, FAANG Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google was perhaps the most commonly used one. But that acronym already doesnt quite work. Google is technically a part of Alphabet now, so there should be a third A. (FAAAN?) Its missing Microsoft, which is just as mind-bogglingly huge as some of the other companies. And you could argue that Tesla should be part of the acronym conversation, especially now that its market cap has surpassed $1 trillion.

Now that we all have to start saying Meta, weve put together a list of some potential Big Tech acronyms we could use instead. And before we dive in, here are the letters were playing with: Apple, Amazon, Alphabet or Google, Meta, Microsoft, Netflix, and Tesla. In short: A, A, A / G, M, M, N, T.

What are your ideas? Post them in the comments!

More:

With Facebooks change to Meta, whats the new Big Tech acronym? - The Verge

(NEXSTAR) Like it or not, its time to embrace the metaverse.

On Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed his company Facebook Inc. would be rebranding itself as Meta, to better reflect its focus on building the metaverse, described by Zuckerberg as an embodied internet where youre in the experience, not just looking at it.

The concept of the metaverse, meanwhile, has been around long before Facebook even existed. Often described as the successor to the internet, futurists and tech experts have envisioned the metaverse as a place where our physical realities converge with various virtual experiences in a shared virtual space. This idea has been explored in some way or another by science-fiction authors or Hollywood filmmakers over the past several decades, generally depicted as a virtual-reality platform where users can create an avatar to interact with fellow members of the digital population.

The concepts name the metaverse was even adopted from the 1992 novel Snow Crash, in which the plot plays out in both virtual and physical realities.

The term predates the internet we know today, explains Trond Undheim, PhD, a futurist and author whose podcasts explore technological innovation and artificial intelligence, among other topics. But it has now become the term for the gradual shift in digital communication whereby the internet is becoming a hybrid reality, meaning its becoming physical and digital at the same time.

The easiest way to envision this concept, perhaps, is to observe the gaming community which is the closest any group has come to entering the so-called metaverse, as far as Undheim is concerned. These gamers have established virtual avatars of themselves, which interact with other virtual avatars across persistent online worlds. Theyre working together in real time, arranging meet-ups, even spending in-game currencies all while communicating via headsets or chat.

There have even been reports of people hosting their wedding inside the cutesy virtual world of Nintendos Animal Crossing and inviting their friends digital avatars to attend after the pandemic canceled their real-world receptions. More recently, Fortnite reimagined Washington D.C. circa 1963 to teleport players back to the Capitol to watch Martin Luther King, Jr. give his iconic I Have a Dream speech.

But the future of open-world gaming is just one of the many ways the metaverse will take hold of our lives. Big Tech, of course, is ready to take things a step further.

As Zuckerberg described in a video released Thursday, Meta is trying to build a part of the metaverse that would let users do almost anything you can imagine or at least be a place where they can interact, work, shop, play games, gather for social events or create content. He also claims Metas efforts will create millions of job opportunities, much like the internet eventually created jobs that were previously unheard of.

I expect that the metaverse is going to open up lots of opportunities for people in the exact same way, Zuckerberg said. But the reality is that no one knows exactly which models are going to work and make this sustainable.

In addition to Facebook, which had previously boasted its virtual playgrounds and boardrooms, Microsoft has also been discussing its own metaverse apps for creating, and connecting to, all-new shared digital spaces.

The pandemic only accelerated the need for at least some types of metaverse-adjacent experiences, with more folks working from home and relying on technology in order to be places that they cant physically be. Theres also growing interest in making virtual events more accessible, allowing users to attend art galleries or concerts with other online friends, or patronize virtual businesses where they can spend their hard-earned currency (or cryptocurrency) on goods or services real or digital.

The metaverse is different and much more powerful than a complete virtual reality, Undheim says, because it is combining the two without merging them all the way.

It doesnt truly exist yet, he adds. But well know it when we see it.

Much of the technology needed to create the metaverse already exists, or is currently in development. But there are still several hurdles to cross before the concept can be put into use, including bandwidth requirements, and getting enough people on board. Undheim also fears that the metaverse may become too commercialized very early on, making users feel alienated or exploited before the concept has a chance to reach its full potential.

What Undheim does know, though, its that the metaverse is coming relatively fast, too.

We will see this wash over us in the next five to seven years, Undheim believes. [Its here] the moment a reasonable person would say, I dont really know if I would value my physical reality over interacting online. Maybe they dont even recognize the distinction between the two.

Excerpt from:

What is the metaverse? A look at what Big Tech views as the next stage of the internet - WGNO New Orleans

COP26, the UNs climate change conference billed as the worlds last best chance to prevent the most disastrous effects of global warming, kicks off in Glasgow on Sunday. Delegates from around the world will convene to hammer out another round of emission reduction targets with a goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century and keeping our rapidly heating planet temperature rise to a more manageable 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the calamitous 2.7 degree bump currently predicted.

With the eyes of the world firmly focused upon humanitys disastrous planetary stewardship to date and wondering what might be done to rectify our past pollution, leading tech companies in recent weeks have become increasingly vocal in their pledges to reform business operations to help save the planet.

Apple, for example, announced the launch of 10 new environmental projects as part of its Power for Impact initiative as well as that 175 of its suppliers will switch to using renewable energy, the company said in a statement Tuesday, and that, by 2030, every device the company sells will have a net-zero climate impact. The company also noted that it has already reduced its carbon emissions by 40 percent over the past five years.

Google, on the other hand, pointed to its goal of achieving net zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030, according to a blog post published on Monday. The company also called out its efforts to assist its partners with reducing their own emissions, such as through the Environmental Insights Explorer (EIE) program which helps cities map their pollution data, air quality and solar power potential. Google also made sure to mention just how sustainable its products actually are for consumers.

Story continues

Microsoft's path to net zero

Microsoft made even loftier claims on Tuesday: to be carbon negative by 2030 and by 2050 remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted, either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975, before expounding on the rapidly increasing efficiencies of its massive data centers.

Amazon, for its part, announced that its $2 billion Climate Pledge Fund investment program has selected three low-carbon startups: Resilient Power, which produces transformer-based EV charging technology; CMC Machinery, an order-specific-sized shipping box manufacturer; and Infinium, which devised ultra-low carbon fuels that can be used in air transport, marine freight, and heavy truck fleets, per the companys blog post.

But do these protestations of environmental progress signify a legitimate effort by Big Tech to clean up its collective act or are they simply more PR spin seeking to offset their bad behavior? Because weve seen this sort of behavior before. Its called greenwashing.

Merriam-Webster defines greenwashing as expressions of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities. The term was first coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in an essay examining the hotel industrys practice of leaving placards in guest rooms admonishing them to reuse their towels to help save the environment. Back then, people got their news from three places: newspapers, television and radio the same sources for virtually all advertising at the time. This information availability imbalance created a system wherein corporations could promote themselves in any flattering shade they wished, regardless of their actual actions, with little fear of the public actually realizing that a deception had even occurred.

The practice of greenwashing in America goes as far back as 1953 though it wasnt called as such at the time when beverage manufacturers launched the Keep America Beautiful campaign, reminding the public to be good environmental stewards and not litter, in what was actually an effort to forestall incoming regulations on the use of disposable containers. Greenwashing metastasized in the 1980s as Big Oil companies ladled out their own laudations while they sought to minimize their own liability and culpability in environmental pollution scandals and global warming. These companies went so far as to work to actively prevent the government from passing clean energy laws. But you wouldnt know it from their television ads.

The spot above is from Chevrons People Do campaign. It should be noted that many of the programs promoted in that campaign were actually government-mandated actions and that while this campaign was running, Chevron was repeatedly found in violation of the Clean Air and Water Acts, and was caught dumping oil in wildlife refuges.

Exxons actions through the 90s were equally abhorrent. The company continually muddied the waters around humanitys role in climate change, knowing full well how the burning of fossil fuels inflamed the growing crisis.

In 2017, a Harvard study of ExxonMobils climate change communications (both internal memos and public-facing advertorial newspaper content) produced between 1977 and 2014 found that while more than 80 percent of internal documents acknowledged that human activity was largely responsible for global warming, just 12 percent of the companys advertorials did the same.

"Within hours of publishing our study, ExxonMobil responded with ad hominem attacks," Harvard Research Associate Geoffrey Supran, told Client Earth last year. "I was invited by the European Parliament to testify about ExxonMobil's history of climate denial. The day before, they sent a private memo (which has now been leaked) to Members of Parliament to try to discredit me. If these experiences tell us anything, it's that the Exxon tiger hasn't changed its stripes."

Greenwashing remains a widely-used marketing tactic even today and not just the mealy-mouthed word salads regurgitated by oil executives during a House Oversight Committee hearing this Thursday.

Take bottled water, for instance. Nestle alone has spent millions of ad dollars over recent years in an effort to convince the public that, as it claimed in 2008, bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world. This despite the fact that barely 31 percent of plastic water bottles actually get recycled and the rest end up cluttering landfills and the ocean scientists estimate that around 8 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean annually.

And they are far from alone. Coca-Cola came under fire in 2015 in Australia when it rolled out Coke Life, a supposedly light sugar variant packaged in a bright green can. Sure it made consumers feel like they were making a health conscious purchasing decision but that was despite health advocates pointing out that the reduction to 10 teaspoons of sugar in a 600ml bottle made little difference in terms of health impacts. More recently the company launched its World Without Waste campaign which, at its essence, pushed consumers to simply recycle more, rather than actually adjust the way the company conducts its business.

In 2013, Tyson Meats was taken to task over the fawning self-framing of how it cares for its animals and their relative well-being, not two years before five Tyson supplier employees were charged with 33 counts of criminal animal cruelty for repeatedly kicking and punching pigs. And who can forget Volkswagen, which launched a Clean Diesel marketing campaign amid the Dieselgate emissions scandal?

So why do companies insist on greenwashing their operations rather than actually reform themselves? Because it is far more profitable to simply adjust public perception than it is to make meaningful reforms. A 2015 Nielsen poll found that 66 percent of respondents would be willing to pay a premium for environmentally sustainable products and among those willing to pay more more than 50 percent were influenced by sustainability factors such as a company being environmentally friendly (58 percent), and company being known for its commitment to social value (56 percent.)

Its also because we, collectively, keep falling for it. Consumers desires to help address the climate crisis, especially in the face of barely tepid responses from world governments, primes us to view virtually any action on that account as a positive one. SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals] and net zero have kind of created an opportunity for a lot more greenwashing, because it allows you to describe yourself as a green company when youre doing a thing thats fundamentally not green, Dave Powell, co-presenter of the Sustainababble podcast and the former Head of Environment at the New Economics Foundation, told Client Earth. You effectively buy your way out of trouble, for example, by promising to plant large numbers of trees.

"As part of their climate strategies, many companies are relying on voluntary carbon offsetting. However, if not done well, offsetting can result in greenwashing, Dr. Aoife Brophy Haney, Research Lecturer at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, added. To mitigate this risk, government and society at large should support the use of best practice guidelines, such as the recently released Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, to help ensure offsetting is done in a rigorous and credible way that ultimately contributes to net zero goals."

And, most importantly, companies continue to engage in greenwashing because there is very little downside to doing so, at least from a regulatory perspective. In the US, the FTC guidelines for environmental marketing claims are only voluntary, though the FTC does retain the right to prosecute outright false or misleading advertisements.

However, cracks in the greenwashing facade may be beginning to show, starting in the financial sector, as regulators interest in ESG fund (environmental, social and governance) oversight grows. As Financial News London reported Monday, German asset manager DWS has recently been investigated by both US and German regulatory agencies after a former employee accused the company of fudging the environmental credentials in its 2020 annual report.

You have to be careful, as there is a big reputational risk, an unnamed senior executive at a European asset manager, told FN London. Were not saying we were bulls***ing before, but theres a recognition now that its more complicated.

Most have probably been a bit too pushy in marketing their alleged ESG expertise and they are now applying more caution, Philip Kalus, managing partner at consultancy Accelerando Associates, added. Some would even say there is panic in the house. Nobody wants to be the next one being accused, but it is an important and overdue wake-up call for the industry.

Thats not to say that environmental pledges made by Apple, Google, Microsoft or Amazon are meant to intentionally gaslight the public (though Exxon, Shell and Chevron absolutely did). These companies have a vested financial interest in at least appearing as positively as possible to their customers because, frankly, nobodys going to have time to talk about the slick new features of the Pixel 8 or iOS 15 when were in the midst of a global climate meltdown-slash-water war.

Is Googles moonshot goal of operating its data centers and campuses entirely on carbon-free energy by 2030 going to make more than a blip of difference when it comes to mitigating the impacts of climate change? Probably not, definitely not on its own and certainly no more so than Microsofts promise to reduce water use in its data centers by 95 percent by 2024 or Apples plan to build robots to more effectively recycle old handsets. But these claims do not, in and of themselves, constitute greenwashing. Their changes may not be enough to make a noticeable impact at this point, but these good faith efforts attempt to do something, anything, to stave off what could well be humanitys self-inflicted extinction. And given how Americas most recent effort to invest in environmentally responsible energy technologies was single-handedly killed off by the coal-loving Senator from West Virginia, these sorts of corporate initiatives may likely be the best well soon see.

See the article here:

Is Big Tech 'greenwashing' its environmental responsibilities ahead of COP26? - Yahoo Tech

In the past few months the federal government has been eager to show it is actively curbing the power of the giant global tech companies, introducing new legislation to force them to regulate online behaviour.

Three main triggers may help to explain this sudden focus.

First, the Australian competition watchdogs digital platforms inquiry, released in July, recommended tighter regulation of Facebook and Google, and moves to improve media competition.

Second, regulators across Europe, the UK and the United States have also been eyeing ways to bring the tech giants now some of the biggest companies in the world into line, or cut them down to size.

Third, the reputation of social media has been further tarnished by the revelations from tens of thousands of internal Facebook documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, showing the extent to which the company has been aware of the negative effects of its services, and how little it has done to prevent it.

The government no doubt has an eye on the popularity of taking on the big tech companies. The communications minister, Paul Fletcher, has had a particularly keen focus on the sector, arguing from a standpoint of national sovereignty that laws in place offline should also apply online.

A Guardian Essential poll in March found strong support for regulating social media companies, including 76% in favour of forcing the companies to remove misinformation and disinformation, 76% in favour of forcing them to disclose what information they hold on users, and allowing them to remove it, and 79% in favour of preventing them from selling personal information to other companies.

Here are some of the most recent moves the government has made:

The main focus of the governments move against social media are the new powers granted to the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, under the Online Safety Act, which come into effect from 1 January.

Inman Grant will have the power to force social media companies to take down posts that amount to online bullying, and to fine the companies and those who hosted the alleged abuse. She will also have the power to obtain the identities of anonymous accounts who post alleged abuse.

Also included in the new law are a number of new regulations governing content on the internet.

Last month Inman Grant released a positions paper on an industry code for blocking or restricting access to adult content online, which critics have warned could force all adult content offline or behind strict identification protection.

A restricted access system announced this week will be developed in the meantime, and would require all websites hosted in Australia to develop by January methods of requiring users to declare they are 18 or older for content that is rated R18+ or category 1 material, which typically means sex, high impact nudity, drugs or violence.

This will lead to the age verification roadmap to be finalised by the end of 2022, in which the commissioner will outline how the government will require all sites, regardless of where they are hosted, to verify the age of users if they host adult content. It could include social media sites such as Twitter, as well as Google search and online retail.

The federal government is also developing what it calls a basic online safety expectations code, which would require tech companies to report to the eSafety commissioner about how they are complying with the expectations in the Online Safety Act, with the threat of fines if they fail to report.

Separately, the government will require social media platforms to verify users ages as part of proposed changes to privacy law.

On Monday, the federal attorney general, Michaelia Cash, released an exposure draft for online privacy laws that would require parents consent when signing up children under the age of 16 to social media sites.

They would also introduce strict new requirements over how a persons information is held, including giving people to power to refuse permission for their personal information be used for direct marketing.

There would be increased fines for serious and repeated interferences with privacy, more than $500,000 for an individual, and at least $10m for an organisation.

The Nationals MP Anne Webster introduced a private members bill last week that would empower the eSafety commissioner to force social media companies to take down content determined to be reasonably likely to be defamatory to a person who complained to the commissioner. Fines could be imposed if they failed to do so within 48 hours.

The bill also allows the communications minister to make determinations on what basic expectations the government has for social media companies in responding to reports of defamation, but the legislation is also attempts to balance out the potential for censorship, noting the minister must have regard to, among other things, the value of truth and free debate.

Whether the federal government will adopt the bill is unclear, but Scott Morrison has proposed potential changes to defamation law to make social media companies liable for allegedly defamatory content if the company refuses to say who is behind the comment or post.

The state and federal attorneys general are also looking at whether platforms such as Facebook should be considered publishers under defamation law, and therefore liable for what their users post, after the Voller high court ruling, which found group and page administrators liable for third-party comments.

The industry has developed a voluntary code, at the direction of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, for dealing with online misinformation and disinformation. The companies party to the code, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, must report publicly on their efforts to tackle misinformation and disinformation.

The government has said it could move to a mandatory code if it is unhappy with how the voluntary code is being implemented.

The ACCCs digital platforms inquiry has also yielded significant changes or proposed changes affecting Google and Facebook, including the news media bargaining code, which has resulted in millions flowing to media companies for the use of their content, including Guardian Australia.

The ACCC has also recommended changes that would limit Googles market dominance in online ads, and search, but the government has yet to respond to those recommendations.

Read more here:

What is the Australian government doing to crack down on big tech, and why? - The Guardian Australia

Stocks futures are pushing back against Wednesdays selloff into the close. Amazon and Apple report after the closing bell. Merck and Caterpillar announce positive earnings helping to push the Dow Jones Industrial Average futures higher before the open. Low market breadth appears to be holding back the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average from building on record highs. There are several ways to measure market breadth including the advance/decline line, comparing indices, and contrasting new highs and lows.

5 min read

Photo by Getty Images

Merck and Caterpillar Report Before the Open, Apple and Amazon Report After the Close

Advancers & Decliners Appear to Be Stuck in a Holding Pattern

Measuring Market Breadth Can Help Identify Potential Market Moves

(Thursday Market Open) Equity futures are slightly higher ahead of the open despite yesterdays selloff into the close. Investors are sifting through another swarm of earnings, but the big headliners will come after the close today when Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) report.

Investors will be looking to see if Apple can deliver phones for Christmas in light of the chip shortage. And, Amazons cloud business could be in focus as the work from home cloud business was good for Alphabet (GOOGL) but disappointing for IBM (IBM).

The Dow Jones Industrial Average ($DJI) is pointing higher ahead of the open with components Merck and Caterpillar announcing positive earnings. Drug company Merck (MRK) reported better-than-expected revenue and earnings prompting it to rally 1.85% before the opening bell. The company also raised its full-year outlook for earnings as success of its new cancer drug continues to help the company grow.

Caterpillar (CAT) is also higher in premarket trading after beating earnings estimates despite missing on revenue. The company appears to be able to navigate higher costs because of the higher number of orders. However, the company is cautious and stressed that there could be trouble in meeting the orders. Despite the caution, Cat Financial reported 110% increase in the divisions earnings because lending remains solid.

Comcast (CMCSA) beat earnings as well thanks to growth in broadband and recovery in its Universal Studios theme parks. The stock was up 3.6% in premarket trading.

On the negative side, e-commerce firm Shopify (SHOP) is down 3.6% before the open in response to missing on earnings and revenue. The company reported issues with the global supply chain, but also lower e-commerce growth. This could be a sign that consumers are changing their focus from online shopping to other avenues.

Also, Royal Dutch Shell (RDS/A) is down 4% in premarket trading after the oil company missed on earnings. The company cited costs related to damages from Hurricane Ida in the U.S. as a reason for the miss. The company is also setting tougher emissions targets for itself which could add to its growing costs.

Crude oil (/CL) is falling a little as Iran rejoins the nuclear talks. Lower prices could provide some relief for transports, particularly airlines where fuel is such a large expense.

After a choppy day of trading on Wednesday, stocks sold off into the close. It was supposed be a big week for big tech, but so far, its been a mixed bag. While eBay (EBAY) isnt as big as some of the other tech firms, it still has some pull. However, the stock was down more than 4% after the bell despite better-than-expected revenue and earnings. Unfortunately, the lower forward earnings guidance failed to impress bidders.

After the close, Ford (F) announced earnings that looked somewhat similar to General Motors (GM) that were released in the morning that were better-than-expect but lower-than-expected revenue. GM fell 5.42% on the day, but oddly, Ford was up more than 9% in before the open. The difference appears to be that Ford increased its 2021 earnings guidance and reinstated its dividend.

Overall, car makers have had a decent year despite the shortage in vehicles. The shortage has also helped in selling car parts as more people choose to fix what they have. OReilly Automotive (ORLY) announced after Wednesdays close and beat on top- and bottom-line estimates. Despite the positive news, investors didnt appear to be too excited about whats under the hood because the stock was only slightly higher in after-hours trading.

The S&P 500 (SPX) is trying to follow through on its new highs, but there appears to be a lack of breadth behind to push it along. Breadth refers to the number of stocks that rise and fall at the same time. A broad market rally is one where the majority of stocks rise. Conversely, a broad market sell-off is one where the majority of stocks fall. There are several ways to measure market breadthone popular way is the A/D line.

The A/D, or advance/decline, line indicator measures the number of stocks trading on the New York Stock Exchange that are rising or advancing against the number of stocks that are falling or declining on a given day. If the A/D line is going up, then the majority of stocks are advancing. If its going down, then the majority of stocks are declining.

Many investors look for divergences in the S&P 500 and the A/D line to help determine the strength of a bull or bear market. The graph below shows that the A/D line has moved sideways since June, which suggest that there is hesitancy and uncertainty in the overall stock market. When the A/D line goes sideways or down as the S&P 500 goes up, this is a divergence. The lack of market breadth can weigh down the performance of the stock market.

On the bright side, the A/D line was able to eke out a new high with the S&P 500, but its also currently pulling back with the index too.

CHART OF THE DAY:BAD BREADTH. The S&P 500 (SPXcandlesticks) has created new highs but is struggling to gain momentum. The A/D Line (green) has moved sideways since June, and the Russell 2000 (RUTpink) has moved sideways since March.Data source: ICE, S&P Dow Jones Indices.Chart source: The thinkorswim platform. For illustrative purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Soldiers & Generals: Another way that investors measure breadth is by comparing stocks of different sizes. The S&P 500 is made up of large- and mega-cap stocks. These are the biggest companies in the United States and in some cases the world. The Russell 2000 (RUT) is a small-cap index, which means it tracks 2,000 of the smallest publicly traded companies. If both indices are moving up, theres wide breadth in the market.

Some investors refer to the S&P 500 as the generals and the Russell 2000 as the soldiers. If the soldiers arent following the generals, then the stock market will likely keep advancing. However, the Russell 2000 has oscillated sideways since March, while the S&P 500 has moved mostly up. Investors who follow this strategy would say that in order for the bull market to continue, many of the soldiers need to start falling in line.

Highs & Lows: Breadth can also be measured by the number of stocks that are creating new highs and new lows. Stocks that are creating new highs are bullish. Therefore, stocks creating lows are bearish. NYSE New Highs 6M ($NYHI6M) tracks the number of stocks that are creating new six-month highs, and the NYSE New Lows 6M ($NYLO6M) tracks the number of stocks that are creating new six-month lows.

Through most of the year, new highs have outnumbered new lows by a large margin. However, in July, the number of stocks that were creating new highs decreased dramatically, while the number of stocks creating new lows has been increasing. This seems to reflect what weve seen with the Russell 2000 and the A/D linemarket breadth has weakened.

Pushing the Panic Button: So, is it time to push the panic button? Not necessarily. In my recent November Outlook article and several times here in the Market Update, Ive pointed out that the market and the economy are dealing with a lot of issues right now, including the possibility of Fed tapering, inflation, supply chain issues, and worker shortages. Thats a lot to digest. And, while there may not be broad buying, but theres also not broad selling. Therefore, it appears many investors are in a wait-and-see mode. Theres nothing wrong with that mode as along as investors can be patient.

Good Trading,

JJ

@TDAJJKinahan

Check out all of our upcoming Webcasts or watch any of our hundreds of archived videos, covering everything from market commentary to portfolio planning basics to trading strategies for active investors. You can also deepen your investing know-how with our free online immersive courses. No matter your experience level, theres something for everybody.

Looking to stay on top of the markets? Check out the TDAmeritrade Network, live programming which brings you market news and helps you hone your trading knowledge. And for the days hottest happenings, delivered right to your inbox, you can now subscribe to the daily Market Minute newsletter here.

TDAmeritrade Network is brought to you by TDAmeritrade Media Productions Company. TDAmeritrade Media Productions Company and TDAmeritrade, Inc. are separate but affiliated subsidiaries of TDAmeritrade Holding Corporation. TDAmeritrade Holding Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Charles Schwab Corporation.

More here:

Apple & Amazon on Deck as Big Techs Big Week Is A Bit Mixed - The Ticker Tape

CNBC's Jim Cramer said Wednesday he opposes government efforts to break up American technology giants such as Amazon and Apple.

"You want to hate big tech for being too powerful, go right ahead, but I think it's insane that our government's targeting them," the "Mad Money" host said, referring to recent legislative proposals in Washington directed at the mega-cap tech companies.

"America's finally good at making something again. We should be helping these companies take over the world, not kneecapping them," Cramer continued. "And even if you despise Big Tech, you have to admit these companies have created more wealth than any other enterprises in the history of this great nation."

Cramer's comments Wednesday focused on the following firms: Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google-parent Alphabet and Tesla, which for years has dominated electric vehicle sales in the U.S. and topped $1 trillion in market cap for the first time Monday.

While Wall Street is always paying attention to those companies, Cramer's remarks come during a week in which all but Tesla report their quarterly results, putting them in an even brighter spotlight. Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet have already done so, and Amazon and Apple's earnings are due out Thursday. Tesla reported third-quarter numbers last week.

Microsoft and Tesla recently avoided coming under "serious fire" from lawmakers, Cramer said. However, in general, he contended Washington is "looking at these companies all wrong."

"Yes, they should probably face more regulation, but I think we should be aiming to create clear rules for digital commerce rather than aiming to cut them off at the knees," said Cramer, whose charitable trust owns shares of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet and Microsoft.

"In any other developed country, these companies would be treated as national champions, treasures even," Cramer said. "After living through an era where the only thing America seemed to make right were toothpaste, deodorant, diapers, soda, movies, I'm actually proud that America dominates the tech industry."

Read the rest here:

Cramer rejects calls to break up Big Tech, says U.S. government is wrong to target it - CNBC

Americans across the political spectrum realize that something must be done about Big Tech. This was abundantly clear in the aftermath of former Facebook employee Frances Haugens 60 Minutes interview and her testimony to Congress, as representatives of both parties criticized Facebook. While there is still a significant split as to exactly what the problem isconcentrated power suppressing free speech or a lack of censorship of disinformationand how to address it, support for reform is growing with voters and their legislators. Yet, many remained opposed on principle to the notion of regulating tech companies. They shouldnt be.

Large corporations in America are no longer just businesses. They are actually extensions of the governing class. Just consider all the corporate pressure brought on states that adopted pro-life legislation.

These businesses are increasingly appendages of the governing regime. How so? First, Big Tech made it a priority to play a role in denying a sitting president a second term. This shows both that they had the means, and in fact, intended to play a decisive role in an election. They actively manipulated information flow, most famously suppressing the reporting on Hunter Bidens business entanglements in foreign countries as disinformation. According to the Media Research Center, 36 percent of Biden voters were unaware of the Bidens business ties with China, and, by one estimation, knowledge of these connections would have shifted 4.6 percent of Bidens vote.

Second, consider the speed and aggressiveness of the Big Tech firms in the aftermath of Jan. 6. In a matter of days, Twitter removed the president off its platform while allowing the Taliban and other unsavory entities continued access. Apple and Google removed Parler from its app stores, and the company had to shut down altogether when Amazon Web Services would not host its platform. These separate companies acted in concert, not just colluding against a business competitor to Twitter, but in furtherance of taking the hardest line possible.

Third, Big Tech promotes the favored narratives of the regime and suppresses information that contradicts official policy. For instance, YouTube removed videos of Senate testimony with physicians on successful early COVID treatments with studies on their effectiveness in hand. And when the Big Tech firms didnt go far enough, government officials made it clear that further censorship is required. As Jen Psaki put it, We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. Liberal journalist Glen Greenwald has described it this way: They are just censoring as they are told, in obedience to rules handed down from on high. It is the corporate press and powerful Washington elites who are coercing Facebook and Google to censor in accordance with their wishes and ideology upon pain of punishment in the form of shame, stigma and even official legal and regulatory retaliation.

Fourth, the recent imbroglio over Frances Haugen is itself proof both of the power of Big Tech and how it controls our society already. Notice that Haugens concern is that Facebook is not censoring enough. She says she decided to get active when Facebook turned off the safety systems imposed in the run-up to the election, which indicates that there were systems implemented that were strategically intended to impact the election. Instead of being used only on occasion, she desires for Big Tech to manipulate information routinelyon behalf of the regimes interests. It is only a matter of time before this sentiment is used to crush those who dissent from elite narratives on religious grounds.

As for how Big Tech should be reformed, there are many sound proposals. At the very least, these firms ought to be considered as common carriers, like telephone companies, or public accommodations, like hotels or restaurants. These businesses have certain duties and responsibilities to serve all in a non-discriminatory manner. One step forward would be to repeal and replace Big Techs broad immunity under an exception to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

It's time to rein in the ever-growing power of Big Tech. Otherwise, those huge companies will continue to censor and exclude speech they find unacceptable. We must push for our elected political leaders to act now, before it is too late.

Original post:

Point: It's time to rein in Big Tech's power - WORLD News Group