Tag: Amazon

Death by Amazon

By Rebecca Ungarino for Market Insider

A new “Death by Amazon” index released by the investment-research firm CFRA tracks the stocks its analysts believe could be short-seller targets given their vulnerabilities to competition from Amazon.

The index is full of home goods and electronics retailers like Party City and Bed Bath & Beyond, some of which have seen their entire market value wiped out in recent years.

Investors are familiar with the Amazon effect by now.

The e-commerce juggernaut announces that it is preparing to enter into an industry – be it medication, brick-and-mortar grocery, entertainment, or others – and the stocks of companies in the new target market fall as jittery investors are struck with the fear that irreversible disruption is coming.

So the investment-research firm CFRA created a new index, “Death By Amazon,” that tracks the stocks its analysts think are particularly vulnerable to Amazon’s expansion and offerings.

“The equally weighted index serves as a retail performance benchmark and short-selling idea generation tool for our clients,” CFRA analysts Camilla Yanushevsky and Todd Rosenbluth wrote in a report to clients earlier this month.

To pinpoint the 20 constituents the analysts believe are poorly positioned to compete against Amazon’s efforts in various industries, they evaluated the companies’ “Share of Voice” data that comes from web-traffic analytics company Alexa Internet (which is owned by Amazon as its other Alexa-named product).

That measure shows the percentage of searches for a keyword across major search engines in the past six months “that sent organic traffic to the respective site.”

For example, the analysts compared how much traffic was going to a national jewelry retailer’s website when consumers search for the term “jewelry” versus how much traffic was going to Amazon for the same search term.
With this kind of analysis, you get an index full of brick-and-mortar retailers whose products are available on Amazon – and apparently less popular through online searches – from floor tiles to party supplies.

To be fair, it’s not the first Death by Amazon index. Bespoke Investment Group had already created its Death by Amazon index, tracking the same theme.

Here are all the stocks listed, in alphabetical order, with how their “Share of Voice” scores for various products stack up against Amazon:

  1. At Home Group
    1-year performance: -40%
    % below all-time high: -46%
    Share of Voice score for “seasonal decor”: 4.2%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “seasonal decor: 19.6%
  2. Barnes & Noble Education
    1-year performance: -38%
    % below all-time high: -74%
    Share of Voice score for “textbook”: 1.3%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “textbook”: 6.9%
  3. Barnes & Noble
    1-year performance: -0.1%
    % below all-time high: -84%
    Share of Voice score for “books”: 23.2%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “books”: 12.2%
  4. Bed Bath & Beyond
    1-year performance: -16%
    % below all-time high: -80%
    Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 2.4%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 23.3%
  5. Best Buy
    1-year performance: -14%
    % below all-time high: -19%
    Share of Voice score for “electronics”: 1%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “electronics”: 8.1%
  6. Big 5 Sporting Goods
    1-year performance: -71%
    % below all-time high: -88%
    Share of Voice score for “fitness equipment”: 0%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “fitness equipment”: 11%
  7. Big Lots
    1-year performance: -6.5%
    % below all-time high: -41%
    Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 0%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 23.3%
  8. Dick’s Sporting Goods
    1-year performance: +15%
    % below all-time high: -43%
    Share of Voice score for “sports deals”: 18.7%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “sports deals”: 24.5%
  9. GameStop
    1-year performance: -31%
    % below all-time high: -87%
    Share of Voice score for “video games”: 7%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “video games”: 17.1%
  10. Kirkland’s
    1-year performance: -49%
    % below all-time high: -81%
    Share of Voice score for “home decor”: 5.4%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “home decor”: 10.8%
  11. Office Depot
    1-year performance: -19%
    % below all-time high: -95%
    Share of Voice score for “office supplies”: 33.1%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “office supplies”: 9.8%
  12. Overstock.com
    1-year performance: -67%
    % below all-time high: -86%
    Share of Voice score for “dresser”: 1.3%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “dresser”: 9.9%
  13. Party City
    1-year performance: -49%
    % below all-time high: -65%
    Share of Voice score for “party supplies”: 22.5%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “party supplies”: 13.2%
  14. PetMed Express
    1-year performance: -40%
    % below all-time high: -60%
    Share of Voice score for “pet supplies”: 5.1%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “pet supplies”: 13.7%
  15. Pier 1 Imports
    1-year performance: -65%
    % below all-time high: -97%
    Share of Voice score for “home decor”: 8.3%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “home decor”: 10.8%
  16. Signet Jewelers
    1-year performance: -49%
    % below all-time high: -87%
    Share of Voice score for “jewelry”: 3.8% for kay.com, 2.9% for jared.com, and 0.12% for zales.com
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “jewelry”: 10.7%
  17. The Michael’s Companies
    1-year performance: -43%
    % below all-time high: -67%
    Share of Voice score for “drawing supplies”: 13.1%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “drawing supplies”: 24.5%
  18. Tiffany & Co.
    1-year performance: -5%
    % below all-time high: -31%
    Share of Voice score for “jewelry”: 6%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “jewelry”: 10.7%
  19. Tile Shop Holdings
    1-year performance: -36%
    % below all-time high: -85%
    Share of Voice score for “tile”: 2.1%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “tile”: 22%
  20. Williams Sonoma
    1-year performance: +7%
    % below all-time high: -42%
    Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 16.7%
    Amazon’s Share of Voice score for “cookware”: 23.3%

Google poured billions into its business in 2018

By Julie Bort for Business Insider US

Google doubled its capital expenditure spending in 2018 to R344-billion, which included spending on offices and tech infrastructure.

Its cloud unit also got the lion’s share of new hires in the quarter, the CFO of parent company Alphabet said.

Google’s cloud computing efforts were a mixed bag in 2018 but the company on Monday said that it invested heavily in 2018, and will continue do so in 2019, albeit maybe not at the same pace.

During its year-end earnings report on Monday, Google revealed that it doubled its capital expenditures in 2018, to R344-billion, up from R168-billion in 2017. The hefty spending went towards everything from new office facilities to accommodate Google’s growing workforce to bolstering its infrastructure such as datacenters and servers.

It’s tough to say exactly who much of that capex went towards Google’s cloud business specifically, but the company has made it clear that investing in the cloud is a priority. Google said it launched its 18th Google Cloud region in the fourth quarter and pointed to plans for continued expansion in the US and abroad.

In comparison, Amazon spent R151-billion cash on capex in 2018, split between fulfillment operations (like warehouses) and AWS, it said. And Microsoft said it spent R214-billion.

Google also hired madly for its cloud unit, with more than 4 000 new hires in the final three months of the year. “The most sizeable increases were in cloud, for both technical and sales roles,” Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat said during the conference call.

Porat noted that spending on talent and equipment will continue in 2029, though the pace will cool off compared to 2018. Capex, she said, will “moderate quite significantly.”

How does Google’s cloud business compare?
Google is spending to catch up. Revenue from its cloud business lags Amazon Web Services and Microsoft, although Google does likely have a multibillion cloud business. It’s a bit tough to tell because Google doesn’t break out cloud revenue. It lumps it in its “other” category which also includes the revenue it makes from its Google play app store and its hardware devices like Google Home.

That “other revenue” category was R8-billion in the fourth quarter of 2018, up from just under R66=billion for the year-ago quarter and a sizeable portion of that is generated by its app store. Google noted on Monday that the number of Google Cloud Platform deals worth more than R13 million more than doubled in 2018 and that it ended the year with more than 5 million paying customers of its cloud productivity tools, but otherwise offered little new information by which to measure the size of its Cloud business.

For comparison, AWS generated R99 billion in net cloud sales for Amazon in the fourth quarter.

Microsoft also doesn’t disclose specific revenue figures for its cloud, Azure, so a direct comparison here is even harder to noodle out. The unit that includes Azure is called “Intelligent Cloud” and it generated R125 billion in the same quarter. However, despite putting “cloud” in the unit’s name, that unit includes a lot of classic software products, including Microsoft’s popular database and Windows Server, its operating system for servers. Those are both older, massive businesses compared to Azure and are not what anyone would consider a cloud service.

Most market experts believe that AWS is way ahead. One researcher, Synergy, puts AWS at 40% market share in cloud.

Keep an eye on the new boss
Of course the big news for Google’s cloud efforts in 2018 was its change of leadership. Near the end of 2018, Google board member Diane Greene left. Google hired Thomas Kurian to replace her. He left Oracle where he helped build Oracle into a database and applications giant during his decades there, and then lead Oracle’s cloud efforts. Oracle’s cloud is growing quickly by internal metrics as it moves its customers from buying its software to renting its software on its cloud. But Oracle’s cloud is not exactly taking the tech industry’s breath away, so his performance at Google Cloud will be a test for him and the company.

There’s been a lot of speculation about whether Kurian will embark on an acquisition spree to help Google’s Cloud catch up with the competition. Google CEO Sundar Pichai kept mum on Monday when asked about any potential big deals or changes in strategy under Kurian. Pichai spoke of “continuity” and focusing on the parts of the business where the company is seeing good returns.

Even with all the shrouding of investment and financial results, the cloud industry is often considered a three-player race, with Amazon in the lead, Microsoft on its heels, Google in third and a variety of players, from Alibaba to IBM to Oracle, in the chase pack.

Amazon loses $250-billion in 8 weeks

By Jake Kanter for Business Insider US

Amazon has lost $250 billion (R3.7 trillion) in market value since it became a trillion dollar company in September.
It took Amazon 18 years to reach a valuation of $250 billion after first going public in 1997, Fortune pointed out.
Amazon’s quarterly results missed analysts’ expectations and ignited worries that the tech company is facing stronger competition.

If the giant scale of America’s first trillion-dollar companies Apple and Amazon can make movements in their stock price seem a little abstract, then Fortune provided some timely context on Monday.

The publication pointed out just how marked Amazon’s share price decline has been in recent weeks, with a little bit of history about the online retailer, which first went public in 1997.

After hitting the heady heights of a $1.02 trillion valuation on September 4, when it closed at $2,039.51 a share, Amazon has since taken a heavy hit. The company’s share price was down to $1,538.88 on Monday, tearing around $250 billion (R3.7 trillion) off its value in an eight-week period.

Amazon first hit a market cap of $253-billion on July 24, 2015 – 18 years after it first went public.

Macrotrends
Amazon’s quarterly results on Thursday missed analysts’ expectations and ignited worries that the tech company is facing stronger competition. Amazon’s stock has fallen 14% since then – its worst two-day decline since 2014, Reuters said. It relinquished its spot as the second-largest US company by stock market valuation to Microsoft.

Some $200-billion has been wiped off the value of FAANG companies – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google – since Thursday, as a stream of Q3 earnings trickle in.

Amazon reaches $1trn value

By Bryan Rich for Forbes 

Today, Amazon became the second company (following Apple) to cross the one trillion-dollar valuation threshold.

This stock is up 72% year-to-date. It has doubled in the past year and has nearly tripled since Trump’s election. That’s what happens when you have a pour gasoline (economic growth) on a fire (a monopoly). No one should love Trump more than Jeff Bezos.

But at 161 times earnings, the market seems to be betting on the Amazon monopoly being left to corner all of the world’s industries. That’s a bad bet.

Much like China undercut the competition on price and cornered the world’s export market, Amazon has undercut the retail industry on price, and cornered the world’s retail business. That tipping point (on retail) has well passed. And as sales growth accelerates for Amazon, so does the speed at which competition is being destroyed. But Amazon is now moving aggressively into almost every industry. This company has to be/will be broken up.

The question is, how will the market value an e-commerce business that would no longer be subsidised by the high margin Amazon cloud business (AWS)? A separation of the businesses would put Amazon’s e-commerce margins under the Wall Street microscope (as every other retailer is subjected to) and materially impact a key sales growth driver for Amazon, which is investment in innovation (R&D).

By Rana Foroohar for The Financial Times

As Amazon heads for a $1-trillion valuation, the company usually speaks softly and carries a big stick. CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, has remained mostly silent as Donald Trump has accused his company of everything from tax evasion to gutting the US postal service.

But criticism from progressives such as Bernie Sanders is another story. Last week, Sanders said too many of the company’s workers are on public assistance, and he plans to introduce legislation to make big companies such as Amazon pay for offloading the cost of low wages to the state.

Amazon fired back in a blog post, saying the Vermont senator’s comments were “misleading”, and it encouraged employees to share their stories with him.

They should, because it would help open up the black box that is the online retailer.

The company is approaching the first anniversary of its HQ2 search, a highly publicised but opaque bake-off between cities seeking to host its second corporate headquarters. (Seattle, home to the first, cannot accommodate more growth, in part because housing prices have risen so much.)

Amazon says it plans to pick a city on the basis of metrics including the quality of infrastructure, human capital and transport. Yet it has rejected many cities that score well in such areas and required officials to sign nondisclosure agreements about the details of their bids.

The current short list seems to be heavy on locations with high-ranking US senators and those that included billions of dollars in tax credits and other subsidies in their bids.

Meanwhile, Amazon recently secured a very unusual procurement deal with American local governments. It will purchase all the office and classroom supplies for 1 500 public agencies, but will not have to guarantee them fixed prices for the goods. The purchasing will be done through “dynamic pricing”, in which the final charges depend on bids put forward by suppliers on Amazon’s platform.

It is a stunning corporate ju-jitsu, given that the whole point of a bulk purchasing contract is to guarantee the public sector competitive prices by bundling together demand.

While Amazon claims to offer discounts, a study conducted by the nonprofit Institute for Local Self-Reliance concluded that one California school district would have paid 10%-12% more if it had bought from Amazon. And cities that want to keep on using existing suppliers must move that business to Amazon.

This adds up to three things. First, companies such as Amazon, which can leverage data and the network effect to not only play in the market but become the market, are like the house in a Las Vegas casino. They always win.

Communities that offer subsidies to lure big headquarters may see positive headlines and short-term gains but the end result is almost always negative. One recent study found that 70% of such subsidies fall into the category of property tax breaks and job creation tax credits. The big companies pay less for their real estate, but human capital is undermined, because property taxes often fund schools in the US.

State and city business subsidies have tripled since the 1990s, which leads to a snowball effect — employers that demand skilled workers and good infrastructure are degrading the tax base that creates them.

Amazon’s HQ2 competition is taking place at a time when states are less prepared for an economic downturn than they have been in years: it is the wrong moment for local leaders to starve their tax coffers to enrich such a wealthy company.

Second, I see parallels in Amazon’s behaviour to the lending practices of some financial groups before the 2008 crash. They used dynamic pricing, in the form of variable rate subprime mortgage loans, and exploited huge information asymmetries in their sale of mortgage-backed securities and complex debt deals to unwary investors including cities such as Detroit.
Amazon, for its part, has vastly more market data than the suppliers and public sector purchasers it plans to link.

Indeed, I see more and more parallels between online groups and large financial institutions. They each sit in the centre of an hourglass of information and commerce, taking a cut of whatever passes through. Like a big investment bank, Amazon can both make a market and participate in it.

Such companies need systemic regulation to prevent them from unfairly capitalising on those advantages. Senator Mark Warner’s recent white paper on platform technology regulation points to “diseconomies of scale — negative externalities borne by users and society as a result of the size of these platforms”. The comparison reminds me of the moral hazard problem posed by the “too big to fail” banks.

Finally, Amazon’s behaviour suggests that its leaders are living in a cognitive bubble. The company will inevitably reach a deal with a desperate politician in one of the HQ2 bid cities. But old local political machines are dying. There is no guarantee that the new generation of progressive candidates that look likely to win in November’s midterm elections will be as friendly to big business.

Amazon has a big stick. But the one wielded by populists in years ahead may be bigger.

By Abha Bhattarai for The Washington Post 

The city of Atlanta, Denver public schools and the Mesa, Ariz., police department are among the 1 500 public organisations that since last year have signed new contracts to buy office supplies, books, even musical instruments directly from Amazon, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that advocates for strong local economies.

The contracts with Amazon could drive billions of dollars in public spending to the online giant in coming years, propelled in part by the ease of purchasing online — but which, like in consumer retail, risk penalizing independent retailers.

The local deals are part of a larger contract Amazon signed in January 2017 with U.S. Communities, a purchasing cooperative that negotiates contracts with suppliers on behalf of its members, which include a number of municipalities and government agencies. The five-year contract, which can be renewed for up to 11 years, is valued at $500 million a year.

The U.S. Communities contract was last held by Independent Stationers, a group of independent suppliers around the country. Amazon already sells to tens of thousands of local governments and agencies, according to Amazon spokeswoman Lori Torgerson.

“As public dollars shift to Amazon and away from local independent suppliers or even national chains with local stores, cities are undercutting their own local economies,” said Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a co-author of the report. Mitchell says the new contracts also hurt national chains like Office Depot and Staples that have stores in some of the communities that also purchase from them.

Amazon, which pays local taxes where required, said its contract continues to support small businesses. “The competitively solicited contract helps education and public sector organizations purchase directly from the Amazon Business marketplace, which includes small, local and socioeconomically diverse businesses,” Torgerson said.

Christine Gilbert, a spokeswoman for U.S. Communities, added that the Amazon contract “supports supplier diversity” by allowing agencies to work with a range of businesses that sell items through Amazon’s marketplace. More than half of the site’s sales come from third-party merchants.

But the Institute for Local Self-Reliance says the contracts do not include price guarantees or volume discounts that are typical of public purchasing agreements, potentially putting cities and counties at risk of overpaying for basic supplies.

“What’s striking here is that Amazon won this contract without having to compete on price,” Mitchell said. “This contract deviates from the norm in significant ways that put local governments at risk for spending more and getting less.”

A spokeswoman for Amazon said the company was one of multiple suppliers that responded to a formal request for proposals for the U.S. Communities contract.

Guernsey, an office products company in Dulles, Va., has been selling janitorial supplies, office products and furniture to government agencies for more than 40 years. But recently, founder David Guernsey says, the company has struggled to compete with Amazon’s selection of tens of millions of items, compared with the 50 000 he sells on his site.

About a year and half ago, he began creating spreadsheets for his clients showing how his fixed prices compare with Amazon’s at a given moment. Most of the time, he said, his prices were lower.

“We’re bleeding business to Amazon,” Guernsey said. “There’s this perception that Amazon has everything and that it’s easy to use, but we’ve been providing next-day delivery for three decades. It’s not as if they’ve invented the wheel.”

Officials at Prince William County Public Schools in Northern Virginia say they plan to spend roughly $1.5 million on Amazon purchases this year. The site has become a “one-stop shop” for school administrators, who are already accustomed to making personal purchases through Amazon, said Anthony Crosby, the school district’s acting purchasing supervisor, who helped negotiate the contract on behalf of U.S. Communities.

“Before this contract, people were out here independently setting up Prime accounts and making purchases,” he said. “All this does is create a legal pathway for them to do so.”

Denver Public Schools spent $1.6 million on Amazon orders in 2016, while Salt Lake County in Utah; the city of Austin, and the Portland, Ore., school system each spent more than $500,000 on the site that year, according to the ILSR report.

Amazon has been aggressively building up its government business in recent years. It hired Anne Rung, who oversaw procurements for the Obama administration, to lead its public-sector division in 2016 and last year forged an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security that allows workers to make purchases directly from Amazon. Amazon spent $12.8 million lobbying the federal government last year, up from $11 million a year earlier, according to watchdog site OpenSecrets.org.

By Jason Karaian for Quartz

This week, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos saw his net worth soar above $150 billion, giving him the most billions among all the billionaires on the billionaire lists. Bill Gates, in second place, is worth a modest $94 billion, according to Forbes. Bezos first appeared on Forbes’ list in 1998, with a $1.6 billion fortune.

He made that much this week alone, on paper, as Amazon’s shares jumped in anticipation of “bigger than ever” sales on Prime Day, which ran from Monday to Tuesday. Amazon is now worth nearly $900 billion, and Bezos owns around 16% of the company’s shares. He became the world’s richest person earlier this year.

Although he is clearly doing pretty well for himself, a financial advisor might tell Bezos that he should consider diversifying his portfolio. It’s rarely wise to concentrate one’s wealth in a single asset, whether it’s a house or shares in a company you founded in a garage in the 1990s that now accounts for half of all e-commerce sales in the US.

So let’s say Bezos wanted to add some exposure to Europe. He’s familiar with Luxembourg—Amazon does a lot of business there. He could buy some stocks there. Or, actually, he could buy all the stocks in Luxembourg. Twice.

The Amazon founder’s vast wealth is enough to buy several countries’ stock markets outright. Currently, for example, he could purchase every company listed in Ireland, another popular place for tech firms, and still have a few billion dollars left over. Bezos may be better off, though, sticking with Amazon, which has gained more than 50% this year, adding around $50 billion—the total market cap of the Egyptian exchange—to the founder’s net worth.

By Tom Warren for The Verge

Microsoft and Walmart are teaming up for a strategic partnership that will take on rival Amazon in both technology and retail. Walmart is announcing today, at Microsoft’s Inspire partner conference, that it’s partnering with Microsoft to use the company’s cloud services. The five-year agreement will see Walmart use Azure and Microsoft 365 across the company, alongside new projects focused on machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data platforms.

Walmart is Amazon’s biggest retail competitor, and Microsoft is Amazon’s largest cloud services rival. That rivalry isn’t lost on Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who hinted in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that it’s “absolutely core to this” new partnership. “How do we get more leverage as two organisations that have depth and breadth and investment to be able to outrun our respective competition,” says Nadella.

While the tech partnership will obviously benefit both companies, it also comes just weeks after reports suggested Microsoft is working on rival Amazon Go technology for cashier-free stores. Microsoft is reportedly in talks with Walmart for this technology, and the software maker has hired a computer vision specialist from Amazon. Amazon’s Go store in Seattle uses multiple camera and sensors that use computer vision algorithms to detect what items you’re taking out of the store so you’re automatically charged. Microsoft is reportedly experimenting with attaching cameras to shopping carts to track items.

Both Walmart and Microsoft don’t reference too many of the future-facing parts of this strategic deal, and it’s mostly timed for Microsoft’s big partner conference in Las Vegas this week. However, this new deal could be a unique test ground for Microsoft’s bigger AI ambitions and any future plans it has to push other retailers to use its range of cloud services.

Source: eMarketer Retail 

When it comes to the US e-commerce market, Amazon is leaving the competition in the dust. This year, the online shopping juggernaut will capture 49.1% of the market, according to eMarketer’s latest forecast on the top 10 US e-commerce retailers, up from a 43.5% share last year. Amazon now controls nearly 5% of the total US retail market (online and offline).

Amazon will generate $258.22 billion in US retail e-commerce sales this year, up 29.2% over last year. Amazon’s Marketplace sales will represent an increasingly dominant portion of its e-commerce business—68.0% this year, compared with 32.0% for Amazon direct sales. By the end of 2018, sales generated from Amazon’s Marketplace will be more than double that of Amazon’s direct sales in the US.

“The continued growth of Amazon’s Marketplace makes sense on a number of levels,” eMarketer principal analyst Andrew Lipsman said. “More buyers transacting more often on Amazon will naturally attract third-party sellers. But because third-party transactions are also more profitable, Amazon has every incentive to make the process as seamless as possible for those selling on the platform.”

Computer and consumer electronics is the leading product category for Amazon, with sales of $65.82 billion in the US this year, representing more than a quarter of its retail e-commerce business.

In 2017, apparel and accessories surpassed books and music to become the second largest category. Apparel sales will grow more than 38% this year to reach $39.88 billion in the US. This category will represent 15.4% of Amazon’s e-commerce business, and 38.5% of all online apparel sales in the US.

But Amazon’s private-label push is being met with apprehension by several brands and retailers.

“While they are dependent on Amazon as a selling channel, they also recognize the threat to their brands should Amazon decide to compete by introducing its own private labels,” Lipsman said.

Other fast-growing categories for Amazon are food and beverage* and health, personal care and beauty. Food and beverage will grow more than 40% this year, while health and beauty will jump nearly 38%. Still, both categories represent just a small portion of Amazon’s US retail ecommerce sales.

“Amazon’s strategy for food and beverage is no different, in some respects, than it was for books—dominate the category,” eMarketer senior analyst Patricia Orsini said. “However, e-commerce in the grocery sector is a challenge. Share of online sales in this category is low because most people, for a host of reasons, prefer to buy food in brick-and-mortar stores. Amazon has an advantage because its shopper base is comfortable with shopping online. Along with insights gathered about Whole Foods shoppers, Amazon probably has the best chance of converting in-store grocery buyers to online grocery buyers.”

‘Big Four’ tech stocks slump

By Jasper Jolly for City A.M 

The US’s biggest technology stocks – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, collectively known as the Fangs – have fallen steeply as concerns over a trade war weighed on world indices.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq index fell by more than two per cent to its lowest close since the end of May.

Facebook and Amazon both lost over 2.5 per cent, while Netflix plummeted by more than six per cent. Apple and Alphabet, the parent company of Google, also fell heavily.

Equity indices around the world had earlier slumped, with France’s Cac 40 losing almost two per cent while Germany’s Dax gave up 2.46 per cent as investors feared further damaging trade moves.

American tech stocks have generally been immune to fears over protectionist trade tariffs, with no mention by either the US, China, or the EU of levies or other barriers to be imposed on them.

However, Russ Mould, investment director at trading platform AJ Bell, said the recent success of the Fang stocks – an acronym of the tech giants – in spite of market ructions may have made shares more vulnerable to bigger moves if sentiment shifts.

The Fangs may be “targets for some profit taking” if investors plump for cash amid fears of a broader market setback, he said.

The tech stocks are approaching similar levels of growth hit by the Nasdaq during the dotcom bubble at the turn of the century, which ended in a deep crash of more than 78 per cent, Mould said.

Over the course of 2018 a “Fangs+” index, which includes other large US-listed tech firms, has outpaced the gains of the bubble-era Nasdaq.

Yet the Fangs still face regulatory issues which could severely impact their business models, following the scandal over data misuse by political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, competition concerns, and ongoing tax issues.

“The danger for bulls is that these valuations leave little margin for error should something – anything – go wrong,” Mould added.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 4

Follow us on social media: 

               

View our magazine archives: 

                       


My Office News Ⓒ 2017 - Designed by A Collective


SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
Top